Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, has triggered a heated debate after tabling an amendment to the health and social care bill meaning all women seeking an abortion in the UK would be offered counselling that is independent of the abortion provider.
Dorries (picture two above) argued that abortion services have a financial conflict of interest with advising women pre-termination, and also claimed that by offering independent advice, the number of abortions in the UK (currently at 189,574 for 2010) would be cut by over 25%.
Earlier this week, the Department of Health announced it did want to introduce an offer of independent pre-abortion counselling to women - in what many saw as a conciliatory move to Dorries and her backbench supporters.
Although the government has now U-turned on its position by saying it will advise MPs to vote against an amendment for independent counselling, the debate has still raised serious questions about how politics overlaps with issues of women's health in the UK.
Some commentators compared the situation to that of the US, where the issue of abortion carries powerful political implications, with the issue often raised in various election campaigns.
We spoke to Michael Tirrell, Communications Manager for Marie Stopes International, one of the main abortion providers in the UK, for its perspective on the issue of independent pre-abortion counselling.
What are your main concerns over the provision of independent pre-abortion advice?
The critical point in this debate is that women must have rapid access to impartial, non-directive and expert advice from trained counsellors, if they decide they want it and we are confident that the current system offers women the ability to access the information they need to make their decision. The majority of women make a decision about abortion without choosing to speak to a counsellor – in our experience it is approximately 90% of women. But the risk with the current proposal is that the women that want impartial counselling may not be able to access the expert advice of counsellors who are trained in sexual and reproductive health.
Do you agree with Nadine Dorries' assertion that abortion services have a financial conflict of interest in providing women with advice?
We don't. The counsellors that we work with are all members of the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists (BACP) and receive regular supervision and training from them and always support women to make the decision that is right for them.
What's your reaction to Dorries' claim that 60,000 abortions a year could be avoided with independent advice?
It is unclear where this figure comes from. What we know is that, on average, 20-25% of women that speak to one of our counsellors choose to continue with their pregnancy.
What is the protocol for pre-abortion advice at Marie Stopes at the moment and what is the aim of this?
There are two ways that women can access counselling services from Marie Stopes International, either a face-to-face session or via the telephone through One Call.
Face-to-face counselling sessions at our centres are available throughout the working week. We offer women as many non-directive counselling sessions as they feel they need and provide translators if needed. This counselling is provided on a one-to-one basis.
One Call is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and is staffed by trained healthcare professionals and independent counsellors. Telephone counselling appointments through One Call are available from 8am to 9pm seven days a week, an option that is well received by individuals seeking support from the privacy of their own homes.
What's your view on the proposed amendments to the current abortion system? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.


text:
ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION
OSHRC Docket No. 5599
Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners
OPINIONBY: CLEARY
CLEARY, COMMISSIONER: The decision of Judge Ben D. Worcester, rendered on July 26, 1974, has been directed for review and is before us pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. [hereinafter "the Act].
Allis-Chalmers Corporation, respondent, is a large corporation engaged in manufacturing heavy industrial equipment. From August 20 to September 10, 1973, a safety and health compliance officer of the Department of Labor conducted an inspection of respondent's installation known as the "West Allis Manufacturing Operation." As the result of this lengthy inspection, the Secretary of Labor, complainant, issued a citation to respondent on October 29, 1973, that alleged 118 non-serious violations of the Act and proposed the assessment of penalties totalling $2,145.
Respondent timely contested the citation with respect to subitems (a), (b), and (e) of item 13 and sub-items (b) and (c) of item 41 as well as the corresponding penalties for these sub-items. The remaining uncontested items of the citation have become final orders of this Commission pursuant [*2] to section 10(a) of the Act.
A hearing on the contested items was held before Judge Worcester on April 17 and 18, 1974. In his decision, the Judge vacated both the citation and the proposed penalty for each of the contested sub-items finding that complainant failed to sustain his burden of proof. While the Judge based the outcome on substantive matters, he devoted much of his decision to such matters as the "weight" to be accorded the Secretary's interpretation of a standard, whether jurisprudentially the Act is "civil" or "criminal" in nature, and the sufficiency of the pleadings.
The Secretary filed a petition for discretionary review that was granted on August 26, 1974. The Secretary took exception to the Judge's interpretation of Brennan v. Southern Contractors Service & O.S.H.R.C., 492 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1974); to his characterization of the Act as "criminal" in nature and the accordingly narrow construction to be given the Act and the regulations; to the Judge's finding that the citation did not describe with sufficient particularity the nature of the alleged violation to the Judge's assignment of erroneous elements of proof to complainant; and to the vacation [*3] of item 13(e) for failure of proof.
Only the last two items go to the merits of the case.
I. Non-compliance with 29 CFR § 1910.28(a)(1) -- The Elements
Respondent was cited for a non-serious violation of the Act for its alleged non-compliance with the standard at 29 CFR § 1910.28(a)(1) n1 by failing to provide scaffolds for its employees in the tank and plate shop engaged in work that could not be done safely from the ground or solid construction. n2 In arriving at his decision on this issue, the Judge found that in order to establish a failure to comply with the standard at § 1910.28(a)(1), the Secretary must show "(1) the work cannot be done safely from the ground or solid construction and, (2) that a specific type of scaffold mentioned in section 28 be used (emphasis added)."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 The standard reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 1910.28 -- Safety requirements for scaffolding
(a) General requirements for all scaffolds.
(1) Scaffolds shall be furnished and erected in accordance with this standard for persons engaged in work that cannot be done safely from the ground or from solid construction. . .
n2 Sub-item 13(e).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The issue of the elements to be established in order to find a failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR § 1910.28(a)(1) has previously been discussed and decided by this Commission. In Bethlehem Steel Corp., No. 2384 (April 3, 1975), this Commission held as follows:
By its terms, the cited standard mandates that work be performed from scaffolds when it cannot be safely performed from the ground or solid construction. It also mandates that scaffolds be erected in accordance 'with this standard,' but it does not by its terms prescribe construction specifications for scaffolds. Accordingly, when cited alone it can only require that work be performed from scaffolds if it is not safe to work from the ground or solid construction (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).
The Judge, therefore, incorrectly stated the elements of a § 1910.28(a)(1) non-compliance. All that need be shown is (1) that scaffolds were not furnished by respondent, and (2) that scaffolds were necessary because the work could not be done safely from the ground or solid construction. The specific type of scaffold [*5] to be used need not be established.
Sub-item 13(e)
While inspecting respondent's installation, the compliance officer had occasion to review the operations in the tank and plate shop. This section of respondent's plant contains tanks, kilns, columns and ball mills. The work area is largely devoted to the kilns and ball mills. These are cylindrical structures having diameters between 12 and 27 feet with heights ranging from 15 to 30 feet. The kilns and ball mills are positioned on their sides during the work process. As positioned, they resemble large cans lying on their sides with both their top and bottom lids removed. n3 At times, these units are placed on rollers so that they may be rotated as the work progresses. This placement on rollers raises the units an additional 2 to 3 feet such that the curved tops of these structures are between 15 to 30 feet above the floor level. The units on rollers are rotated approximately six times a day at a speed of 10 or 12 inches per minute. There are occasions when employees will be standing or sitting on top of the units as they are rotated. When this occurs, the rotation is controlled by the employee on the unit by means of a [*6] control button.
n3 Stipulation Exhibit E, a photograph of the tank and plate shop, is appended hereto for reference.
