text:
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority oversees New York City's subway system, buses, railways, tunnels, and bridges, from the Triboro to the expansive Verrazano Narrows connecting Staten Island to Brooklyn. Had a terrorist destroyed the latter prior to September 11, the MTA would have had recourse to $1.5 billion in property insurance to defray the cost. Were this to happen tomorrow, the state agency would confront financial chaos. "The most insurance I could buy to protect against terrorism was $100 million," says Gary Caplan, MTA director of budgets and financial management.
As for losses above that amount, New York State taxpayers and farepayers are on the hook. Having absorbed up to $50 billion in claims following the September 11 disaster (in comparison, Hurricane Andrew cost the industry $20 million), insurers and the reinsurance companies that spread their risk are loath to put their capital on the line for future terrorist attacks. That means that companies, municipalities, and other organizations must bear much of the risk themselves on their balance sheets.
In fact, in the past weeks, thousands of companies whose commercial-property, commercial inland marine, farm, crime, and business-owners insurance policies expired on January 1 have received letters stating that the policies will not be renewed as written. While the standard property policy, for example, will still guard against the perils of fire, explosion, smoke, theft, and wind, it will not cover them if terrorism caused the problem.
Companies are left with two options: a separate terrorism policy offering modest limits of protection (up to $150 million), or an add-on to their current policies that provides marginal coverage (about $5 million) through a separate limit of protection–if the insurer is willing to offer it. The implications of such limited coverage have created quite a bit of angst.
"When we tell clients there is no more insurance beyond $150 million, they are nonplussed," says Suzanne Douglass, executive vice president of Willis Risk Solutions, the MTA's New York-based insurance broker. "'What do you mean, we can't get it?' they demand. But people are living in la-la land, thinking insurers will change their tune. It's not going to happen."
That angst is especially acute in such industries as construction and transportation, considered high risk for terrorism. But some observers fear the lack of coverage could affect the broader economy, as lenders restrict credit to businesses unable to transfer their terrorism risks. "Either they won't get a loan or the bank assuming the risk will add many basis points and/or fees to the lending rate," predicts Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the New York-based Insurance Information Institute. "It could unnecessarily put an additional drag on the economy."
Little Protection
Few blame the insurance industry for rushing for the exits, given the enormous losses caused by September 11. While the industry is in business to bear risk, terrorism is too unwieldy a foe to tackle. "There is no actuarial history from which insurers can ascertain the potential frequency and severity of terrorism risks in order to price it appropriately," explains Hartwig.
Until this past Christmas, the industry was hopeful that Congress would intervene to establish a federal safety net that would backstop overall losses for insurers and reinsurers. While the House of Representatives approved such legislation, the Senate was unable to get its bill off the floor before it adjourned for the holidays.
While the possibility of federal intervention isn't likely in the near future, some carriers have at least opted to provide the low-limit endorsement. "It's more politically palatable to offer something rather than nothing," says Gary Marchitello, managing director of the global property insurance practice at insurance broker Aon Risk Services in New York. "But that doesn't mean significant coverage will be offered."
The $5 million in coverage that is being offered is downright "paltry," complains Douglas Rousseau, director of risk management at $2.5 billion Perrier Group of America Inc., in Greenwich, Connecticut. "Companies our size want catastrophic coverage protecting against the one-time huge event, but it's just not available," he says. For the moment, however, Perrier is covered for terrorism losses–Rousseau finalized an 18-month property insurance policy last July 1.
For other companies, such as $10 billion Illinois Tool Works Inc., a Glenview, Illinois-based diversified industrial products manufacturer, the impact on premiums is more disturbing than the coverage limits. "I don't think we face substantial risk," says Richard Schmidt, director of risk management, whose insurer, FM Global, added a terrorism endorsement with a $5 million sub-limit to Illinois Tool's property/casualty policy. "We're very widespread, with about 600 facilities worldwide. Fortunately, I'm not sitting here with a Sears Tower exposure. Nevertheless, my premium increased more than 40 percent, now that the terrorism coverage is built into it."
Limiting the Limits
Such endorsements just don't cut it for organizations like the MTA, which have massive risk exposures. For them, the only salvation is the three insurance facilities–Lloyd's of London, American International Group Inc., and Berkshire Hathaway–that are offering stand-alone terrorism policies. But the price of that salvation is high, ranging from 5 percent to 10 percent of their limits (a determination based on location, type of building, and so on), with coverage limited to $50 million to $150 million.
Stacking the limits of these policies–basically, buying all three to obtain greater coverage limits–is difficult because the contract wording varies. "Some offer protection for business interruption to all clients, while others are restrictive," explains Robert Howe, managing director at insurance broker Marsh in New York. "Others have variances in the coverage language with respect to how 'terrorism' is defined. It has become difficult, though not impossible, to stack the limits."
