Eligibility For Registration Research Articles

Prevalence and incidence of blindness and other degrees of sight impairment in patients treated for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in a well-defined region of the United Kingdom.

This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and prevalence of blindness, sight impairment, and other visual acuity (VA) states in patients receiving ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in Gloucestershire. Serial VA and injection data for all treatment-naive patients receiving their first intravitreal injections of ranibizumab for nAMD in the Gloucestershire National Health Service Ophthalmology department between 2008 and 2010 were extracted from an electronic medical record system. The prevalence of blindness (VA in the better-seeing eye ≤25 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters) at the time of first intravitreal injection was 0.8%, increasing to 3.5% after 3 years. The prevalence of sight impairment (VA in the better-seeing eye 26-39 ETDRS letters) increased from 4.1% at baseline to 5.5% after 3 years. The incidence of initiating ranibizumab treatment for nAMD in people aged ≥50 years in Gloucestershire was 111 people per 100 000 population in 2009, and 97 people in 2010. The incidence of patients meeting the visual criteria for blindness and sight impairment registration from treated nAMD in people aged ≥50 years in Gloucestershire was 3.5 and 9.7 people, respectively per 100 000 population in 2010. This is the first real-world study on the incidence and prevalence of eligibility for blindness and sight impairment registration in treated nAMD in the UK based on VA data. The incidence and prevalence of eligibility for certification of blindness or sight impairment in patients treated with ranibizumab for nAMD is low in Gloucestershire, with only 3.6% of the incident population progressing to blindness in 2010.

Eligibility Testing at Three Prehistoric Sites at Lynch Creek, Lampasas County, Texas

In August 2004, archeologists from the Cultural Resources Section of the Planning, Permitting and Licensing Practice of TRC Environmental Corporation’s Austin office conducted National Register eligibility testing and geoarcheological documentation at three previously unrecorded prehistoric sites, 41LM49, 41LM50, and 41LM51, at two separate bridge crossings over Lynch Creek (TxDOT Project CSJ: #0231-15-032; designated East and West) by Farm to Market Road 580W (FM 580W) in western Lampasas County, Texas. This archeological investigation was necessary under the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the implementing regulations of 36CRF Part 800 and the Antiquities Code of Texas (Texas Natural Resource Code, Title 9, Chapter 191 as amended) to assess eligibility of all three cultural resource sites for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and for designation as a State Antiquities Landmark (SAL). This eligibility assessment was for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Environmental Affairs Division under a Scientific Services Contract No. 573XXSA006 (Work Authorization No. 57315SA006). The analysis and reporting were conducted under contracts 575XXSA008 (Work Authorization 57510SA008), 577XXSA003 (Work Authorization No. 57704SA003) and 571XXSA003 (Work Authorization 57113SA003). All work was performed under Texas Antiquities Committee Permit No. 3494, issued by the Texas Historical Commission (THC) prior to the planned replacement of the two bridges. The materials, artifacts, records, and photographs will be curated at Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) in Austin.

‘Rings of fire’: the hoops to jump through for Community Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare equivalence

I have recently been successful in my application for a Certificate of Eligibility for Specialist Registration (CESR) in Community Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (CSRH). Other than the generic information available,...

Changing Lifeways along the Guadalupe Basin in South Texas: The Results of National Register Testing of a Stratified Multicomponent Prehistoric Site, 41DW277, DeWitt County, Texas

AmaTerra Environmental (formerly Ecological Communications Corporation [EComm]) conducted archeological National Register eligibility testing at Site 41DW277 in December 2009. The site is located in the proposed right-of-way (ROW) for a new bridge along US 183 over the Guadalupe River, DeWitt County, Texas. Site 41DW277 was documented in 2009 by James Abbott and Allen Bettis of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and at the time of survey it was thought to be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or as a State Archeological Landmark (SAL). Due to expected impacts resulting from the proposed bridge construction, testing was recommended to determine NRHP/SAL eligibility. TxDOT hired AmaTerra to complete the work under Texas Antiquities Permit 5460. Testing consisted of excavation of five gradall trenches and 32 test units. AmaTerra found that the site consists of three stratified prehistoric components extending from 1–2 meters in depth and ranging from 2,800 years to 5,200 years BP in age. Three features were documented and artifacts recovered included lithic debris and tools, mussel shell, snail shell, a small amount of bone, and some modern household debris (from the top levels of the units). Burned rock was observed and documented but not collected. An interim report was submitted in January 2010 recommending that the upper components of the site are not eligible for NRHP/SAL listing but that lowest and oldest component is eligible. However, the report also recommended that no further work was needed since the lowest component was not within the area of potential effect (APE) for the bridge replacement. The Texas Historical Commission concurred with this recommendation in February 2010. This report documents the results of the testing and analysis for Site 41DW277. Records and artifacts generated during this project will be curated at the Center for Archaeological Studies at Texas State University.