The work to be performed on the units is done primarily by welders. The welders' duties essentially consists of hand welding, cleaning, n4 patching, n5 and grinding. n6 Respondent's employees perform some of their assigned tasks from the floor level, some from elevated devices, and some while either standing or sitting on the top of the unit.
n4 Cleaning is the process of removing the slag, a coating that covers a weld.
n5 Patching involves the filling of a hole with weld and welding the spot to meet the specifications of the other welds.
n6 Grinding is the process of removing high spots on a weld.
On the day of the tank and plate shop inspection, the compliance officer observed respondent's employee working on the top [*7] of a ball mill approximately 20 feet above the floor level. The employee was off-Joading a manhole cover and bolts from an overhead crane. Respondent provided no scaffold for this procedure. A photograph of this scene is in evidence as Stipulation Exhibit F.
The inspection resulted in the issuance of a citation to respondent alleging its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR § 1910.28(a)(1). n7
n7 See note 1, supra.
As noted previously, the Judge vacated complainant's citation finding that he failed to establish respondent's non-compliance with the standard at issue. We have already concluded, however, that the Judge erred in stating the elements necessary to establish non-compliance with the standard at § 1910.28(a)(1) and that the proper elements are (1) respondent's failure to provide scaffolds, and (2) a showing that scaffolds were necessary because the work could not be done safely from the ground or solid construction.
The testimony adduced at the hearing as well as the photographic evidence [*8] introduced as Stipulation Exhibits E and F establish clearly that respondent failed to supply scaffolding in the instance prompting the allegations in sub-item 13(e). The Judge also found this to be so. In their briefs on review, the parties have argued the issue of whether the tanks, kilns, columns, and ball mills on which some employees work are "solid construction" within the meaning of the standard. We find it unnecessary to address this issue because whether or not these units are "solid construction," the testimony and photographic exhibits convince us that the work performed on their surfaces cannot be done safely. The record shows that the employees who work on top of these cylindrical units carry with them numerous tools, and each piece of equipment represents a tripping hazard. Furthermore, one of respondent's welders testified that the various procedures performed on the units tend to create dust particles making the surface slippery. One misplaced piece of equipment or a single slippery patch could cause an employee to fall from one of the curved surfaces to the floor, which is 15 to 30 feet below. Thus, we find respondent in violation of the Act for its [*9] failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR § 1910.28(a)(1).
Complainant has proposed a penalty of $60 for all of item 13, that is, for sub-items 13(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). In effect, the Secretary is asserting that the same violation exists in five separate locations and, while $60 is an appropriate penalty for any one of the violations, as long as the situations are abated, only one penalty will be proposed. Respondent has stipulated that the proposed penalty is appropriate and reflects due consideration of the section 17(j) penalty factors.
Respondent, however, contested only sub-items (a), (b) and (e). Sub-items 13(c) and (d), therefore, have become final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act. We have reviewed the entire record, keeping in mind the stipulation of the parties. We accept the stipulation as being within our holding in Thorlief Larsen & Sons, Inc., No. 370 (October 11, 1974) and find a single penalty of $60 to be appropriate for the non-serious violations found in sub-items 13(e) and the final orders for sub-items 13(c) and (d). n8
n8 A similar situation developed as to item 41. Item 41 is composed of three sub-items (a), (b) and (c). Respondent contested only sub-items (b) and (c). Sub-item 41(a), therefore, has become a final order and we would expect that respondent either has paid or will pay the $60 penalty for this final order.
[*10]
II. Other Issues
Although the Judge vacated the citation for complainant's failure to sustain his burden of proof, he nevertheless found that the Secretary had failed to comply with the "particularity" requirements of section 9(a) of the Act. n9 The Judge objected to the Secretary's failure to mention "any facts" upon which the allegations were based.
n9 29 U.S.C. § 658(a).
The pertinent part of section 9(a) reads as follows:
Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision of the Act, standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated.
Under both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our rules, the system of "notice pleading" is employed. Mr. Justice Black, speaking for a unanimous Court in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), noted the application of the "notice" system of pleading. He said
. . . the [*11] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is 'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). n10
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Nat'l Realty & Constr. Co. v. O.S.H.R.C., 489 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1973), speaking on "The Relative Unimportance of the Charge," held as follows:
So long as fair notice is afforded, an issue litigated at an administrative hearing may be decided by the hearing agency even though the formal pleadings did not squarely raise the issue. This follows from the familiar rule that administrative pleadings are very liberally construed and very easily amended. The rule has particular pertinence here, for citations under the 1970 Act are drafted by non-legal personnel, acting with necessary dispatch. Enforcement of the Act would be crippled if the Secretary were inflexibly held to a narrow construction of citations issued by his inspectors (emphasis [*12] added; footnotes omitted). n11
In this case, the Secretary satisfied the "fair notice" test, and he fully complied with the requirements of section 9(a). The citation notified respondent as to the nature of the violation, the standard with which it allegedly failed to comply, and the location of the alleged violation. Moreover, it is plain that respondent fully recognized the nature of the Secretary's assertions, and submitted evidence and argument concerning them. Respondent's defense was not prejudiced by any lack of notice.
n10 355 U.S. 41 at 47.
n11 489 F.2d 1257 at 1264.
We do not take up here the Judge's views concerning Brennan v. Southern Contractors Service & O.S.H.R.C., supra, because it is unnecessary to do so, and also because it would open up the larger matter of the respective roles of the Commission and the Secretary. For different shades of view on this subject see such additional cases as Brennam v. O.S.H.R.C. & Ron M. Fiegen, Inc., 513 F.2d 772 (8th Cir. 1975); Brennan [*13] v. O.S.H.R.C. & Kesler & Sons Constr. Co., 513 F.2d 553 (10th Cir. 1975); Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc. & O.S.H.R.C., 504 F.2d 1255 (4th Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the decision of Judge Ben D. Worcester, insofar as it vacates complainant's citation for sub-item 13(e), be reversed and the Secretary's citation for that item be affirmed; it is further ORDERED that a penalty of $60 be assessed for the non-serious violation with due credit given for any payment made pursuant to the final orders in sub-items 13(c) and (d). The remainder of the Judge's decision is affirmed insofar as it is consistent with this opinion.
DISSENTBY: MORAN
MORAN, COMMISSIONER, dissenting: I disagree with that portion ofthe majority opinion which affirms a violation of the Act for failure to comply with the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.28(a)(1) [sub-item 13(e) of the citation].
I would affirm the Judge's vacation of this sub-item for the same reason set forth in his decision. My colleagues, on the other hand, would substitute their view of the evidence for that of the trial judge, who alone heard all the witnesses and observed heir demeanor at the trial. As they state, supra, [*14] ". . . the testimony and photographic exhibits convince us that the work performed on their surfaces cannot be done safely." See footnote 14 infra for my view of this conclusion.
The only expert opinion testimony offered to prove that the work involved could not be "done safely" without use of a scaffold was that given by the government's safety inspector, Van Kuiken. It is interesting to note, however, that he had never before observed similar operations and was not aware of industry practice. He nevertheless based his opinions on his "past background and judgment." n12 On the basis of this record I find no justification for reversing the Judge and reaching the conclusion in the Commission's opinion: that work performed on the top surfaces of the units could not, as a matter of law, be done safely.
n12 In his opinion Judge Worcester comments that "Apparently his [Van Kuiken's] superior officer, Hanna, did not think much of his past experience and judgment because Hanna approved a citation for failure to erect scaffolds in Items 13(a) and (b) instead of failure to use a proper ladder" [as Van Kuiken had recommended].
