BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Presentation: 492942

## Proton Plan pre-review

- Took place July 21-22
- Final report (will be) available at Proton Plan website:
- http://www-accel-proj.fnal.gov/internal/Proton_Plan/Reviews/AD_Rev_7_21_05.html
- Went OK, considering how many changes we went through the week before, but
- Tentatively decided to delay director’s review until ~October:
- Would mean shutdown jobs would be a fait accompli.

## General Comments about Presentation

- Need more on justification for projects and how things get “into the plan”
- More documentation!
- Technical
- Cost basis
- Reviewmanship:
- Should have practiced
- Keep our arguments to ourselves
- Standardize talk format

## Linac Feedback

- Quad power supply upgrades
- Good idea
- Need more detail
- LLRF upgrade
- Probably a good idea
- Need more detail
- Both projects need an estimate of benefit of improved stability to Booster

## Booster Feedback

- General:
- Need to at least discuss longitudinal dynamics issues, even if they’re covered by something else (Run II, RRT).
- Combine with Gamma-t section
- ORBUMP/400 MeV project:
- Good shape
- Need commissioning plan
- Beam dump relocation:
- Good shape
- Need to quantify benefit
- 30 Hz harmonic:
- Need to work on our physics case
- Abandon if hopeless

## Booster Feedback (cont’d)

- Corrector upgrade
- Worthwhile, even at the price.
- Consider increasing quad power from .1 to .25 units of tune:
- BIG deal
- Need to look at both magnet design and justification
- Work to quantify benefit
- Orbit motion
- Local sextupoles
- Need to include software development
- Booster RF
- Clearly, reliability is a major concern.
- We have no solid plan.
- Enthusiasm for solid state upgrade, even though we didn’t ask for it.
- Need to quantify reliability issues.

## Main Injector Feedback

- Multibatch operation
- Need a more explicit plan
- Collimation and radiation
- MI-8 in good shape
- Need more definite plan for ring collimation and overall radiation issue
- Large aperture quads
- Can we get them all in if we get the full 14 week shutdown?
- RF
- We’ve come a long way, but still need to clarify whether we will need *any* dual PA RF cavities.

## Budget and Schedule Feedback

- Lots and lots of comments, mostly from Peter G.
- This is why we have a project support team.

## Projections

- Based on current slip stacking performance, projections for NuMI get pretty grim.
- Need a better plan for increasing batch intensity and pushing NuMI slip stacking.
# Presentation: 629810

## InterOperability Interface (IOI)

- PSA-ESTEC
- Prototype for PDAP

## IOI Mars (I)

- Select Region Of Interest

- Servers information

- Lat/Long, time, orbit Search

- Projection

- Data Results

## IOI Mars (II)

- 1) Click

- 2) Use mouse to select region

## IOI Mars (III)

- 2) Click
- Submit query

- 1) Selected region

- 3)Found products

## IOI Mars (IV)

- All data products and information to download them

## IOI Mars (V)

- 1) Click in DATA_ACCESS_REFERENCE
- 2) Selected product appears
- 3) Mozilla opens
- 4) Product is downloaded

- 1

- 2

- 3

## IOI Mars (V)

- ICON_ACCESS_REFERENCE to open the browse file.

## IOI Mars (VI)

- MORE:
- -Select one instrument
- -Lat/long search
- Ex: lat [5,10] &
-  lon [-2,2]

## IOI general (I)

- Target selection

- Server information

- Results

## ROSETTA data archiving status (I)

## ROSETTA data archiving status

**First internal review past and discussed with teams in June**
**Peer review**
- 15 October 2006: Selection of Peers
- Delivery of datasets
- 6 Nov 2006: ingestion into PSA
- 11 Dec 2006: Distribution to Peers
- Peer Review Period
- 11 Dec 2006: delivery of datasets to peers
- 7 Feb 2007: RID delivery
- 22 Feb 2007: Final review report
- Peer Review Follow-up, in case of RIDs
- Correction of datasets
- 22 March 2007 (or before): First official delivery to ESA/PSA
- 12 April 2007: Announcement and availability of data to public

## ROSETTA & Others

**Consistency of**
- Data format
- Keywords
**Example VIRTIS on ROSETTA & VEX**
**Try to**
- Use PDS keywords
- Avoid creation of new keywords
**Not trivial and sometimes a struggle (with the team, with the scientific meaning of the keyword)!**
# Presentation: 504268

## Shutters vs. tripole magnet motion: latching

- Shutters are latchable (they come in contact with vertical electrode) only when tripole arrives from the tip direction
- Shutters do not latch when tripole arrives from the hinge direction

## Slide 2

## Shutters can be in contact with the wall twice when tripole is less then 0.5mm from shutter array 

- Shutters will come in contact twice with the wall during the forward scan
- Shutters do not contact the wall at all during the backward scan.

## Contact with the wall twice!

## How many contacts shutters experience during one scan without latching?

- Forward scan has 3 contacts with light shields and one with the wall:

- Backward scan has 3 contacts with light shields:

- Complete scan results in 6 contacts with light shields on one contact with the wall:

## To minimize the light shield contacts latching should occur during the forward scan

- Forward scan at 1 mm: one contact with light shields before latching
- Forward scan at <0.5 mm: No contact with light shields before latching

## Addressing and Releasing shutters while tripole moves back

- If shutters are released at 5mm distance behind the center of the magnet while magnet moves into parking position shutters will be captured by magnetic field from tripole magnet and will not come in contact with light shields

- Release shutters!