Many CESR and CEGPR decisions take longer than the statutory three months

The General Medical Council is failing to meet its statutory three month target for certifying doctors who want to join the medical register through the equivalence routes, its own performance figures show. However, the regulator has said that it expects to reach decisions on 95% of all applications for the certificate of eligibility for specialist registration (CESR) and certificate of eligibility for general practice registration (CEGPR) within the three month timeframe by the end of the year. Doctors who have not followed a GMC approved training programme and been awarded a certificate of completion of training (CCT) must have a CESR or CEGPR to be licensed to practise as a consultant or GP in the UK. Responsibility for the certification and registration of specialists and GPs through these equivalence …

BMA backs GMC plans to simplify “equivalence” routes to registration

The BMA has supported the GMC’s plans to reform the “equivalence” routes to GP and specialist registration to simplify the system while ensuring that it is sufficiently robust to guarantee that doctors who follow this route are regarded as equal to those with the Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT). Most graduates of UK medical schools follow the standard training path from the foundation programme to award of the CCT, after which they are eligible to join the medical register and apply for consultant and GP principal posts. The equivalence routes involve applying for a Certificate of Eligibility for Specialist Registration (CESR) or a Certificate of Eligibility for General Practice Registration (CEGPR). Applicants …

GMC proposes workplace assessment and exam for doctors seeking CESR or CEGPR

Doctors who wish to join the specialty register by obtaining a certificate of eligibility for specialist registration (CESR) or a certificate of eligibility for general practice registration (CEGPR) might be subject to a workplace based evaluation of their practice and could be asked undertake a formal test of knowledge in their specialty, the General Medical Council has recommended. Applicants who have not practised in the UK as a licensed doctor for at least six months in the previous three years …

CESR=CCT, says chairman of Academy of Medical Royal Colleges

Employers should view the certificate of eligibility for specialist registration (CESR) as identical to the Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT), the chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has recommended. Speaking at the joint royal colleges’ conference for staff and associate specialist doctors last week, Neil Douglas said that colleges need to work to remove the “stigma” associated with the …

PMETB AND Me Or How I Learnt to Stop Worrying and Love Article 14

The Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB) was established by an act of Parliament in 2003, to set standards for postgraduate medical education and training and to ensure that those standards are met. On 30 September 2005 PMETB took over the functions of the Specialist Training Authority and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice. Under article 14(4) of the regulations governing PMETB, doctors whose training or qualifications and experience, considered together, meet the requirements of a Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) programme in one of the standard CCT specialties, may apply to PMETB for a statement of eligibility for registration. This in turn allows application to the General Medical Council for admission to the specialist register.

Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature – Melbourne 2011: A review of the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature submitted to the XVIII International Botanical Congress