The lack of catastrophic coverage limits is forcing Keith Kennedy, director of risk management at FPL Group Inc., a Juno Beach, Florida-based electrical utility whose property insurance policy expires in June, to make choices. "If you're offered a very little bit of insurance at a high price, it's almost a 'why bother?'" says Kennedy. "We will certainly evaluate terrorism insurance if it's available, but we may have to go bare [without insurance for terrorism]. If there is no catastrophic protection, then there's no catastrophic protection. It makes no sense to anguish over it."
Ironically, Kennedy is less concerned about FPL's two Florida nuclear facilities, although they may carry a higher risk. That's because the nuclear industry has a mutually owned insurance company, known as Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd., that would likely fund terrorism-related losses. The industry is also privy to a federally supported payout cap of $9.5 billion per incident through the Price-Anderson Act.
The MTA's Caplan figured even a modest amount of terrorism coverage was better than none. "What else could I do?" he asks. "My broker told me the best it could do was secure one-third the property insurance limits at three times the cost. And, by the way, I'd have only $100 million in terrorism coverage. Do I rest easy at night? What do you think?"
Before September 11, the MTA's property insurance policy absorbed up to $1.5 billion in property damages, minus a $15 million deductible, at a cost of $6.4 million. Now the agency has two property insurance policies, one providing $500 million of plain property coverage with a $30 million deductible for $18.6 million, the other offering $100 million in terrorism coverage with a $30 million deductible for $7.5 million. The policies were secured by the MTA's wholly-owned captive insurer, First Mutual Transportation Assurance Co., which purchased coverage from a consortium of insurers and reinsurers that included Lloyd's of London and Berkshire Hathaway.
Economic Ramifications
The insurance industry maintains that unless the government steps in at some point to share catastrophic terrorism risks, the status quo is likely to remain. "There will be pockets of coverage, geographic in nature and corresponding to certain industry groups, that will continue to be offered," says Hartwig, "but as for substantial limits of protection across the board, it will be virtually impossible to come by through much of 2002."
One bright spot is that terrorism cannot be excluded from workers' compensation insurance, because of statutory protections for workers. But its elimination from other policies could have even broader implications for certain industries, including construction, transportation, recreation, and lending, all of which complained to federal legislators in recent weeks. "Without builders' risk insurance broad enough to cover any acts of terrorism, property owners would find it difficult to qualify new projects for construction loans or permanent financing," stated Stephen Sandherr, CEO of The Associated General Contractors of America, in a letter to the Senate.
Such concerns are not unfounded, says Marchitello. "Will lenders lend for new construction or plant expansions knowing the ultimate borrower doesn't have terrorism protection? That is the question."
The American Bankers Association confirms that banks are leery. "The issue for banks is simple: weighing the probability they will get paid back," says James Chessen, the ABA's chief economist in Washington, D.C. "Anything that adds to the risk of not getting paid is something to consider. The existence of insurance generally is a very important consideration. And certainly terrorism insurance, or the lack thereof, is an element of that."
(For an indepth look at other types of insurance policies post 9/11, see CFO.com's 2002 Insurance Buyer's Guide, "Insurance at RIsk."
Sidebar: No Lender of Last Resort
Blame politics for deferring a federal safety net for insurers against terrorism losses. Although the House of Representatives succeeded in cobbling together legislation, the Senate failed to get its bill to the floor in time for the holiday recess. Trial lawyer groups and business interests squared off over tort reforms in the bill releasing companies from punitive damages in cases where their employees had committed a terrorist act.
The Senate bill sought to limit insurers' aggregate losses from terrorism to $10 billion, above which co-insurance provided by government and industry would absorb the remainder. The bill got caught in a political crossfire, with plaintiff attorney groups arguing that the business community was using the terrorism issue to advance an antitrial bar agenda. But the Association of American Trial Lawyers countered that without punitive damages, companies that knowingly hired a terrorist who later committed a crime could not be punished. "Do we really want to immunize companies that fail to perform adequate security checks of their employees?" says AATL spokesman Carlton Carl.
The irony is that insurers greatly preferred the Senate bill over the House legislation. In that bill, the government would cover 90 percent of losses exceeding $1 billion up to $100 billion. The money would be recouped by an assessment on insurance companies and/or a surcharge on policyholders. While the Senate will pick up where it left off now that Congress has resumed, getting Republicans and Democrats, much less both houses of Congress, to agree on a solution that would be supported by the insurance industry, business, and interest groups is far from certain.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
AARP Eye Center
One Give A Day
By John Briley, February 25, 2011 05:18 PM
Here's an inspiring and fascinating twist on charitable giving: A man who doesn't have a lot decided to give a little bit to a different charity every day for a year, and he set up a Web site to encourage others to give to his featured charities.
Who is he? Carlo Lorenzo Garcia, a Chicago-based actor who decided to launch his mission - Living Philanthropic - after ruminating on what it would take to give to charity every day.