- 5 mm

## Tripole magnet approaching the tip side of reversely (red) magnetized shutters (large arrows indicate 3 magnetic reversals within the shutters) 

## Tripole magnet approaching the hinge side of normally (blue) magnetized shutters (large arrows indicate 3 magnetic reversals within the shutters) 

## Tripole magnet approaching the tip side of normally (blue) magnetized shutters (large arrows indicate 4 magnetic reversals within the shutters) 

- Tripole magnet approaching the tip side of normally (blue) magnetized shutters (large arrows indicate 4 magnetic reversals within the shutters)

## Tripole magnet approaching the hinge side of reversely (red) magnetized shutters (large arrows indicate 4 magnetic reversals within the shutters) 

- Tripole magnet approaching the hinge side of reversely (red) magnetized shutters (large arrows indicate 4 magnetic reversals within the shutters)
# Presentation: 725538

## Applications for Economic Development

- Robert Scardamalia, Empire State Development

- Empire State Development

- National SDC Census 2000 Profiles
- One Stop for Census/GIS Website
- New York Empire Zones and Census Data

- Empire State Development

## National SDC Census 2000 Profiles

- SF1 and SF3 Design Teams
- SAS and SPSS Coding Teams
- SF3 Profile involved:
- more than 20 people
- representing 15 states

- Empire State Development

## SDC National Profile Subjects

- Primary (11)
- Secondary (4)
- Housing (4)
- Income (8)
- Employment (3)
- Education (2)
- Poverty (8)

- Disability (6)
- Household and Family (1)
- Language (3)
- Ancestry (3)
- Migration (3)
- Transportation (2)

- Total Pages  per Geographic Area - 58

- Empire State Development

**Notes:**
Macro to Micro - we’re going to talk about changing demographics and bring that from national and historical trends down to local issues of public health

## Profile Sample Page

- Empire State Development

## New York Profile Production

- NYS Total (1)
- NYC Total (1)
- Metro Areas (14)
- All Counties (62)

- MCD’s by County (2,135)
- Place Totals (1,050)
- Cong. Dist. (31)
- ZCTA’s (1,675)

- Total Geographic Areas - 4,967
- Total Pages of Data on NY Site - 442,245
- In January - 716 Profiles downloaded,       			   33,000 PDF files accessed

- Empire State Development

## NYSDC Profile Page

- Empire State Development

## Local Governments by County

- Empire State Development

## ZCTA’s

- Empire State Development

## One Stop for Census/GIS Data

- Integrate Census Data and Geographic Files
- Provide options for users of different software
- Geographic ID links already formatted
- Thematic maps for presentation

- Empire State Development

## Boundaries and Attributes

- Empire State Development

## Thematic Maps

- Empire State Development

## Selecting Geography, Attributes, or Maps

- Empire State Development

- Empire State Development

## New York Empire Zones Program

- Tax and Utility Payment Benefits
- Tract/County Based Eligiblity
- Tract Criteria:
- Over 2,000 population
- Poverty Rate > 20.0%
- Unemployment Rate > 8.867%

- Empire State Development

## 1990 and 2000 Eligibility Comparison

- Empire State Development

## NYS Empire Zones

- Empire State Development
# Presentation: 438961

## Variance of effects of lactation stage within herd by herd yield

**N. Gengler****1,2****, B. Auvray*****,1****, and G.R. Wiggans****3**** **
**1 ****Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium**
**2**** National Fund for Scientific Research, Brussels, Belgium**
**3 ****Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD  **

## Heterogeneity of (co)variances

**Important issue in test-day models**
**More important than in 305 d models:**
**not only overall variance**
**also (co)variances**
**among all days in milk**
**Important factor: stage x herd yield**
**Equivalent to**
**herd specific lactation curves **

## Data

**Test-day yields from first-lactation Holsteins**
**Milk, fat, protein and SCS**
**From New York, Wisconsin, and California**
**Herds with different annual milk yields:**
**low (< 7257 kg)**
**medium (9072 to 9525 kg)**
**high (> 11,340 kg)**
**Adjusted additively for age and lactation stage**

## Test-day models

**EM-REML (co)variance component estimation**
**Two random regression models**
**Constant, linear and quadratic Legendre’s ****polynomials **
**First model (“incomplete model”):**
**animal genetic regressions**
**animal permanent environment regressions**
**Second model (“complete model”):**
**herd x 2 years of calving random regressions ****added**

## Mean yields in data sets

## Phenotypic variances for milk(x100 kg2) 

**days in milk**

## Heritabilities for milk yield

**Heritabilities for milk yield**

**Incomplete****model:**
**Complete****model:**

## Herd stage effect for milk yield

**days in milk**

## Herd stage effect for fat yield 

**days in milk**

## Herd stage effect for protein yield 

**days in milk**

## Herd stage effect for SCS 

**days in milk**

## Conclusions

**Herd yield level influences (co)variances**
**Not only variance level, also effect of days in milk on variances**
**Environmental lactation stage within herd not negligible for milk, fat and protein especially:**
**at the beginning of the lactation**
**to a smaller extend at the end**
**Cleans heritabilities, no longer unlikely values of h2 in early days in milk**

## Implications for test-day models

**Heterogeneity of (co)variances an issue********	****needs to be considered **
**Herd yield and herd lactation stage effects********	****need to be considered**
**If unlikely heritability shapes********	****herd lactation stage effects to be included**
# Presentation: 114537

## Rapid Response TeamRRTDIS Moving Toward The Future

- Presented by: Kenneth Myers
- Disease Intervention Specialist
- CDC/Los Angeles County
- STD Control Program

## RRT Flow Chart

## Basic Deployment Team

## Surveillance

- A look and see portion
- Pre-Deployment and During Deployment
- How does the Local System’s paper work travel and how is it distributed to workers.....
- Suggestions and Recommendations (if needed)
- Work Closely with the Locals

## Generalist

## Team Leader

## Pack Your Bags – Duty calls

## What We Do

- Evaluate
- Investigate/Interview
- Demonstrate
- Mediate
- Motivate/Refer
- Analyze
- Adapt
- Mentor
- Plan
- Train

- Flexible
- Trainable
- Open-minded
- Easily accessible
- Mobile
- Knowledgeable
- Client-Centered
- Specific Program goals
- Culturally Aware
- Non-Judgmental

## What Are DIS Doing and What Do We Plan To Do?

- RRT Members and Nationwide DIS
- Deliver Meds in the Field
- Utilize New technology
- Organize More Innovative Screening Sites and Methods
- Cross Train DIS for deployment for various crises and health situations
- Work closer with and train local CBOs
- Improve our own overall skills as DIS

## Summary

- Innovative
- Focused
- Ready
- Flexible
- Committed
# Presentation: 784289

## E and M fields for EDM

- Presentation for the
- EDM collaboration meeting
- at NIST

- R. E. Mischke
- LANL
- 23 February 2002

## Design requirements

- E field: maximum practical strength     	 	 1% uniformity over cell volume  	 	 no sparks in 108 sec
- B field: 0.1% uniformity over cell volume
- E and B fields: parallel and 			  stable in time to 0.1% over 2000 sec

## Target and HV regions

## Model assumptions

- Dimensions					plates: 2 in. thick by 25 cm wide	spacing: 3 in.				outer can: radius 11.875 in.
- Target cell						4 in. x 6 in. with 1⁄2 in. walls
- Materials – dielectric constant		LHe:  1.05				Lucite:  3.0 ???