Each personal member of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy is entitled to participate in the Preliminary Mail Vote on nomenclature proposals submitted to the XVIII International Botanical Congress, as stated in Division III of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). Authors of proposals to amend the Code and members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees (described in Div. III.2) are also entitled to participate, but no institutional votes are allowed. A voting form is inserted in this issue of Taxon and, if lost, available from www .iapt-taxon.org (sub Nomenclature). The voting forms (ballots) should be returned to the IAPT Office, Institute of Botany, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, A-1030, Vienna, Austria, by 31 May 2011, so that they may be included in the tabulation to be made available to members of the Nomenclature Section of the Congress. The sessions of the Nomenclature Section, which will take definitive action on proposals, will be held in the Copland Theatre, Economics and Commerce Building 148, University of Melbourne (Parkville campus), Melbourne, Australia, from Monday, 18 July 2011 (09:00 hours) to Friday, 22 July 2011 (see http://www.ibc2011.com/ NomenclatureSection.htm). Each person registered for at least one full day of the Congress is entitled to enrol as a member of the Nomenclature Section. Registration for the Congress should be done in advance (see http://www .ibc2011.com/Registration.htm); the confirmation received will be the evidence of eligibility for registration for the Nomenclature Section, which will start during a welcoming reception on Sunday, 17 July, at 16:00 hours at The School of Botany Building 122 on the Parkville campus; Nomenclature Section registration will continue on Monday, 18 July at 08:00 hours at the Copland Theatre. Each member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled to one personal vote in the sessions. Personal votes can neither be transferred nor accumulated; one person never receives more than one personal vote. A member of the Nomenclature Section may be the official delegate of one or more institutions, thereby carrying their votes, but no one person is allowed more than 15 votes (including his or her personal vote). Official delegates are required to submit their credentials and to collect their voting cards when registering for the Nomenclature Section. Institutions are being advised of their allocation of votes in March 2011, in accordance with Division III of the Code. INTRODUCTION

Consumer safety assessment of the EU MRLs established for methidathion

EFSA JournalVolume 8, Issue 6 1639 Reasoned OpinionOpen Access Consumer safety assessment of the EU MRLs established for methidathion European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this author First published: 04 June 2010 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1639 Correspondence: praper.mrl@efsa.europa.eu Approval date: 31 May 2010 Published date: 4 June 2010 Question number: EFSA-Q-2010-00844 On request from: European Commission AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1976. Report of the 8th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague (The Netherlands), 3–8 March 1975. ALINORM 76/24. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1978. Report of the 9th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague (The Netherlands), 14–21 February 1977. ALINORM 78/24. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1995a. Report of the 26th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague (The Netherlands), 11–18 April 1994. ALINORM 95/24. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1995b. Report of the 27th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague (The Netherlands), 24 April - 1 May 1995. ALINORM 95/24A. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1997a. Report of the 28th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague (The Netherlands), 15–20 April 1996. ALINORM 97/24. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1997b. Report of the 29th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague (The Netherlands), 7–12 April 1997. ALINORM 97/24A. CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission), 1999. Report of the 30th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague (The Netherlands), 20–25 April 1998. ALINORM 99/24. Costa L.G., 2006. Current issues in organophosphate toxicology. Clin Chim Acta. 2006 Apr; 366(1–2): 1– 13. Cal/EPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 2003. The Environmental Fate of Methidathion. March 5, 2003. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007. Reasoned opinion on the potential chronic and acute risk to consumers health arising from proposed temporary EU MRLs according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on Maximum Residue Levels of Pesticides in Food and Feed of Plant and Animal Origin. 15 March 2007. European Commission, 1996. Appendix G – Livestock Feeding Studies. 7031/VI/95 rev.4, 22 July 1996. United Kingdom, 2006. Residues Filenote COP 2006/01366: import tolerance application for Supracide (methidathion) for use as an insecticide on citrus, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and olives. Updated 12 October 2006. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2006. Registration Eligibility Decision for Methidathion. July 31, 2006. WHO/FAO, 1973. 1972 Evaluations of some pesticide residues in food. AGP:1972/M/9/1; WHO Pesticide Residues Series, No. 2, 1973, nos 223–252 on INCHEM. WHO/FAO, 1976. 1975 Evaluations of some pesticide residues in food. AGP:1975/M/13; WHO Pesticide Residues Series, No. 5, 1976, nos 314–353 on INCHEM. WHO/FAO, 1980. Pesticide residues in food: 1979 evaluations. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 20 Sup, 1980, nos 456–500 on INCHEM. WHO/FAO, 1993. Pesticide residues in food – 1992. Evaluations of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues. Part I – Residues. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 118, 1993. WHO/FAO, 1995. Pesticide residues in food – 1994. Evaluations of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues. Part I – Residues. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 131, 1995. WHO/FAO, 1998. Pesticide residues in food – 1997. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 145, 1998. WHO/FAO, 2005. Pesticide residues in food – 2004. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 178, 2005. Volume8, Issue6June 20101639 ReferencesRelatedInformation