In Secretary v. Grayson Lumber Company, Inc., 3 OSAHRC 541 (1973), the Commission refused to find the respondent in violation of the Act where the only evidence elicited to establish employee exposure to "hazards" was the opinion evidence of the government safety inspector that injuries were possible. In addition, the record in Grayson indicated a long history of absence of such injuries. Similarly, the record in this case discloses that there have been no employee injuries resulting from the allegedly unsafe work practice involved. n13 It further discloses that respondent employs such devices as platforms, scaffolds and elevators for those work situations where it is determined that the job cannot be done safely without them. n14
n13 It should be noted that neither of complainant's two employee witnesses testified that working on top of the units was unsafe. My colleagues' opinion states that employees sit or stand on the units as they are rotated. To the contrary, employee Huber testified that employees never sit on the units while they are rotated because such practice would be unsafe.
n14 It is interesting to note that 100 pages of hearing transcript was devoted to testimony adduced by the employer but Messrs. Cleary and Barnako do not see fit to cite one word of it in their 10 pages of reasons for finding against this employer. Nor do they refute Judge Worcester's credibility finding that:
"The testimony as to how and when to use scaffolds by two Allis Chalmers officials, Churchill and Upenden Rau, a graduate engineer, and supervisor in the Heavy Fabrication Shop since 1965 far outweighs the testimony of Van Kuiken [complainant's inspector]. All three were credible witnesses, but Van Kuiken's views were not supported by enough knowledge of the subject to be persuasive."
The record fully supports Judge Worcester's finding that the testimony of respondent's witnesses regarding the necessity to use scaffolds during the cited job functions was more credible than that that of the compliance officer. n15 The evidence establishes that less than one (1%) percent of the man-hours worked in the Tank and Plate Shop is spent on top of the units. During other operations work is done from the floor, from elevators, platforms, or scaffolds, when it is decided that this would be the safer approach.
n15 Compare the following testimony:
Compliance Officer: "It doesn't take a genious [sic] to figure out . . . that the individual is exposed to harm from falling on a round cylindrical surface with no protection . . . the average common layman could be able to figure this out without even or using his common sense." (Hearing transcript p. 192).
Respondent's Unit Manager of 15 years: "With the experience we have in the shop we determine that, [when it is unsafe not to use a scaffold] the shop manager is capable of deciding those things. It is a judgment kind of thing we decide based on a job by job basis." (Hearing transcript p. 282).
It is clear to me -- as it was to the Judge who heard this case -- that complainant has failed to sustain his burden of proving that "persons [were] engaged in work that cannot be done safely" from the ground or solid construction so as to necessitate the use of scaffolds. Secretary v. Daniel Construction Company, 10 OSAHRC 531 (1974), Secretary v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 16 OSAHRC 527 (1975)
The facts of this case perfectly illustrate the dangers of applying a standard which affords an employer little warning of what is required by way of compliance. Scaffolds must be furnished when work "cannot be done safely." Such a requirement fails to make clear which conditions necessitate their use. As the court noted in Cape and Vineyard Division of the New Bedford Gas and Edison Light Company v. OSAHRC, 512 F.2d 1148 (1st Cir., 1975).
[a] regulation without ascertainable standards . . . does not provide constitutionally adequate warning to an employer unless read to penalize only conduct unacceptable in light of the common understanding and experience of those working in the industry. [*18]
The court established, as the appropriate test in these circumstances, the standard of a reasonably prudent man familiar with the circumstances of the industry. To find respondent in violation of § 1910.28(a)(1), in the light of evidence indicating that the cited practices were the same as that of other companies in the industry, and in spite of the absence of any injuries therefrom, is to apply just such a constitutionally inadequate standard.
The court in Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Brennan, 497 F.2d 230 (5th Cir., 1974), employing a reasonable man standard, relied on a history of injuries in rejecting respondent's assertions that it did not and could not know what was required by the Act. Respondent Allis-Chalmers did not have the experience of such a history of injuries as a warning that it was violating the Act.
For the reasons set forth above I would affirm Judge Worcester's disposition of this item.
I would also like to add one additional point to this opinion in order to exemplify the error implicit in my colleagues' espousal of liberality in pleadings.
In both criminal and civil practice the only purpose of pleadings is to give notice to the parties to [*19] the litigation: to inform a defendant what he is being charged with or what he is being sued for. Under this Act, however, citations are served in order to effect correction of hazardous working conditions. That is why the statute specifies that the citation must
. . . describe with particularity the nature of the violation . . . 29 U.S.C. § 658(a).
I can sympathize with the fact that citations are issued by non-legal personnel but when these people do not specify what's wrong, how is the employer to know what should be done to correct the problem? And when that is the case -- as it is here -- there is no way that the correction of a hazardous condition (in the manner desired by the Secretary of Labor) can be achieved.
As the Judge pointed out: "The Secretary in both the citation and the complaint merely paraphrased the standard without mentioning any facts which would indicate in what manner it was violated."
My colleagues say this doesn't matter because "the Secretary satisfied the 'fair notice' test. They give the Secretary passing marks in legal pleadings and practice. But, in my view, we are not conducting a bar exam. The proper test here is: Has the Secretary implemented [*20] the Occupational Safety and Health Act? Has he made it clear to this respondent what must be done to achieve safer working conditions at the West Allis Manufacturing Operation? I submit that, on this record, only a negative answer to these two questions is plausible.
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]
WORCESTER, JUDGE: This proceeding arises pursuant to a timely notice of contest filed by the Respondent, under the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590 et seq., 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ) hereinafter called the Act. On October 29, 1973, a citation was issued alleging that the Respondent had violated Section 5(a)(2) of the Act. As amended November 20, 1973, the notice of contest consisted of 118 items alleging nonserious violations of the standards. The notice of contest was limited to Items 13(a), (b) and (e), and 41(b) and (c). All other items have become a final order by operation of law and are not in issue. The case was heard in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on April 17 and 18, 1974.
The following citations are in issue:
Item 13. 29 CFR 1910.28(a)(1)
Employer [*21] failed to provide that scaffolds shall be furnished in accordance with this standard for persons engaged in work that cannot be done safely from the ground or solid construction, except that ladders used for such work shall conform to 1910.25 and 1910.26; i.e.,
(a) employees working, 3 Erecting Floor;
(b) employees working, 2-1/2 Shop;
(e) employees working on top of tank, pumps, column assemblies in Tank and Plate, Erecting Floor, Shop areas.
Item 41. 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1)
Employer failed to provide that protective eye and face equipment shall be required where there is a reasonable probability of injury that can be prevented by such equipment; i.e.,
(b) need side shields for machine tool operators in Mill Shop and Plant;
(c) need side shields for electricians, Bay 2, Column 15.
Allis Chalmers Corporation, is a corporation engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and an employer engaged in the production and fabrication of heavy industrial equipment at West Allis, Wisconsin. There are approximately 5000 employees in this plant which covers 158 acres and consists of 115 buildings. The plant is divided into what the company refers to as "profit centers" which [*22] operate independently from separate areas in the plant. The particular profit center involved in the instant case is known as the West Allis Manufacturing Operation generally referred to as WAMO. In this profit center, Allis Chalmers engages in the fabrication and manufacture of power generators, steam turbines, industrial size compressors and pumps, cement and mining equipment, electrical generators and power transformer tanks.
From August 20th to 24th, 27th through 31st, September 4th through 7th and on September 7th and 10th the Secretary's Safety and Health Compliance Officer Phillip Van Kuiken, conducted an inspection of WAMO. He testified that on August 23, 1973 he had observed an employee working on the top of a ball mill at an elevation 12 feet above the floor. There was no scaffold. He also observed a ladder which the same employee had used to gain access to his working position. Van Kuiken said that the ladder was too short. He said that he saw this man climb from the top rung to the top of the kiln. He thought there was a risk of falling when climbing to the top, so he recommended issuance of Item 13(a) of the citation.