## E field contours

- 40% variation
- max/gap = 2.2

- Initial configuration

## E field contours

- -.02              -.03            -0.1
-   0.0              0.0              0.0
- +.03              +.04          +0.1

- < 0.1% variation
- max/gap = 1.4

- % deviation in cell

- No side walls
- Thick HV plate

## E field contours

- 10 cm plate
- 30 cm shell

- -0.7        -0.8           -1.1
- -0.2          -0.2        +0.6
- +0.5        +0.7       +1.2

- % deviation in cell

- < 1% variation
- max/gap = 1.6

## Target region with magnet coil

## Bx contours

## Bx profile vs z

## Bx profile vs x

## Cos(θ) magnet

- 2.4 m

- 48 cm

## B field fiducial volume

- 0

- 0.2

- 0.2

- 0.2

-    z (25 cm)

- x (10 cm)

- (6 cm) y

- Coil: 30 cm radius x 1195 mm half length
- Shield: 48.0 cm radius x 1220 mm half length

- 0.2

- -.1

- -.1

- deviations of Bx from origin
- in %

## Upstream penetration

- 20 cm

## B field fiducial volume

- 0

- 0

- 0

- -.4

-    z (25 cm)

- x (10 cm)

- (6 cm) y

- With penetration of shield
- Shield: 40.0 cm radius x 1020 mm half length

- -.4

- -.4

- -.4

## Central penetration

## B field fiducial volume

- 0

- 0.3

- 0.3

- 0.1

-    z (25 cm)

- x (10 cm)

- (6 cm) y

- With penetration of shield
- Shield: 48.0 cm radius x 1220 mm half length

- 0.1

- -0.2

- -0.2

- deviations of Bx from origin
- in %

## Conclusions

- B Field
- Uniformity of 0.1% achieved
- Nonuniform coil spacing required
- Position of superconducting shield tuned
- E Field
- Uniformity in cell:
- 0.1% without side walls
-   1% with recess
- Peak E field is ~1.6 of value in cell

## Suggested Dimensions

- HV plate: 4 in thick × 30 cm wide × 80 cm long
- Ground plates: 2 in thick × 25 cm wide × 75 cm long
- Gap: 3 in
- Target cell: 3 in × 4.5 in × 50 cm
- Cell walls: 1⁄2 in adjacent to plates and 1⁄4 in on sides
- Coil radius (ground cylinder): 30 cm
- Coil length: 2.4 m
- Superconducting shield: 48 cm radius × 2.43 m long

## Breakdown vs Gap

## Volume dependence

- 1/m = 0.1

## Time dependence

## LHe II

## Summary on HV

- Lots of literature about HV in LHe
- No directly equivalent experimental data
- Extrapolation of trends suggests possible trouble
- However, no data contradict design goal
- Planned HV tests crucial

## HV assembly (HV contact)

## Cross section of HV

## HV test setup

## Detail of HV test
# Presentation: 571568

## Spatial coherence in CO2 fluxes, mixing ratios and climate

- Major focus:
- Create a link between the global flux network and the global CO2 flask network.
- Bridge the gaps between the flux tower scale (~1km, hourly resolution) and the flask network scale (global, latitudinal scale inversions, annual resolution).
- Ultimate goal:
- Close the terrestrial CO2 budget at regional to continental spatial scales over synoptic to annual time scales.

## Specific synthesis task

- Examine the influence of the N. American early spring of 1998 on CO2 fluxes *and CO**2** mixing ratios* across Fluxnet.  Use 1997 (or 1999?) as a one-year “baseline.”
- Anecdotal evidence indicates a widespread early spring across N. America.
- 1998 was also a record year for accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere globally (about 6 GtC vs a more typical 2 GtC for 1997).

## Question 1

- Did the early spring of 1998 cause a widespread anomaly in CO2 fluxes?
*Is the interannual variability in flux seen at one tower representative of the variability for a large region?  *Barr et al, Hollinger et al, Curtis et al.
- (How widespread was this climatic anomaly?)

## Question 2:

- Are the anomalies in CO2 flux seen at Fluxnet towers “seen” in the global CO2 flask network?
*Do the Fluxnet measurements teach us about the integrated influence of terrestrial CO**2** exchange on regional to continental scale CO**2** mixing ratios?*
- WLEF example
- Tower high-precision [CO2] data will be used where available - most [CO2] data is oceanic.

## Question 3

- How are these flux anomalies “communicated” across regional to global scales?  What are the phase relationships between the seasonal course of [CO2] and NEE of CO2?
*Does the merger of flux and mixing ratio data teach us about syntopic/seasonal transport of CO**2** across regions to continents? Can we move towards inversion studies at smaller spatial and temporal scales?*
- WLEF/Cold Bay example
- Tower-based high-precision [CO2] is needed!

## Gubbio summary: CO2 boundary layer budget workshop

- European investigators will run airborne boundary layer CO2 budget studies over Euroflux sites in an attempt to determine “regional” NEE of CO2.  Time duration and sampling intensity was not clear.
- There is some interest among European and Australian investigators in *monitoring* boundary layer CO2 mixing ratios at flux sites.