National Register Testing of Site 41BT427, Burnet County, Texas

Between October 1 and October 19, 2007, archeologists from Geo-Marine, Inc., conducted National Register of Historic Places eligibility testing at site 41BT427 in Burnet County, Texas, under contract to the Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division. This prehistoric site was originally recorded by PBS&J during a cultural resources survey for a proposed bridge replacement project at the North Rocky Creek crossing of FM 963 (CSJ 1198-02-017). During that investigation, the site was initially identified by a series of three trenches located on the northeastern quadrant of the right-of-way. Three small, burned rock features were originally recorded in two of the trenches. During the current project by Geo-Marine, the bridge replacement area was again investigated. Thirteen trenches were dug within the project area: nine survey trenches in the northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants outside the known boundary of site 41BT427, and four trenches within the site itself in the northeast quadrant. The current investigation within site 41BT427 involved the mechanical excavation of the four trenches (29.5 linear meters) and the hand excavation of eight test units (8.94 cubic meters) within the site boundary (an additional test unit was excavated south of the site boundary). Only one definable cultural component was identified at site 41BT427. This site appears to represent an ephemeral, short-term camp with a very sparse material signature. No diagnostic material was recovered during excavation. The single feature identified consisted of a very small, disarticulated cluster of six burned rocks and a limited amount of cultural material. The general lack of cultural material and feature/artifact associations within the site hampers the ability to draw conclusions regarding site function and prehistoric activity. Due to the low artifact density and the lack of cultural features, site 41BT427 does not have the potential to make significant contributions to the knowledge of the region. Thus, site 41BT427 fails to meet the standards of Criterion D or any other significance standard required for assessing National Register eligibility. Site 41BT427 is recommended not eligible for National Register inclusion, and no further archeological investigations are recommended. In addition to site testing, survey trenching (as well as an additional test unit) within the remaining three quadrants that was not completed during the initial PBS&J cultural resources survey was conducted as a part of this Geo-Marine investigation. Based on trench observations and background research, this proposed borrow area is highly unlikely to contain archeological historic properties (36 CFR

Unsuccessful Article 14 Submissions to the Specialist Register for Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery

It is a legal requirement that all NHS consultants have their names entered on the General Medical Council (GMC)'s specialist register. Entry to the register can be obtained by two routes. The first is to obtain a Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) in a recognised specialty training programme approved by the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB). The second is by obtaining a Certificate of Eligibility for Specialist Registration (CESR) by the article 14 process.

Clinical management course for staff and associate specialist doctors

Keele University’s clinical management course has been specially developed to meet the needs of staff grade (now specialty) doctors and associate specialist (SAS) doctors in the NHS. The course is intended to help prepare these doctors for a move to consultant posts, and it helps to give a deeper insight into NHS management issues for doctors who are considering article 14 application (certificate of eligibility for specialist registration) to join the General Medical Council’s specialist register. It is not specialty specific and is built on Keele University’s experience of providing clinical management courses for specialist registrars. Before the course, which was a three …

Archeological Testing of the Engstrand Well 41WM1157, in Williamson County, Texas

Under TAC Permit 4347 Hicks & Company undertook archival research and National Register eligibility archeological testing of a historic limestone well (Site 41WM1157) in the US 79 right-of-way in Williamson County, Texas under Texas Antiquities Permit Number 4347. The project was sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), for regulatory and management purposes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Antiquities Code of Texas (13 TAC 26). Archival research was conducted in order to establish the history of ownership and land use for the property. Research revealed that the well was likely built during the 1870s by Carl Engstrand, a Swedish immigrant closely affiliated with the Palm Valley community. Testing involved mechanical excavation around the well to a depth of 2.74 meters (9 ft.) below ground surface in order to expose it and document its construction technique. Then the well was truncated and archeologists excavated the fill by hand to a depth of 3.84 meters (12.5 ft) below ground surface, screening and saving all artifacts. The remaining two meters (6 ft), unreachable by hand investigations due to the constricting interior of the well, were excavated mechanically. The artifacts from the well represent unstratified mid-twentieth century farm household debris. Neither the well nor the artifacts within the well are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or for listing as a State Archeological Landmark (SAL). A representative sample of the diagnostic artifacts and all project related records and photographs will be curated at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL).

Assessment of learning in contemporary nurse education: Do we need standardised examination for nurse registration?