On September 5, 1973, he saw an [*23] employee on top of a power transformer tank in the 2-1/2 Shop. He said he could see that this man had ascended by means of a step ladder which was several feet short of reaching the top. Van Kuiken said that he thought that there was a risk of injury to this employee but he didn't specify as to whether it was because the ladder was too short or because there was no scaffold. This was the basis for the alleged violation described in Item 13(b) of the citation.
On August 23, 1973 the witness also observed an employee working at Bay No. 10 in the Tank and Plate area. This man was on top of a rotary kiln which was lying on its side. He was off-loading a manhole cover and some bolts from a crane. There was no scaffold. The alleged violation described in Item 13(e) of the citation was based upon this observation.
The charge of violation of 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1) is based upon observation of the machine operators in the Mill Shop and Plant working without sideshields on their safety glasses on August 26, 1973. His recollection as to the type of machine they were working on was vague but he thought it was a lathe. On August 20, 1973, he had seen an electrician in the Tank and Plate [*24] Shop at Bay No. 2, Column 15, who was wearing safety glasses without sideshields. The electrician was not using any equipment which would cause flying particles himself but he was in an area where other employees were chipping and grinding welds on a kiln. When asked to estimate the distance the electrician was from the other employees he was unable to state except that "he was in close proximity." On August 30, 1973, in No. 3 Shop, South, Low Bay area, employees were observed using milling machines, turret lathes, and hydro test milling machines while wearing safety glasses that had no sideshields. He said that he saw particles being blown into the air there. All of these observations served as a basis for a recommendation of the alleged violations described in Items 41(b) and (c) of the citation.
Allis Chalmers challenges the validity of both 29 CFR 1910.28(a)(1) and 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1) on the ground that they are so vague and inspecific as to be unenforceable. A regulation which is in conflict with a statute enacted by the Congress is void. See Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 410 (1970); Maritime Commission v. Anglo Canadian Shipping [*25] Company, 335 F. 2dd 255 (9th Cir. 1964). The Secretary asserts that his interpretation of a standard is entitled to great weight and contends that his interpretation is controlling as long as it is one of several reasonable interpretations. The case of Secretary of Labor v. Southern Contractors Service, 492 F. 2d 498 (5th Cir. 1974) is cited in support of this argument.
The Court in Southern Contractors Service did say, as the Secretary argues, that his interpretation of his own regulations is entitled to great weight but it appears that this court was not aware of the difference between a proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the interpretation of a regulatory commission standard. In proceedings before agencies having rule making powers, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, Congress had delegated its authority to carry out the National Transportation Policy of the United States to the agency, because it is assumed that the agency has expertise in the administration of this policy. Accordingly, when such an agency has before it a large number of shippers, local public officials, public carriers and other persons who have an interest [*26] in such matters as operating rights, tariffs, fares and other purely regulatory issues, the regulations which this agency has promulgated are and should be given great weight. This rule is derived from the conclusion that an agency having regulatory responsibility is presumed to know its own intentions. This theory is not applicable to the adjudication of enforcement procedures initiated by the Secretary of Labor involving citations issued under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
The Senate bill (S. 2193) as originally drafted gave the Secretary hearing powers in enforcement cases, but this provision was deleted before enactment. A substitute bill (S. 4404) took all hearing powers away from the Secretary. In a statement filed in support of the substitute bill the following comment was made (Legislative History 298):
The reported bill follows the simplistic approach of placing all functions in the Secretary of Labor. He would set the safety and health standards, conduct the inspections, prosecute violations before Labor Department hearing examiners; and he again, would be the one to issue citations and corrective orders, and to assess the monetary penalties. [*27] The reported bill's regulatory procedures have been compared to having the Chief of Police, in addition to his regular duties of conducting inspections, also write the criminal laws and then act as judge and jury.
Under both bills, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized to conduct inspections and investigations. But under the substitute bill, the Secretary would not hear the case and pass judgment on the offender. Instead, the substitute proposal would create an independent Presidentially appointed Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Commission whose only function would be to conduct hearings on alleged violations discovered by the Secretary; and the Commission would, on the basis of its decision, issue any necessary corrective orders, as well as assess civil penalties.
Senator Javits speaking in support of the substitute bill said (Legislative History 392):
. . . hearing and determination of enforcement cases by an independent panel more closely accords with traditional notions of due process than would hearing and determination by the Secretary. In the latter case the Secretary is essentially acting as prosecutor and judge. Any finding by the Secretary in favor of [*28] a respondent would be essentially a repudiation by the Secretary of his own Department's employees. While this type of enforcement has been used in connection with other statutes, is contemplated by the Administrative Procedures Act, and is not jurisdictionally defective on due process grounds, the awkward mechanics it imposes upon heads of departments who wish to exercise their adjudicatory power personally in order to preserve due process has not generally been appreciated. What happens is that one official of the Department -- such as the Deputy Solicitor -- will take the position of prosecutor and another official -- such as the Solicitor -- will take the position of a neutral in order to advise the Secretary.
The Secretary promulgated the regulations. The Secretary also has the duty to enforce them, but his standards are not made in adversary proceedings. For that reason they are not entitled to the weight which is accorded interpretations by administrative agencies entrusted with the responsibility of making inter partes decisions. See Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock and Repair Corporation, 66 S. Ct. 1105, 1113 (1946); Skidmore v. Swift and Company, 65 S. [*29] Ct. 161, 163 (1944). Even where an administrative body has the hearing power itself, its interpretations may be considered but they are not conclusive. Schild v. Busch, 293 F. Supp. 1353, (D.C. Tex. 1968).
The Review Commission is more like a court than a regulatory agency. Like a court it is required to give fair consideration to the Secretary's argument asserting the validity of his regulations, but, because the Secretary is also a litigant, the Commission is not bound by the Secretary's conclusions. Moreover, the Commission has a duty to examine the Secretary's regulations very carefully to see whether the employer is being afforded due process of law. Because the Review Commission is an administrative body it cannot declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional, but neither can the Secretary of Labor nullify an act of Congress by promulgating a regulation. If the regulation contravenes a statute it is void. If it is apparent that a standard is vague and confusing it is a violation of due process to permit the prosecution to stand, and the administrative body which has the power to decide is under duty to declare such usurpation of the authority of Congress void and unenforceable. [*30] American Ship Building Co. v. N.L.R.B., 85 S. Ct. 955, 967 (1965).
A policy of Congress cannot be defeated by the policy of an agency, see Colgate Palmolive-Peet Co. v. N.L.R.B., 70 S. Ct. 166 (1949). Neither courts nor executive agencies may proceed contrary to an act of Congress. United States v. State of California, 67 S. Ct. 1658, opinion supplemented, 68 S. Ct. 20, rehearing denied 68 St. 37, petition denied 68 S. Ct. 1517. If the existing remedial powers of an agency having authority to enforce the provisions of a body of law are insufficiently broad to cope with important labor problems, it is the responsibility of Congress, not the agency, to act. H.K. Porter Co. v. N.L.R.B., 90 S. Ct. 821 (1970), Administrative agencies are not free to substitute their own standards for the standards imposed by statute. Kettel v. Johnson and Johnson, 337 F. Supp. 892 (D.C. Ark. 1972).