## Sales pitches

- Talk with me if you would like to:
- Contribute data and analyses for this synthesis project
- Add high-precision CO2 mixing ratio measurements to your flux tower
- Provide our research group with a postdoc or research associate who likes turbulence!
# Presentation: 554912

## Forecaster Surveys and LMA Benchmarking

- Dennis Buechler
-  S. Goodman, C. Darden, J. Burks, T. Bradshaw, K. La Casse, BMX, OHX, HUN
- Southern Thunder Workshop
- 25-27 July 2005
- Fort Worth, TX

## Total Lightning Impacts Decision Making

- Has directly contributed to several correct severe  warning decisions at HUN, OHX and BMX.
*“...**the LMA density map gives you a great overall view of where storms with intensifying updrafts are located.  So it gives you a good map of where to concentrate attention.”*
*“**I believe the flash density rates were the primary factor in holding off on a warning.”*
- Data archived by WFO
- Used in Warning Event Simulator for office training

## Slide 3

## Slide 4

## LMA Benchmarking: Interim ResultsNovember 2003 through May 2005

-  23 Surveys filled out by HUN and OHX, none yet from BMX: 1 in 2003, 8 in 2004, 14 in 2005
-  Severe Weather Scenarios
-  Large Hail
-  Tornadoes
-  Straight Line Winds
-  Cells Embedded in Lines
-  Supercells
-  Microburst-producing single pulse summer TRW

## LMA Benchmarking: Interim ResultsOHX (Nashville) Results

-  3 Surveys in 2005
-  All indicated the data useful identifying cells with strongest updrafts- helped forecaster identify storms needing more attention
-  LMA data used to verify other data- radar, eye-witness reports- used by forecasters in the warning decision
-  1 report the warning lead time increased by 2-3 min
-  Forecasters gaining confidence in using the data

## LMA Benchmarking: Interim ResultsHUN (Huntsville) Results

-  20 Surveys completed, however 4 cases were not considered because:
- 1 case where storm too distant for analysis
- 1 instance where data looked “flaky”
- 2 episodes when the LMA data were not auto updating correctly
-  In 9 of the 16 cases there was a positive impact - increased warning lead time of 1-7 min
-  In the other 7 cases, either no impact on warning decision or forecaster warned based on other available data

## LMA Benchmarking: Interim ResultsWarning Variable Rankings on Scale of 1-10

| Warning Variable | All Surveys
LMA+ impact=9/19 | Severe Storms
80 warnings, 13 surveys | Tornado
41 Warnings, 6 surveys |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reflectivity Signatures | 9.1 | 8.7 | 9.7 |
| LMA Total Lightning | 6.7 | 7.0 | 6.2 |
| Near storm Environment | 5.8 | 5.2 | 6.8 |
| Eyewitness Report | 5.2 | 4.1 | 7.7 |
| Strong Rotation | 5.2 | 3.2 | 9.3 |
| Boundaries | 3.8 | 3.4 | 4.5 |
| NLDN CGs | 3.7 | 3.7 | 4.0 |
| TVS | 2.3 | 1.5 | 3.8 |
| Previous SVR WX | 1.5 | 0.2 | 4.5 |

## Survey measures

-  Provides measure of forecaster’s confidence in the LMA data
-  Estimates warning lead time improvement
-  Measures relative importance of LMA information to other data sources used by the forecaster
-  Provides verification information for case studies
-  Comments help point out case studies or possible data problems

## LMA Benchmarking: Where to?

-  Continue current surveys?
-  Add lightning question to Quick event reviews?
-  Have a yearly/quarterly survey of forecasters?
-  Use case studies to determine relationships between lightning and severe weather
-  Double-blind studies?
# Presentation: 680553

## NIH ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION - COACS FY 2007

**NATIONAL INSTITUTE **
**OF NEUROLOGICAL **
**DISORDERS AND STROKE**
**CONTRACTS:  $43.5 M**
**KIRK DAVIS**

**NATIONAL  CANCER**
**INSTITUTE**
**CONTRACTS:**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  **
**TOTAL:**

**NIH ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION - COACS FY 2007**

**NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH**
**OFFICE OF**
** ****ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY**
**DIANE J. FRASIER**
***(HEAD CONTRACTING ACTIVITY, NIH)***
***TOTAL:  $5,027.2 M***
***R&D CONTRACTS:  $2,424.2 M***
***NON R&D CONTRACTS:  $850.9 M***
***SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS:  $739.9 M***
***BLA NKET PURCHASE AGREEMENTS:  $181.3 M***
***PURCHASE CARDS:  $290.4 M***
***MISC:  $392.6  M***
***LEASES:  $147..9 M***

**CLINICAL CENTER**
**(CC)  **
**CONTRACTS: $23.8 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $69.4 M**
**TOTAL:  $93.2 M**
**SYDNEY JONES**

**NATIONAL CANCER **
**INSTITUTE**
**(NCI, NCCAM)**
**CONTRACTS:  $692.4 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $56.8 M**
**TOTAL:  $749.2 M**
**TODD COLE**

**OFFICE OF RESEARCH **
**FACILITIES**
**(ALL NIH FACILITIES RELATED**
**ACQUISITIONS)**
**CONTRACTS:  $158.8 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.: $86.0 M**
**LEASES:  $147.9 M**
**TOTAL:  $392.7 M**
**MELISSA RICHARDSON**

**OFFICE OF LOGISTICS**
**AND ACQUISITION**
**(NINR, NCMHD, NIA, NEI,**
**NIDCD, NIGMS, OD)**
**CONTRACTS:  $417.8 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $55.9 M**
**TOTAL:  $473.7 M**
**ALLYSON STOKES**

**NATIONAL LIBRARY **
**OF MEDICINE**
**(NLM, CIT, OD)**
**CONTRACTS:  $76.1 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $273.5 M**
**TOTAL:  $349.6 M**
**PHILLIP OSBORNE**

**NATIONAL INSTITUTE**
** ****OF  ENVIRONMENTAL **
**HEALTH SCIENCES**
**(NIEHS)**
**CONTRACTS:  $138.6 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $13.5 M**
**TOTAL:  $152.1 M**
**ANTOINETTE BRIDGES**