In Australia and Norway final examinations to determine eligibility for registration as a nurse were discontinued during the period when nurse education moved into the higher education sector. In response to recent calls for the reintroduction of final examinations we explore the range of knowledge needs for the practice of nursing. These various forms of knowledge demand different forms of mediation and acquisition as well as assessment. There are numerous problems identified in the literature about the shortcomings of examinations as the foundation of assessing clinically based professions. There is a need to develop systems of appropriate assessment to ensure that graduates of nursing demonstrate adequate knowledge and competence to enter their profession.

Horizontal Federalism in an Age of Criminal Justice Interconnectedness

Despite their status as independent sovereigns, states increasingly exhibit a willingness to interact when it comes to crime control matters. This Article examines the two foremost examples of this phenomenon: criminal recidivist enhancement laws and sex offender registration laws. Both types of laws have been around for decades and have evolved to accommodate ex-offenders, who, consistent with constitutional freedom of movement, can (and often do) change state residences. This effort at accommodation, however, puts states in the unusual position of having to interpret and apply the criminal laws and outcomes of their fellow sovereigns. As the Article makes clear, recidivist and registration laws, while motivated by a desire to hold individuals accountable for their past misconduct and deprive them of incentives to migrate in search of a clean slate, present unique challenges and have important ramifications for our The Article begins with an overview of the means by which registration and recidivist laws take account of out-of-state prior convictions. While courts often face challenges in applying the laws to indigenous offenders, their task is made considerably more difficult when the predicate convictions occurred elsewhere. In such situations, they must construe foreign laws to determine if convictions, themselves possibly aged or evidenced by ambiguous or incomplete information, warrant consideration under their own recidivist or registration law. Part I examines the two basic approaches used today - external and internal - to make such determinations. The internal approach insists that out-of-state convictions, and any punishment attaching, satisfy the eligibility requirements of the forum state's registration or recidivist law. The external approach, on the other hand, allows such decisions to be based on the legal characterizations of their fellow sovereigns. Part II explores the practical and theoretical ramifications of interconnection, which can vary in accord with states’ use of the internal or external approach. In terms of the practical, the internal approach poses particular analytic challenges insofar as states often must undertake a difficult exercise in inter-state statutory construction. Because the approach places premium importance on local norms, without deference to how the prior conviction was treated in the foreign state, it is not uncommon for offenders to escape continued accountability. This uncertainty, in turn, can raise notice concerns for ex-offenders who must fathom (with respect to registration laws, often in a very short time period) the legal consequences of their prior conviction in their newly adopted state. Such concerns are not as pronounced in states using an external approach because, as noted, such legal consequences are pre-determined by the other state. The external approach, however, has a consequence of a different sort: potential unequal treatment of otherwise similarly situated ex-offenders. Because outcomes are allowed to hinge on how the other state would resolve the question, ex-offenders hailing from especially punitive states can suffer differentially compared both to their counterparts who enter the forum with convictions from less punitive states and indigenous ex-offenders. For individual offenders, the geographic happenstance of their criminal history in effect determines their destiny. At the same time, for society as a whole, the extreme criminal law positions of states are permitted to ripple across not just space but also time, because the laws consider convictions from years before, allowing perhaps draconian and retrograde mores to be frozen in amber and given ongoing, contemporary effect. Part III examines the theoretical implications of interconnection. Internal approach states can be seen as stalwarts of fifty-labs federalism. They make their own calls on recidivist and registration eligibility, and resist foreign state characterizations, thereby giving effect to state autonomy and diversity. External approach states, on the other hand, place premium importance on uniformity and comity. Their deferential approach, in addition to depriving the nation of a lab, has a number of subtle yet significant collateral consequences. These include: the deflection of political responsibility for the adoption of criminal law norms; the skewing of the ostensibly local character of the criminal law; and the removal of incentives for laggard states to conform their laws to the standards of their more progressive peers, possibly contributing to a race to the bottom. Finally, with more uniformity and less experimentation, come possibly diminished prospects for democratic competition, with attendant negative effects on the constitutional right of free travel.