Administrative interpretations of a statute must fall where clearly unsanctioned by law. United States v. U.S. Alkali Export Association, 86 F. Supp. 59 (D.C.N.Y. 1949). Administrative interpretations cannot alter provisions which are clear and explicit; Standard [*31] Oil Co. v. Fitzgerald, 86 F.2d 799, 802 (6th Cir. 1936), and will not overcome a statute which is plain and unambiguous, United States v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., 171 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1948). A statute cannot be altered or amended by administrative interpretation. (Ibid.)
The Secretary's contention that he is entitled to plead in general terms based upon an introductory portion of a standard pertaining to scaffolds and one pertaining to eye protection is totally without merit. This is not fair notice. Moreover, the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the standards must be construed strictly, not loosely. Even though it is not denominated a criminal statute the Occupational Safety and Health Act's purpose and effect is to punish an employer. For that reason the Act and the regulations must be construed like a criminal statute. Schild v. Busch, 293 F. Supp. 1353, 1355 (D.C. Tex. 1968).
However, that issue is not reached because the Secretary has not complied with the requirement of 29 U.S.C. 658(a) that the citation describe the nature of the alleged violation with particularity nor has the Secretary sustained the burden of proof that there was a violation [*32] of the standards as alleged in the complaint. The Secretary in both the citation and the complaint merely paraphrased the standard without mentioning any facts which would indicate in what manner it was violated.
The Secretary's compliance officer, Van Kuiken, was presented as an expert witness without objection by the Respondent. However, the degree of expertise he possesses was not apparent from the record. Van Kuiken testified that he had a degree in industrial management from Roosevelt University in Chicago and that he had attended Milwaukee Area Technical College where he took classes in first aid, industrial ventilation, and some others which he could not recall and that he had some training by the Secretary of Labor. His previous work experience included two years as a management production supervisor with Continental Can Company. He said that 10 to 20 percent of his supervisory responsibility involved safety and welfare. When asked on cross examination on what basis he concluded that a hazard had existed when he recommended the issuance of the various citations the only answer he could give was "past experience and judgment." Apparently his superior officer, [*33] Hanna, did not think much of his past experience and judgment because Hanna approved a citation for failure to erect scaffolds in Items 13(a) and (b) instead of failure to use a proper ladder. n1
n1 "Q. . . . what was the reason that you cited employees working on three erecting floor?
A. Ladder too short for the job being performed."
"Q. . . . was the citation issued under (b) done for the same reasons the citation was issued in 13(a)?
Q. That is the ladder?
A. Yes, it was."
Section 1910.28(a) is entitled "General requirements for all scaffolds." Subparagraph (1) makes it clear that scaffolds should be furnished and erected "in accordance with this standard" when work cannot be done safely from the ground or from solid construction. Subparagraph (1) is followed by 27 other subparagraphs including 2 pages of tables. Subparagraph (a) is followed by other alphabetically designated subparagraphs through the letter "v". These were further subdivided into numerical paragraphs in which variious types [*34] of scaffolds were mentioned such as: wood pole, tube and coupler, tubular welded frame, outrigger, masons adjustible multiple point suspension, two-point suspension, stone setters adjustable multiple-point suspension, single-point adjustable suspension, boatswain's chairs, carpenters bracket, bricklayers' square, horse, needle beam, plasters' decorators and large area, interior hung, window jack, roofing, crawling boards or chicken ladders and float or ship scaffolds. This section establishes safety requirements for the:
construction, operation, maintenance, and use of scaffolds, used in the construction, alteration, demolition and maintenance of buildings and structures. n2
n2 29 CFR 1910.28(v).
The Secretary wrestled with the problem of deciding whether to cite Allis-Chalmers from the time the last inspection was made in early September until October 29, 1973, when the citation was finally signed. The testimony of Van Kuiken and Hanna shows that they were awash in a sea of uncertainty as to whether [*35] to charge Allis-Chalmers with failure to provide and require the use of proper ladders when working on the ball mill and the transformer tank or failure to provide a scaffold. At some unspecified time it was decided to charge Allis-Chalmers with failure to provide scaffolds both in those two areas and on the kiln where the empioyee was off loading supplies, but they never were able to decide what kind of a scaffold should be used.
The testimony as to how and when to use scaffolds by two Allis Chalmers officials, Churchill and Upender Rau, a graduate engineer, and supervisor in the Heavy Fabrication Shop since 1965 far outweighs the testimony of Van Kuiken. All three were credible witnesses, but Van Kuiken's views were not supported by enough knowledge of the subject to be persuasive.
Section 1910.28(a)(1) is, as its title makes clear, an introductory statement to notify all employers that they must furnish scaffolds whenever work cannot be done safely from the ground or from a solid surface. This paragraph is followed by a great number of other paragraphs which explain how various scaffolds are to be used. No evidence was adduced showing that scaffolds were necessary on the ball [*36] mill, or on the tank. Moreover, both of the employees on these units were working on a solid surface while sitting down. No evidence was adduced to show that it would be feasible to install a scaffold upon a rotary kiln for off loading materials or, assuming that a scaffold was necessary, what kind of scaffold it should be.
The Secretary, in order to sustain the allegation of a violation of Section 28(a)(1) has the burden of proof that (1) the work cannot be done safely from the ground or solid construction and, (2) that a specific type of scaffold mentioned in Section 28 be used. The Secretary has failed to do this.
The Secretary has not adduced persuasive evidence that there was a violation of 29 CFR 1910.133(a). Van Kuiken again was somewhat vague and uncertain. His recollection was not acute. Contrasted with that was the testimony of John Churchill, a full time safety engineer employed by the Respondent since 1943. He said that a program requiring the wearing of safety glasses was instituted between 1949 and 1951 and that this safety requirement had reduced eye injuries by 81 percent. Churchill testified that since keeping OSHA records beginning in 1971 there [*37] had been nine lost time accidents involving eye injuries, six of those were in cases where the employees were wearing side shields. The other three included a fireman in a power house who got a foreign body in his eyes thought to have happened while he was shoveling coal, an industrial engineer in the fabrication shop and a grinder who was not wearing the eye protection that was required by Company rules.
Even if it were assumed that the Complaint alleges a good cause of action and that the standard is not so vague as to be unenforceable, the evidence offered in support of the Secretary's citation does not show that there was a violation of Section 1910.22(a)(1). Van Kuiken's description of what he observed does not show that there was a reasonable probability that an injury would occur or that side shields would have prevented such an injury. The evidence of the Respondent overwhelmingly rebuts any such inferences. In order to establish a violation of 29 CFR 1910.133(a) it must be shown (1) that there was a reasonable probability of injury or (2) that there is a known existing hazardous environmental condition or (3) that machines or operations present the hazard of flying objects, [*38] glare, liquids, injurious radiation, or a combination of these hazards. See Secretary of Labor v. Schnadig Corporation,
Based upon the record as a whole the following findings and conclusions are made:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Respondent Allis Chalmers Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce with the meaning of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission under the Act.
2. The employees observed on top of the ball mill, the transformer tank and the rotary kiln were not exposed to any hazard which would require a protective scaffold.
3. The employee observed working on the ball mill in Number 3 Erecting Floor and the employee observed working on the transformer tank in the 2-1/2 Shop Items 13(a) and 13(b), were on a flat solid surface and in a sitting position and were not exposed to any hazard while performing this work.
4. The Secretary has not adduced proof showing that a scaffold could be used on top of a rotary kiln or that it is necessary as alleged in item 13(e) of the Citation. [*39]
5. The Secretary has not sustained the burden of proof that machine tool operators in the Mill Shop and Plant need side shields.