**NATIONAL HEART, LUNG AND BLOOD  INSTITUTE**
**(NHLBI, NIAMS, CSR, NIDCR, **
**NIBIB, NCRR, NHGRI)**
**CONTRACTS:  $294.6 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $67.3 M**
**TOTAL:  $361.9 M**
**JOHN TAYLOR**

**NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE**
**(NIDA, NINDS, NIMH)**
**CONTRACTS:  $226.3 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $25.1 M**
**TOTAL:  $251.4 M**
**JAMES QUINN **

**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES**
**(NIAID, HHS BIODEFENSE)**
**CONTRACTS:  $958.4 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $57.1 M**
**TOTAL:  $1,015.5 M**
**CHARLES GREWE**

**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF**
**DIABETES**
** ****AND DIGESTIVE DISEASES**
**(NIDDK, NICHD, NIAAA, FIC)**
**CONTRACTS:  $288.3 M**
**SIMP. ACQ.:  $35.3 M**
**TOTAL:  $330.0 M**
**SUEELLEN JEFFRESS**

- Obligations only

**2/13/2008**
# Presentation: 772579

## Suspicious Activity Report Filing Trend for the State of Vermont                                                                                       For the Period April 1, 1996 through December 31, 2007

***Total SARs: 2,783***

**Suspicious Activity Report Filing Trend for the State of Vermont                                                                                       For the Period April 1, 1996 through December 31, 2007**

## Characterizations of Suspicious Activity for the State of Vermont

- Note:  The pie chart represents the top nine characterizations plus additional characterizations in total.
-            An individual SAR may cite more than one characterization.  Hence, the number of characterizations detailed here significantly exceeds the total number of SARs.

**Characterizations of Suspicious Activity for the State of Vermont**
**For the Period April 1, 1996 through December 31, 2007**

## Vermont Mortgage Loan Fraud SAR Filing Trend For the Period April 1, 1996 through December 31, 2007

***Total SARs: 106***

- Note:  Suspicious Activity Report statistical data is continuously updated as additional reports are filed and processed.  For this reason, there may be minor discrepancies between the statistical figures contained in this report and those in previous FinCEN reports.  Annual numbers for this exhibit are calculated by ***Subject Address*** and not filer address; therefore, the annual totals appearing in the above graph do not match those in Section 1, Exhibit 8 (Characterization of Suspicious Activity by State & Territory by Year).

## Suspicious Activity Report Geographic Pattern for the State of Vermont

**For the Period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006**

**Note: Statistics based on Filer Branch Address**

## Suspicious Activity Report Geographic Pattern for the State of Vermont

**For the Period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007**

**Note: Statistics based on Filer Branch Address**
# Presentation: 742799

## The NIMS Compliance Assistance Support Tool (NIMSCAST)

## NIMSCAST - Architecture 

- NIMSCAST - Architecture

- 3 Tier Application
- Client Interface (browser), Application and Database
- Available via Internet
- Uses SSL (https) for secure communication
- Common Browsers supported
- Advantages
- No software to install by client
- Changes/improvements immediately available to all users
- Survey responses centrally saved/persistent

- NIMCAST DB

- Web/Application
-  Server

- DHS

- INTERNET

## Accounts

- Account is established for each Jurisdiction
- Assessment Data is tied to Account, not the users
- Users can be removed/reassigned, data remains in system
- Accounts organized into a Hierarchy
- FEMA Region
- State/Territory
- Local Organization
- State Defined Structure
- Pre-populated with Census defined counties
- Tribes moved under FEMA Region

## Users

- Users are identified by email address
- Permission defines User relationship to Account
- Administrator
- Administrates (Add, Edit, Delete) user permission to access account
- Submits the assessment for roll-up to next level
- Creates sub-accounts
- Save/edit responses to questions
- Standard
- Only Save/edit responses to questions
- Read-only
- Only view assessment responses via reports
- Read-only with Inheritance
- Read-only on hierarchy starting at account granted.
- Only Administrators of an Account (or a higher account) can establish/change User permission

## What’s New

- New Metrics Collection
- State/State Agency Metrics
- 53 Metrics Questions across 7 Sections
- 16 can be N/A for State Agency
- Tribal/Local Metrics
- 40 Metrics Questions across 7 Sections
- Improved Admin Functions
- Grand Inheritance (no need to grant yourself permission to descend account tree)
- User/Account Search
- Send Email to Accounts
- Short Cuts (links to quickly switch accounts, manage permissions, edit details)
- Deleting and Clearing Accounts
- Account Restructuring capabilities
- Public Account Access to States
- Improved User Functions
- Edit User Information (change email etc.)
- Rollup Diagnostics (why can’t I rollup)

## Demonstration

- Logging on
- View/Manage Sub-Accounts
- View/Manage User Permissions
- Assessments
- NIMS Baseline
- 2007 Metrics
- Submit for Rollup
- Reporting

## The End

-  Thank you!

## Collections

- NIMSCAST collections are data-driven
- Metrics
- FY2007 State NIMS Implementation Metrics
- FY2007 Tribal/Local NIMS Implementation Metrics
- FY2007 Federal NIMS Implementation Metrics
- NIMS Baseline
- FY 2005-6 NIMS Baseline (75 NIMCAST questions)
# Presentation: 037898

## MNM Fatal 2006-13

- Machinery
- May 26, 2006 (Florida)
- Phosphate Operation
- Dozer Operator
- 58 years old
- 12 years experience

## Overview

- The victim was fatally injured when the
- dozer he was operating fell into a water
- filled pit.  He had been pushing the top layer
- of dirt and vegetation from reclaim piles into
- adjacent water filled ponds.

## Slide 3

## Root Cause

- Management’s policies and controls were inadequate and failed to
- require a person experienced in examining ground conditions to
- examine the edge of the ponds.  Procedures were not developed to
- safely complete the task. The mine operator did not ensure that the
- contractor had established safe procedures for pushing top soil into the
- ponds.  Management failed to complete a risk assessment to identify
- possible hazards and they failed to communicate to the miners the
- safety aspects and safe working procedures relating to the task they
- were assigned. Procedures were not in place to identify possible
- alcohol use during the work shift.