Race, the National Register, and Cultural Resource Management: Creating an Historic Context for Postbellum Sites

The Texas Historical Commission, Council of Texas Archeologists, and representatives from local cultural resource management (CRM) firms recently discussed the role of late-19th and early-20th century sites, including their educational value and fairness in representation of diverse social groups. I consider the dialogue regarding these sites as part of a national problem regarding the interpretation of National Register eligibility, especially in the realm of CRM work. The current interpretations are dependent upon site significance and integrity, often failing to consider a site’s historical context by utilizing single-level analytical methods and disregarding regional interpretations. This results in a considerable bias in the sites that are nominated to the NRHP, as the central issues of race and historical representation and variations in site type are ignored in favor of one-sided evaluation methods and a lack of regional interpretations. To address this bias, improved communication and education within and between CRM firms, government agencies, and academic institutions are needed to re-emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary research at historic sites.

National Register Eligibility Testing of Site 41BO184, Brazoria County, Texas

Site 41BO184 is located within the right-of-way for the proposed expansion of State Highway 35 at the Oyster Creek crossing in southern Brazoria County. It was originally recorded as a multicomponent site in 1994 and was the subject of three distinct and limited archeological investigations by Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) staff. In 2003, TxDOT contracted with the Center for Archaeological Research (CAR) of The University of Texas at San Antonio to test the National Register of Historic Places and State Archeological Landmark eligibility of the site. Systematic mechanical auger borings, ten hand-excavated 1-x-1-meter test units, and Gradall scrapings helped identify a very sparse Late Prehistoric, possibly Rockport, component at the site. Although it is possible that at least some of the prehistoric artifacts come from the shell-paved driveway that cross-cut the site, it is also possible that some of the prehistoric artifacts represent in situ finds. The historic component, rich in temporally diagnostic ceramic fragments, dates to the mid-nineteenth century. The lack of intact features, the small size of the artifact assemblage, and the reduced size of the available materials, severely limits the research potential of the site. Therefore, it is recommended that site 41BO184 is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places nor does it warrant designation as a State Archeological Landmark.

Di-alkyl phosphate biomonitoring data: assessing cumulative exposure to organophosphate pesticides

The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires the evaluation of both aggregate and cumulative health risks from pesticides (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(D)(v) and (vi).) Organophosphate (OP) pesticides are the first class of chemicals to undergo FQPA mandated aggregate and cumulative assessments. In this report, summary data on biomonitoring for urinary levels of six alkyl phosphate (AP) metabolites of OPs, as reported in the initial, March 2001, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) “National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,” are compared to EPA modeled estimates of OP exposure reported in Registration Eligibility Decision documents (REDs), Interim REDs and to currently reported cumulative exposure estimates in the EPA’s Cumulative Risk Assessment of the Organophosphate Pesticides. This comparison indicates that EPA’s aggregate exposure estimates (dietary, drinking water, and non-dietary residential exposures) for many individual OPs were greater than the cumulative estimate for all OPs combined based on the CDC AP biomonitoring data. The results also suggest that EPA’s screening level assessments of OPs, while being qualitative indicators of the relative importance of various exposure sources, are not good quantitative indicators of actual exposures. However, the mean biomonitoring estimate of cumulative OP exposure appears to exceed the EPA’s subsequent preliminary estimate of cumulative OP exposure by as much as the REDs appear to overestimate the biomonitoring results. While the conservatism, tendency to overestimate exposure, in the individual REDs is readily acknowledged, the conservatism and limitations of applying currently available CDC AP biomonitoring data to evaluate human exposure to OPs are not as readily apparent. We postulate that oral absorption of non-anti cholinergic, pre-hydrolyzed OPs, sources of APs other than pesticides, and the conservative result of summing exposure from each AP at the geometric mean contribute to non-quantified overestimates of absorbed dosage from the CDC biomonitoring data reported in March 2001. CDC AP biomonitoring data may serve a useful purpose in providing an upper bound estimate of absorbed dosage for “ground truthing” aggregate exposure estimated from first tier models used in REDs, but at best may provide only a credible “target” for the complex cumulative exposure assessment models currently under development. The reliability of quantitative estimates of OP exposure levels will improve as cumulative risk exposure models are validated over time and under use conditions prevalent at the time the AP biomonitoring samples are collected. Analyses contained herein should be revisited and compared to the CDC Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals ( CDC, 2003 http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport), released to the public on January 31, 2003, and the final EPA OP Cumulative Risk Assessment