6. The Secretary has not sustained the burden of proof that an electrician present at Bay 7, Column 15 on the date alleged in the citation needed side shields.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Allis-Chalmers Corporation, is and was at all times relevant to this proceeding an employer subject to the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
2. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has jurisdiction of the Respondent and the subject matter of this proceeding.
3. The Secretary has failed to sustain the burden of proof that the Respondent, Allis-Chalmers Corporation, violated 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2) and Sections 1910.28(a)(1) and 1920.133(a)(1), Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations as alleged in the citation issued October 29, 1973, and the complaint.
It is therefore hereby ordered that Items 13(a), (b) and (e) and 41(b) and (c) of the citation be vacated. There being no justiciable issue involving penalties this proceeding is dismissed.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
'Genesis G90 to see threefold growth in 2023'
Chang Jae-hoon, president of Hyundai Motor Company poses next to the newly released flagship Genesis G90. Courtesy of Hyundai Motor Group
By Kim Hyun-bin
Officials at Hyundai Motor Company's luxury car brand Genesis said Wednesday they project annual global demand for ultra-large luxury sedans peaking at 230,000 units in 2023, but emphasized that the G90 premium sedan would occupy an 8.6 percent market share, which is up threefold compared to last year.
"Genesis surpassed 200,000 units in global annual sales last year, entered the top ten global luxury market, and ranked first in domestic luxury car sales for two consecutive years," said Chang Jae-hoon, president of Hyundai Motor Company. "It will be introduced to major markets around the world."
Genesis sold 201,025 vehicles worldwide last year. Genesis, a brand launched in 2015, recorded annual sales of 100,000 units in 2020, the first time in five years, and immediately increased sales by more than 50 percent in one year, exceeding the 200,000 unit mark.
"Genesis is part of the luxury car market, so rather than entering various countries, we need a strategy to focus on the countries we have already entered." Chang said.
Genesis will begin customer delivery of its flagship sedan G90 by the end of this month. The G90 is a fully-modified 4th-generation model, a flagship sedan with an elegant design and high marketability based on the design philosophy of Genesis, the company said, Thursday.
Regarding the surge in Genesis sales last year, he said, "The Genesis sports utility vehicle (SUV) lineup expanded, and the market expansion including in the United States, was effective."
Regarding competition with the three big German companies in the premium luxury sedan car segment, "If you look at the internal combustion engine vehicles together, we have caught up around 90-95 percent (of their brands)," he said. We will continue to enhance market competitiveness and create a premium customer experience."
Genesis has already introduced two electric vehicle (EV) models last year and is in preparation to introduce a large flagship EV model this year. Hyundai Motor Company announced that all new Genesis vehicles will be eco-friendly and available only with fuel cell and as EVs from 2025.
"Hyundai Motor's strategy in the luxury sector is basically to go to EV and fuel cells," Chang said.
Regarding the supply and demand situation for semiconductors for vehicles "The supply disruption of semiconductor parts is a global situation, and at worst, the supply disruption is expected to continue until the first half of this year." he added.
Genesis has brought together cutting-edge technologies to make the G90 customer's journey the most valuable and luxurious time possible. Top notch technologies have been embedded to enhance driving specifications including multi-chamber air suspension, active rear-wheel steering (RWS), and active road noise control accompanied by an elegant exterior and interior.
Preorders for the G90 exceeded 12,000 vehicles on the first day, and a total of more than 18,000 units were contracted in the domestic market alone within the first 18 business days. The sale price starts at 89.57 million won ($75,400) for a sedan and 165.57 million won for a long wheelbase vehicle.
hyunbin@koreatimes.co.kr More articles by this reporter


Today, I set up a new site collection. I exported the design package from an existing site collection, and imported it into the new site collection. After the import finished, I lost all permissions to the new site collection (I'm the primary admin on the site), and, weirder, the system account also lost access to the site. EXCEPT for both accounts can still access design manager (nothing else). Does anyone have any idea why this happened and how I can fix it, and make it so it doesn't happen in the future?


text:
No play, but plenty of COVID-19 tests for players at Australian Open
Players are isolating and getting tested instead of playing tuneup tournaments four days before the Australian Open as concern grows over the impact on the year's first tennis major.
Play has been halted at the ATP Cup in Melbourne, Australia, as well as the other Australian Open tuneup tournaments after a worker at one of the hotels where players are staying tested positive for coronavirus. Hamish Blair/Associated Press
MELBOURNE, Australia — Players were isolating and getting tested for COVID-19 instead of playing tuneup tournaments four days before the Australian Open as concern grew over the impact on the year's first tennis major.
All competition at six tournaments scheduled for Thursday was called off overnight and 520 people who flew to Melbourne for the Australian Open were ordered to isolate in their accommodations and get tested after a man who worked at one of the quarantine hotels until last Friday tested positive for the coronavirus.
The Australian Open is scheduled to begin Monday, and preparations have already been disruptive and chaotic. All players and their entourages and everyone else flew into Australia for the tournament had to spend 14 days in hotel quarantine. Of those, 72 players were forced into hard lockdown after passengers on their charter flights later returned positive tests for the virus.
Anyone connected with the tournament and who quarantined at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Melbourne were deemed to be casual contacts of the 26-year-old infected man and were undergoing testing at a dedicated facility.
Allen Cheng, Victoria state's deputy chief health officer, said authorities were being extra cautious.
"We think the risk to other guests at the hotel, so tennis players and their accompanying staff, is relatively low because they were in the rooms at the time as opposed to staff who were outside the rooms," Cheng told a news conference Thursday. ""So we're testing them to be sure, and it's precautionary."
Cheng said six people in the Grand Hyatt during the quarantine period for the Australian Open had tested positive and were transferred to a medical facility, and it was likely the man – a resident support officer – was infected there.
"We are aware that he was on a floor where there were cases," Cheng said.
Cheng said it was "unlikely" the Open will be canceled.
Victoria State Premier Daniel Andrews said in news conference late Wednesday that he didn't expect the Feb. 8-21 Australian Open to be impacted, although he has added that it's an unfolding situation.
He said the late-night announcement of the positive case was done "through an abundance of caution."
Andrews on Thursday confirmed close family contacts of the infected worker had tested negative for COVID-19 and contact tracing was advanced.
Everyone in the city will be required to wear masks while indoors.
The latest coronavirus restrictions could test the resolve of players who have recently come out of two weeks in quarantine. It will also give ammunition to critics of the government decision to allow people to fly in from all over the world at a time when coronavirus cases were surging in some countries but under control in Australia.
Australian Open organizers didn't immediately have details of how many players were ordered to isolate.
Under the current plans, up to 30,000 spectators are expected daily at Melbourne Park for the two-week Grand Slam event and there was no immediate indication of a change.
All arrivals in Australia must undergo a mandatory 14-day quarantine under the COVID-19 pandemic regulations. The Australian Open chartered 17 flights and used three hotels in Melbourne for the bulk of the players to quarantine and had other secure accommodation and facilities in Adelaide, South Australia state, for some of the biggest stars, including Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal.
Players were tested every day during quarantine and all were cleared before the tuneup tournaments began at Melbourne Park on Monday. The first three days of competition were incident free.
"This is one case. There's no need for people to panic," Andrews said in his news conference announcing the case and a raft of low-key restrictions. "There's no need for people to be alarmed. We Victorians know what to do, and we have proven, as a state, very successful at managing these sorts of outbreaks, these sorts of issues."
Australia has 909 deaths attributed to COVID-19, including 820 in Victoria state. Most of those were during a second deadly wave last year when a hard lockdown and overnight curfews were put in place in Melbourne.