## Best Practices

- Stop, Look, Analyze, and Manage, SLAM each task to identify all potential hazards. Initiate action to protect yourself when performing every task.
- Evaluate the stability of the ground prior to operating equipment near any drop off or edge.
- Use equipment (excavator) that can perform the work from a safe distance away from the edge of a pond where the stability of the ground may be unknown.

## Best Practices

- Require that flotation devices be worn by persons performing work where there is a danger of falling in the water.
- When dozing toward a highwall edge, constantly examine the ground surface for development of cracks or fissures indicating separation, push perpendicular to the highwall face, and always keep a full blade in front of you.
- When dozing soft or unconsolidated material, be aware of changes in the feel of the footing under you and immediately back out of material that feels like it is softening up.
# Presentation: 806138

## 
“In-Home Delivery” Instructions 
for 
Standard Mail
(WG#78) 

MTAC Sunset Presentation

August 7, 2003

**“****In-Home Delivery” Instructions **
**for **
**Standard Mail**
**(WG#78)**** **
**MTAC Sunset Presentation**
**August 7, 2003**

## Focus on Standard Mail with:
Requested IHD (In-Home Date); and
Arrives at DDU past IHD or Event Date
Need for “Standardized” verbiage, format, placement
Relative to mailer requested IHD
Instructions for disposition if received past IHD or Event Date

**Requested IHD (In-Home Date); and**
**Arrives at DDU past IHD or Event Date**
**Need for “Standardized” verbiage, format, placement**
**Relative to mailer requested IHD**
**Instructions for disposition if received past IHD or Event Date**

**Issue**

## Mailers will specify requested IHD on mailpiece
In consistent location
Using standard verbiage (clear and concise)
Along with disposition instructions

**In consistent location**
**Using standard verbiage (clear and concise)**
**Along with disposition instructions**

**Desired Results**

## PIHD – Past In-Home Date
Received after requested In-Home Date, but
Before Sale or Event Date
PED – Past Event/Expiration Date
Received after Sale or Event advertised, or
After a Published Expiration Date

**Received after requested In-Home Date, but**
**Before Sale or Event Date**
**PED – Past Event/Expiration Date**
**Received after Sale or Event advertised, or**
**After a **_**Published**_** Expiration Date**

**Results - Definitions**

## Results - DDU Delivery Instructions

## Option 1

**Results – Verbiage and Placement**

## Option 2

**Results – Verbiage and Placement**

## Option 3 (Modified Option 2)

**Mailer’s Request for Withdrawal or Disposal**

## Obtained Industry Feedback
Standardized verbiage, location, font
Options for providing instructions
Surveys provided
Returned by June 2, 2003 (instructions on survey)
Communication plan
Implementation for Fall mailing season

**Standardized verbiage, location, font**
**Options for providing instructions**
**Surveys provided**
**Returned by June 2, 2003 (instructions on survey)**
**Communication plan**
**Implementation for Fall mailing season**

**Results**

## USPS and Industry Co-Chairs paddling off into the sunset
# Presentation: 768915

## Thinned Devices

**Utilize existing inventory to characterize and gain ****experience with thinned devices, which are well ****understood before thinning **
**Use BTeV 4” sensor wafers, 270 mm thick **
- Five/One/Three/Three/Two 1/4/5/6/8 chip arrays
**Use 8” FPIX readout chip wafers **
- TSMC 0.25 u CMOS, 760 microns thick
- Wafer shared with TRIPt chip
- About 130 FPIX chips/wafer
**Placed order with RTI, NC, for thinning**
- Add Cu (and Sn) to pads on face of each wafer.
- Place handle wafer on  face side of FPIX wafer and reduce thickness to 75, 50, 25 and 15 microns
**Expect to proceed with bonding **
**Possible procedure**
- Place handle wafer on back side of FPIX wafer
- Remove handle wafer from face side of FPIX wafer
- Dice FPIX wafer, section detector wafer
- Bond FPIX die onto wafer detector sections.

**BTeV sensor ****wafer**

**FPiX wafer**

- Fermilab DoE Review, May 16, 2006, Marcel Demarteau

## Testbeam Instrumentation 

**As part of the improved testbeam instrumentation, we will build an 8-plane pixel beam telescope with pointing resolution of ~3 ********m**
**Project uses existing inventory of BTeV experiment**
**Overlaps fully with the development and testing of thinned readout chips (FPiX chip with RTI)**
**Synergistic, inter-laboratory collaboration with the Phenix experiment to build pixel tracking detector **
**Layout of beam telescope**
**Given variety of devices available from ****BTeV sensor wafers, various options ****with regard to size of telescope**
- 1x8 active area = 73.6mm x 6.4mm
- light blue shows size of 8-chip HDI

- Box is 36mm x 36mm

- TPG heat spreader

**HDI**

**1x8**

**1x5**

**1x6**

**X-ray of Bump bonded FPiX chip on BTeV sensor **
**Find the bad bump**

- Fermilab DoE Review, May 16, 2006, Marcel Demarteau

## FNAL - BNL Interlaboratory Project

**Phenix upgrade calls for a ****forward pixel tracking detector  **
**Based on BTeV architecture  **
**Use this effort to build pixel telescope ****for the test beam **
**Based on BTeV FPIX design**
- 8 planes of pixel sensors
**Sensors are BTeV pixel sensors **
**Readout using BTeV FPIX chip **

**Phenix pixel plane**

- HDI CAD top layer.

- HDI + 8 bare die chips.

- HDI + 8 chips with detector.
- (SINTEF PSPRAY)

- Similar design for BTeV:

- Fermilab DoE Review, May 16, 2006, Marcel Demarteau

## MODULE ASSEMBLY PROCEDURE

**MODULE ASSEMBLY PROCEDURE**

- HDI TEST CARD

- DATA

- DATA

- DATA

- POWER

- Fermilab DoE Review, May 16, 2006, Marcel Demarteau
# Presentation: 685173

## ICD-10-CM General Equivalence Mappings (GEMs)

- Coordination & Maintenance Committee Meeting
- September 28, 2007
- CMS Headquarters—Baltimore

## Codes are...

- the currency of data transactions
- monitor health status of a defined population
- track trends in disease and treatment
- optimize delivery of healthcare
- govern reimbursement

## Code Mapping & I-10 Implementation

- Mappings will be used to
- convert and test systems
- link data in long-term clinical studies
- develop application-specific mappings
- analyze data collected during transition period and beyond

## Code Mapping is...

- an attempt to translate equivalent meaning from source to target
- one source system code linked to one or more target system codes

## “ equivalent meaning” meaning...

*“**an attempt to translate equivalent meaning from source to target”*
- heavily dependent on the purpose of the map
- clinical mapping focuses on all possible meanings contained in source system code
- reimbursement mapping focuses on equivalent payment

## Different is Good

- if the differences were not significant, no incentive to change** **
**clinical** equivalent not possible in many cases

## ICD-10-CM General Equivalence Mappings 

- Presents all reasonable correspondences between the two code sets
- Consists of two general equivalence mappings (GEMs)
- ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM
- ICD-10-CM to ICD-9-CM
- Each file contains code pairs—one code from each set
- Source or target system code may be used more than once
- Additional information specified using flags

## Presents All Reasonable Correspondences: All-inclusive

## Presents All Reasonable Correspondences: Rule-based

## Consists of Two GEM Files:I-9 to I-10 and I-10 to I-9

- _ __**I-9 **__****__**  I-10  + flags**_
- 6822 L03311 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03312 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03313 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03314 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03315 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03316 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03317 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03319 1 0 0 0 0
- 6822 L03321 1 0 0 0 0. . .

_**I-10 **__****__**  I-9   + flags**_
- 	O045    63500  1 0 0 0 0
- 	O045    63502  1 0 0 0 0
- 	O045    63600  1 0 0 0 0
- 	O045    63601  1 0 0 0 0
- 	O045    63602  1 0 0 0 0
- 	O045    63700  1 0 0 0 0
- 	O045    63702  1 0 0 0 0

## Additional Information Specified in Flags

- Read as 1=On, 0=Off
- Three different flags
- Approximate
- No Map
- Combination

## Approximate Flag 1 “On”	= Approximate

## No Map Flag 1 “On”	= No Map

## Combination Flag 1 “On”	= Combination

## Diagnosis GEMs User’s Guide

## GEMs User’s Guide:Intro to Mappings

## GEMs User’s Guide:How to Use GEM Files

## GEMs User’s Guide:Glossary

## GEMs User’s Guide:File and Format Info

## Documentation and User’s Guide

- Posted on NCHS website with GEM files
- _[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/icd9/icd10cm.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/icd9/icd10cm.htm)_
- Revised as needed based on industry response
# Presentation: 890934

## Some Observations on Disruptions in CY 2007 Run

- Stefan Gerhardt

## 1720 Discharges From CY07 In Database

- _Halo Currents_
- Two Pearson CTs on buss work to the “McBride” switch...current from inner to outer vessel

- _Vertical Motion_ Flux Difference (EFIT usually bad during quench)

- Radiated Power: Bolometers
- Plasma Current: Rogowski
- Equilibrium: EFIT01

## Not All Shots “Disrupt” (I)

- Typical IP Ramp Rate: 107 A/s

- Non-Disruptive Shots Well Centered At Start of Ramp-Down

## Not All Shots “Disrupt” (II)

- Typical IP Ramp Rate: 107 A/s

- Halo Currents Reduced for Slower Ramping Shots

## Fast Current Quenches (“Disruptions”) Scattered Throughout Campaign or XPs

- Previous Data Includes quench on Ramp-Up, or at very low current.
- Restrict Analysis to:
- Current at Quench > 600 kA
- Time of Quench > 150 msec

- Disruptivity:_x0013_

- # With Quench Rate >2.5x107

- # of Shots in That XP

## XPs have Vastly Different “Disruptivity”

- 704: Ext. Perturb.

- 738: Lithium Powder

- 702: RFA Optimization

- 711: High q brkdwn.

- 727: Stab. Lim. High IN

- 742: SGI

- 728: RWM Stab.

- 729: n=3/n=1

- 737: Ion Power Balance

- 723: Mom. Conf.

- 724: NICD @ high q

- 708: Div. Ht. Flx. Red.

- 744: BEAP

- 746: ELM Characterization

- 741: BAAE

- 706: Beta Sup. Alfven Casc.

## Radiated Power Varies Greatly Among Within and Among XPs

- Max Prad=Maximum value of Total Radiated Power.
- Prad at Max(Wtherm)= Total Radiated Power at time of maximum stored energy.

## High Radiated Power in Many Cases Before LITER

-  LITER XP 719 Began on April 20th
- First Shot ~123469

- Max Prad=Maximum value of Total Radiated Power.
- Prad at Max(Wtherm)= Total Radiated Power at time of maximum stored energy.

## XPs With Highest Radiated Powers

- 718: Li Pellets

- 702: RFA Optimization

- 729: n=1/n=3.

- 701: n=1 & 3
- Error Fields

- 737: Ion Power Balance

- 745: ELM Severity and Transport

- 707: MHD Induced Fast Ion redistribution

## Highest Disruptivity Does Not Lead to Highest Radiated Power

- max(Prad)=Maximum value of Total Radiated Power in a single shot
- <...>=Average over all shots in an XP

## Caveat: Thermal Quench Could More Relevant

- Current quench (this presentation) is of concern due to forces (eddy currents, halo currents)
- Thermal quench releases the plasma thermal stored energy in ~1msec...often after substantial thermal energy is more slowly lost.
- Poorly diagnosed in NSTX...use Wtherm just before disruption.

- <Stored Energy Before Disruption>

- <Peak Stored Energy>

## Conclusions

- Many disruptive XPs related to MHD studies, but not always.
- XPs with highest Prad are not the most disruptive.
- Additional thermal quench info would be more useful than current quench...*Important for disruption studies...we need a fast IR camera*.