Tatum, Celtics hold off Curry and Warriors for 111-107 win
Sports Digest: NWHL cancels rest of season after additional virus positives


text:
Home > Entomology > Faculty Publications > 566
Entomology, Department of
Faculty Publications: Department of Entomology
Seasonal Population Dynamics of the Potato Psyllid (Hemiptera: Triozidae) and Its Associated Pathogen "Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum" in Potatoes in the Southern Great Plains of North America
John A. Goolsby, USDA-Agricultural Research ServiceFollow
John J. Adamczyk Jr., USDA-Agricultural Research ServiceFollow
J. M. Crosslin, USDA-Agricultural Research Service
Noel N. Troxclair, Texas Agrilife ExtensionFollow
J. R. Ancisco, Texas Agrilife ExtensionFollow
Gerhard G. Bester, Frito LayFollow
J. D. Bradshaw, University of NebraskaFollow
Edsel D. Bynum Jr., Texas Agrilife ResearchFollow
L. A. Carpio, CSS Farms
Don C. Henne, Texas Agrilife ResearchFollow
Ankush Joshi, K-State Extension
Joseph E. Munyaneza, K-State ExtensionFollow
Pat Porter, Texas Agrilife ExtensionFollow
Phillip E. Sloderbeck, Texas Agrilife ResearchFollow
J. R. Supak, Texas Agrilife Research
C. M. Rush, Texas Agrilife ResearchFollow
F. J. Willett, Agro Engineering
B. J. Zechmann, CSS Farms
B. A. Zens, CSS Farms
Journal of Economic Entomology 105:4 (August 2012), pp. 1268-1276.
doi: 10.1603/EC11435
U.S. Government Work
The potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc) (Hemiptera: Triozidae), and its associated pathogen "Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum" (Ca. L. solanacearum), the putative causal agent of zebra chip (ZC) disease in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.), were sampled in commercial potato fields and untreated control plots for 3 yr in multiple locations in Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado. Populations of the potato psyllid varied across years and across potato growing regions. However, the percentage of potato psyllids infected with Ca. L. solanacearum although variable across years, was consistently highest in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (LRGV), the reported overwintering location for this pest. The numbers of Ca. L. solanacearum–infected psyllids collected on field traps and large nymphs counted on leaf samples were both positively correlated with the final percentage of ZC in tubers. In the LRGV, where vector and disease pressure is the highest, population levels of immature life stages of the psyllid and percentage of ZC differed greatly between commercial and untreated fields. These results show that the pest management program that was used can be effective at controlling development of the psyllid and ultimately reducing the incidence of ZC.
Agriculture Commons, Entomology Commons, Food Science Commons, Plant Pathology Commons
Entomology Website


Dont like boiling the caramel for caramel popcorn? Then try this super easy and foolproof oven method But be careful its really addictive!
1. Preheat oven to 300 degree F or 150 degree C.
3. Place a large pot over medium high flame and melt butter in it.
4. Add popcorn kernels, cover with lid and shake until there are 5-6 seconds between pops.
5. In a small pot, combine butter, brown sugar, sugar, salt, and corn syrup/molasses. Place the pot over low flame and stir until all the ingredients have melted together. Do not boil.
6. Pour caramel over popped corn and stir to coat.
7. Pour popcorn onto the lined baking sheet and bake for 20 minutes. Allow to cool.


1. Do we know the quantity? Of what quantity are we talking about here?
2. Do we know the variety of what kinds or types are we talking about here?
3. Microbes leaking in the environment in huge numbers. Do we know the deletion of an act like this?
4. An age to delete microbial leakage…Will earth ever have so much time?
5. Will a microbial death come before earth's natural decay?
6. Ruled by the big powers next will small microbes dominate our world?
7. Who will be blamed? Scientists who give life to health and death to illness will bring about an unpredictable global end?
8. Will this cast dark shadows of microbes on oceans and air?
9. Will microbes travel faster than Internet?
10. Will there be a microbial end and decay of life through speed of light?
11. Industrial production they talk about. Industrial means HUGE. The rest game is played by microbes which multiply soon.
12. Engineering will create a greater hazard than good when changed microbes will change the face of earth.
13. This is the end.


text:
Mourinho benches Casillas in costly Madrid loss | Inquirer Sports
Mourinho benches Casillas in costly Madrid loss
By: Joseph Wilson - @inquirerdotnet
Associated Press / 01:53 PM December 23, 2012
FILE – Spain goalkeeper Iker Casillas stops a ball during a training session ahead of Sunday's Euro 2012 soccer championship final between Spain and Italy in Kiev, Ukraine, Saturday, June 30, 2012. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)
BARCELONA, Spain— Real Madrid coach Jose Mourinho surprisingly benched veteran goalkeeper Iker Casillas for Saturday's game at Malaga, and the move may cost him more than just three points as little-used Adan Garrido was overwhelmed in a 3-2 loss.
Casillas has been a regular starter for a decade and is the captain of both Madrid and Spain's world champion national team, and is widely revered by the club's fans.
Saturday's game was the first time he had not started a meaningful league fixture for the defending Spanish league champions in 54 matches.
Relations between Mourinho and his players were already frayed with the team on the slide, and they are likely to be further strained now.
"It surprised us, Iker is our captain," Madrid defender Sergio Ramos said.
Mourinho justified the move to bench Casillas by saying that the inexperienced Adan was in better form.
"We hadn't been playing well in different aspects of the game, among which was our defense," said Mourinho. "It was a technical decision.
"My opinion is the one that matters. I analyzed the players I had available and picked the team to play. You can invent the story you want, but it is a purely technical decision and nothing more."
The defeat was Madrid's fourth in nine away matches and left the defending champions in third place 16 points behind leader Barcelona.
Adan had only four previous career starts in the league and had made three just starts this season: one in a Champions League game after Madrid's place in the knockout rounds was already assured and two in Copa del Rey games against a lower-division opponent.
The 25-year-old Madrid youth product wasn't tested in the first half as Madrid controlled the ball and the scoring chances. But after halftime he let three shots find his net while making just three saves.
Mourinho defended Adan by saying that he thought the choice of goalkeeper "had no influence in the result."
However, Madrid hadn't allowed three goals in a league game since a 3-1 loss to Barcelona last December, and it was the first time it had conceded three goals to a Spanish league team other than Barcelona since April, 2011.
The 31-year-old Casillas is widely respected both in Spain and abroad as one of the best keepers in the game. Casillas has been selected top goalkeeper in the world by players in FIFPro vote for four straight years and is expected to win again next month.
The last time Casillas did not start a league match was on May 5 last season after Madrid had clinched the title.
Casillas' mood in Madrid's dugout at La Rosaleda stadium went from glum to nervous and finally anguished as he watched his team fail to convert its plethora of chances in the first half, and then get picked apart in the second. At one point he zipped his sweatshirt up to hide half his face.
Malaga forward Francisco "Isco" Alarcon shot past Adan to open the scoring before Joaquin Sanchez set up Roque Santa Cruz to score twice more.
Malaga's goals were well taken, but if doubts were already brewing about Mourinho's ability to continue at the helm of Madrid, then his critics just received a big boost.
Mourinho scoffed at the question of whether he feared for his job heading into the winter break with very small hopes of defending the league title.
"Fear for my job?" he said. "I have never feared for my job."
But in the next breath he acknowledged that "football has no memory. The only thing that matter is the present, not the titles you have won."
Kings suspend center Cousins indefinitely
TAGS: Adan Garrido, Barcelona, Iker Casillas, Spain


TripAdvisor - Sumara House Ubud, Unique private compound.
Mountain Views - Sumara House Ubud, Unique private compound.