## So If it isn’t Disruptions, what else?

- Inner & Outer Gap?
- Confinement (correlation with tau from efit)?
- Consider only Discharge with >3.5 MW NBI at time of Max Stored Energy

## Many Other Items Systematically Vary Among XPs
# Presentation: 188821

## Sigportals - Message Passing Failures

- Recv SIGPORTAL: msg drop, Rank:304 Portals:62, Load Control Portal  src nid:4624,msg_len:6912,match_bits:0x3200d, offset:0 EXITING!
- Fundamental meaning: Something (the app, the OS, something) has dropped a message. Note: at this level the “other node” may be a service/IO node.
- Rank: mynode()
- Portals: Portal number for which the signal has occurred. (more in a minute)
- src nid:  Node number (according to the OS, not the application) from which the message was sent:  For user communications (MPI,NX), one can get the app node number corresponding to this, but this process is laborious.  Contact one of the comp sci’s. (and one of us should write a tool for this.)
- len: length, in bytes, of the message
- match_bits: For user communications, this is the message type.
- Offset: Let us know if it is not zero.

## Sigportal Problems by Number

- Depends on the Portal Number
- MPI Portals
- 53-56, 62 (note below)
- Sigportals on these are usually caused by exhausting your MPI environment space.  See http://www.cs.sandia.gov/~bright/mpi/Options.html
- NX Portal
- 5,60 NX_RECV(?)
- Sigportals on these are usually caused by exhausting your NX message buffering space.  Try increasing them via the -comm flag to yod.
- IO-related portals:
- 0-4
- We don’t expect you to see these except through memory corruption.
- OS-related portals:
- 61-63
- 62 is reused for MPI.  Its use by the OS is restricted to program loading.
- (so SIGPORTAL on 62 before your program starts to execute is an OS problem,
- otherwise MPI).

## More Comments on Sigportals

- Almost any of these can also be caused by memory management errors
- You can (though we don’t recommend it) use both NX and MPI in an application.  In particular, if a library uses message-passing calls, it may be using a different communications framework from what you’re using in the application. Beware!
# Presentation: 164137

## Unique Ba(ZrxTi1-x)O3 Solid Solution SystemRuyan Guo and Amar Bhalla (co-PIs), Penn State University, DMR-0333191 

***Unique Ba(Zr******x******Ti******1-x******)O******3****** Solid Solution System***Ruyan Guo and Amar Bhalla (co-PIs), Penn State University, DMR-0333191** **

- In our efforts to find new lead-free ferroelectric materials, we have investigated the system BaZrO3:BaTiO3.  This solid solution system, depending on the composition, shows the properties of a simple dielectric (pure BaZrO3), quantum paraelectric, polar cluster dielectric, incipient ferroelectric, relaxor ferroelectric, ferroelectric with pinched transitions and then a proper ferroelectric (pure BaTiO3).  So far there is no other single solid solution systems that demonstrates all aspects of ferroelectricity.  This unique system, in single crystal, ceramic, and composite forms, is currently under study for understandings of its microstructure-property relationships and its applications as Pb-free ferroelectrics.

- BZT crystal grown by LHPG

- Fig. (top) Single crystal BZT crystals (x=0.05) grown by LHPG; (middle) dielectric properties of the BZT0.05 showing pinched phase transition; and (bottom) dielectric constant and loss as function of temperature and frequency for BZT0.25 showing typical ferroelectric relaxor behavior.

**Notes:**
High strains are found in <001> oriented crystals for all compositions studied and in all three phases (R,T,O). 
For <001>, the maximum strain value (0.25%) was achieved in the x=0.05 orthorhombic phase. 
Piezoelectric coefficient d33 = 800 pC/N at 10kV/cm.

## Resolving Frequency Dependent Electrooptic Property of Relaxor Ferroelectric SBN Single Crystals 

- properties is developed in Guo’s group coupling
- standing or traveling microwaves with
- propagating light pulses (Fig. 1). The method is
- demonstrated using an a-axis grown (by the laser
- heated pedestal growth method) SBN crystal at
- 10 GHz. Using the slope of delta frequency
- and square root of power, the EO value at
- clamped boundary condition can be obtained
- (Fig. 2) to be r333x=200.4pm/V, compared to
- that obtained at free mechanical boundary
- condition (r333X=240~271 @~1KHz).
-     The effective microwave photonic interactions
- demonstrated in relaxor ferroelectric SBN crystals is about one order of magnitude larger than that of LiNbO3 under the same conditions.  The optical pulse in microwave cavity can be uptuned/downtuned, squeezed/expanded in the range of GHz, controlled by the relative position of optical pulse traversing the crystal fiber in the given microwave cavity.  A range of photonic applications may be developed utilizing the microwave modulations, such as bandwidth definitions and wavelength tuning applications.
-    One undergraduate student also participated the research in summer 2005.

***Resolving Frequency Dependent Electrooptic Property of Relaxor Ferroelectric SBN Single Crystals***** **

**Ruyan Guo (PI), Penn State Univ., DMR-0333191 and DMR-0075917**

- Huang, Guo, Bhalla, APL, 86 (2005) 131106
- &  Huang, Bhalla, Guo, APL 86 (2005) 211907
# Presentation: 538743

## National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse

**Intramural Research Program Update**
**May 20, 2004**

## Slide 2

## New Tenure Track Personnel:

**National Search Process**
**Satoshi Ikemoto, Ph.D**
**Marisela Morales, Ph.D.**
**Yihong Yang, Ph.D.**
_**Promotions to Tenure:**_
**Central Tenure Committee Process**
**Yavin Shaham, Ph.D.**
_**Board of Scientific Counselors:**_
**Evaluation Process**

## Clinical Program Review:

**	*****(McLellan Committee)***
**1.****	****Reorganized CD Office**
**2.****	****Reorganized IRB – Dr. Rob Conley (Chair).**
**3.****	****Very positive FDA site visit**
_**Animal Program Review:**_
**AAALAC – Full Accreditation with commendation**

## Imaging Branch:

**3T Human Magnet**
**9.4T Animal Magnet**
**Micropet**
**New Pulse Sequence Development**

## New Research Initiatives:

**Obesity – Neuroimaging, Feeding and Satiety**
**Medications Discovery**
**Molecular Genetics – Animal and Human**
**Neuroanatomy – Electron Microscopy, LCM**
**Co-Morbidity**