We have an unfenced pool. Treat our house with the care you would like to have us in yours.
Our house staff are there for you to make sure you have all you need.
Marc is a guest that makes hosting worthwhile. A great pleasure every step of the way to be of service to this engaged traveler with this kind review as a cherry on top. Humbled, thank you.
The upmarket village of Sanggingan is renowned for art, specialty shopping, spa's and particularly great food. With the river on one side and rice feilds on the other set back from the road. Both Views are lush green and serene.
Private Car or taxi are the best for the journey from the airport. We recommend using our regular driver that we trust, who is familiar with our private entrance and protocol. We happily book this on your behalf to greet you after your flight or prior accomodation. You pay the standard rate direct to the driver.


text:
LuisaVxq1317
67 Ranworth Road
Bicton, WA 6157
(08) 9409 3518 https://penzu.com/p/6ae2c9c5 *******
A living room fireplace and accommodates four as a living house that can be rented for varying stays from the UK's Landmark Trust, it features its original furniture, while the carriage house, which had once been Kipling's barn, sports.
Though it isn't available for museum visits, one present patron that has partaken of its "hotel" status, discovered that a decided advantage, composing in Naulakha's guest book, "It is fascinating to consult with the house of article writers and musicians, but whatever you frequently get is definitely an hour's tour having an absolute prohibition 'not to the touch.' exactly how wonderful then to stay at his desk and soak up Mr. Kipling's bath."
Irrespective of art, Southern Vermont can be equated using its covered bridges and Brattleboro is no exclusion. Constructed in 1879 and located on Guilford Street off of Route 9, the 80-foot-long by 19-foot-wide Creamery Covered Bridge, for example, spans the Whetstone Brook. Manufactured from spruce lumber, with timber lattice trusses and either-end stone slab supporting abutments, it includes a 5.5-foot wide, equally covered sidewalk that has been added into the 1920s. It's the only such structure noticeable from Route 9 while the only one of Brattleboro's symbolic structures to survive.
4. Grafton:
Any postcard, with its church, crafts shops, galleries, museums, and historic inns lining Main Street (Route 121) and maple syrup taping and cheese making venues located just up the road as a preserved village, Grafton, located north of Brattleboro, could serve as the quintessential image of Vermont and grace.
With four basic shops and a dozen that is half and schoolhouses throughout the mid-1800s, it in fact was a hub for farmers, tradesmen, and people, creating shoes, sleighs, and butter churns. Retaining, a century . 5 later, its blacksmith and cabinet making shops, it offers visitors a chance to move back in time and sample New England that is true ambiance.
"Grafton's individuality," in accordance with its own description, "comes from being truly a genuine town, not a museum-like fun, having its residents being its many valuable resource. It's a vibrant community still holding the traditional town ending up in involvement from a perfectly diverse population of 600 individuals."
Surrounded with a kaleidoscope of color into the autumn and covered with a blanket of white into the cold temperatures, it gives numerous recreational opportunities, but the season that is latter specially, "is a secret time in Vermont, making you genuinely believe that you are residing in any occasion card. Cross-country ski, snowshoe, (or) stroll through the village. Then relax by having a cup of hot chocolate," it concludes about itself.
To be aware of nordic-destination.com/mols-bjerge/trehoeje and nordic-destination.com/mols-bjerge/kaloevig-kaloe, visit our website nordic-destination.com/mols-bjerge/kaloevig-kaloe.
The strategy was to high attach Iceland to profile brands such as CNN, John Lennon and Lonely Planet. Also, general keyword phrases like travel locations in Iceland and music festivals were also attached. These targeted phrases had close to ten million monthly searches. According to Kristján M. Hauksson, the creator of Nordic eMarketing, in an meeting with TechNewsDaily he claimed that "the doorway exposed by the volcano eruption ended up being huge in regards to branding and awareness that is general of."
The website that is new inspiredbyiceland.com, was launched in June 2010. There, unique content ended up being discussing Iceland in 7 languages. The focus that is main set on key stakeholders such as for instance reporters, travel agencies as well as the general traveler raising awareness of Iceland. The internet site and also the content are far more intended for the knowledge of Iceland. A brand new video clip ended up being developed, called the Inspired by Iceland movie. Into the movie, two ladies tell the viewer about where they truly are after which they reveal in a really way that is enthusiastic whatever they did once they visited Iceland. Everything about it movie ended up being Icelandic, the character, the songs, the garments, therefore the actors. The video clip had been a big hit and has been played 2.7 million times on Vimeo, 150 thousand the first week. On the website, visitors were supplied unique opportunity to find out about the region from its own residents, from using tourists to go bird viewing to even fulfilling the president. "I would prefer to ask you to come and now have pancakes beside me and my wife Dorrit during the Presidential residence, Bessastaðir," said Icelandic president, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson regarding the motivated by Iceland tourism website. "Come and invest a nice afternoon with us." This event fundamentally came real November 11th of 2011 where he served pancakes with whipped cream and rhubarb jam to tourists at their Presidential residence.
Conduent State Healthcare, LLC - Powered by inteVISTA


Success in your calculus course starts here! James Stewart' s CALCULUS: EARLY TRANSCENDENTALS texts are world- wide best- sellers for a reason: they are clear accurate, filled with relevant real- world examples. Single variable calculus stewart 7th edition download.
Buy Complete Solutions Manual for Single Variable Calculus: Early Transcendentals grading tools for instructors , students that reinforce student learning through practice , 7th Edition on FREE SHIPPING on qualified homework instant feedback.
Buy Single Variable Calculus: Early Transcendentals on FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders. Buy Complete Solutions Manual for Single Variable Calculus: Early Transcendentals, 7th Edition on FREE SHIPPING on qualified homework and grading tools for instructors and students that reinforce student learning through practice and instant feedback.
Student Solutions Manual ( Chapters 1- 11) for Stewart' s Single Variable Calculus, 7th 7th Edition. Buy Single Variable Calculus, AP edition, Early Transcendentals with Vector Function, 7E, Stewart on FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders.


"It just seemed like a nice thing to do."
Zach Ehren and his wife Mallika Mathai live in the San Francisco Bay Area with their adorable pit bull mix, Calli.
Ehren told BuzzFeed News that they adopted their pup about four years ago.
As any working dog mom or dad knows, finding a good dog walker is key. So Ehren and Mathai were pleased when they found a dog walker named Jon Miller to walk Calli on a regular basis.
Ehren said that his wife spotted Miller, the owner of Miller's Menagerie, out with a whole van full of dogs and decided to use his services. Miller now walks Calli four days a week.
Ehren said that Calli LOVES her time out with the other dogs during the day because she is very social and likes to play.
"Calli definitely gets more excited to see Jon than she does to see Mallika and I," he said.
Last week, Ehren was laid off from his job at a startup. So, he texted Miller to tell him that Calli would need to break from walks for a while. However, Jon had a surprising response. He offered to walk Calli anyway, free of charge.
Ehren said he was incredibly touched by Miller's response.
"A lot of times people ask, 'What can I do to help?'" he said. "And Jon proactively said, 'I can do this.'"
Miller said the decision was a no-brainer.
"It just seemed like a nice thing to do," he told BuzzFeed News.
Ehren posted the exchange to Reddit, where it quickly went viral for the small, but impactful, act of kindness.
People have even been sending Miller donations on Venmo, which he has been donating to Family Dog Rescue, where Ehren and Mathai rescued Calli.
He told BuzzFeed News that he is matching up to $500 in donations to the rescue through the end of June.
"This has all been a great experience, it's been really cool," he said.