He started in April 2010 DATE with a $50 donation to the Mary-Arrchie Theater Company with which he performs in Chicago. Since then, Carlo has donated amounts ranging from $1 to $40 to a huge range of organizations, from Autism Speaks and Noah's Wish to Habitat for Humanity and Harlem RBI.
As of Feb. 24, Carlo has given $3,683, and donations from his followers have totaled $9,070. He calls himself a "regular joe" who grew up on the south side of Chicago. "I don't come from money. I don't have a lot of money. Growing up, my family would scrape by, yet somehow us kids were always fed and clothed with a roof over our heads. So, I dedicate this journey to my mom for showing me that you can do so much even when you have very little." He adds that "we as youth generations" need to lead a new philanthropy movement. "Lead by example and become the change you wish to see in the world," Carlo says. To which we respond: Very, very cool!
To afford his donations, Carlo says he gave up his daily coffee purchases and cut back on "indulgent spending" - which he labels small sacrifices for the causes he supports. He also acknowledges that giving to one charity only would make more sense from an impact standpoint, but that he wanted to highlight as many groups as he could in one year.
So, who's up for launching their own daily giving program? Share your thoughts on Carlo's mission here!


text:
Mega Man #28
"The Return."
Mega Man is back! After wrapping up a history-making adventure with his pal Sonic the Hedgehog, Mega Man has returned to all new danger and excitement in Mega-City! Meanwhile, Dr. Wily has sixteen Robot Masters under his command, not to mention the mysterious Break Man - so what has got the evil doctor so terrified? Find out as the full might of the ancient alien Ra Moon is unleashed upon an unsuspecting world! The prelude to the next Mega Man epic "Blackout: The Curse of Ra Moon" starts here with an ending that will leave you breathless! Featuring an up-close-and-personal variant cover by artist Tristan Jones!


text:
And it's a joke. Seriously, I can't describe it any other way. Look at the following districts – go to http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/ and look up Plan C125 – and tell me how they can possibly satisfy any rational legal argument for compactness or communities of interest. Let's start with CD36, which forms a giant Gateway-style arch from Super Neighborhood 22 up into East Texas and down around to Orange County.
Let's continue with CD35, which basically snakes along I-35 from the northern reaches of Travis County to the southern end of Bexar County.
Speaking of I-35, if you drive it through Travis County, you change Congressional districts no fewer than seven times.
Here's CD21, which spreads tentacles into both Travis and Bexar from the west.
You really have to zoom in on the Bexar County portions of CD21 to fully appreciate its ridiculousness. The word "fractal" comes to mind in some places. As for Travis County, it gets split into five districts under this plan. When I said that the Republicans would put a piece of Travis into every single district if they could, I wasn't kidding.
Here's the GOP's attempt to save Blake Farenthold by turning his district into one that's more Hill Country and less Gulf Coast.
There's some similar juju with HD34, which I guess is supposed to be the Aaron Pena Special.
For what it's worth, CD27 becomes a fairly strong Republican district, according to 2008 election data. Here's how it stacks up against some current GOP districts:
District Incumbent Obama % Houston % ========================================== 06 Barton 41.67 44.29 10 Mc Caul 43.81 44.14 12 Granger 42.50 43.10 21 Smith 42.51 40.48 23 Canseco 47.19 49.27 25* Doggett 42.40 43.63 27 Farenthold 40.78 46.28 31 Carter 42.61 42.47 32 Sessions 43.79 43.63 33 Open 42.64 43.90 34 Open 59.11 62.85 35* Open 60.70 61.16 36 Open 41.02 47.46
Greg makes the case that CD27 is really a "new" district, much as CD25 is – it may contain Lloyd Doggett's house, but it's not his district in any meaningful sense – and that Farenthold is actually in CD34, with Doggett likely to aim for CD35, where he may or may not get knocked off by a San Antonio hopeful. I'll defer to him on that, I'm just going by the existing district numbers. Some of these Republican districts are more purple than I'd have expected, and much as is the case with State House districts, it may be that in a cycle or two a few of these guys could be imperiled. It's harder for me to say with such bigger districts, but the possibility certainly exists. Honestly, it's a bit hard to believe this map represents a genuine consensus among Republicans, as there's plenty more they could have done to make most incumbents safer while warding off the more obvious VRA-related complaints. But we'll see.
Anyway, it goes on and on, with no new minority opportunity district for the D/FW area in sight, and some examples of what seems to be clearcut retrogression – CD27 goes from a district with a 59.4 SSVR percentage to one with 37.2%. I suppose you can claim that CD34 makes up for that, but still. One hopes that means this map would be a non-starter with the Justice Department. In fact, Rep. Marc Veasey, whose alternate map I showed yesterday, issued the following statement about this map:
Last week, Rep. Veasey offered the Fair Texas Plan, a congressional map that provides electoral opportunity for the Texans who earned our state four additional congressional districts and meets the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Today, Chairman Seliger and Chairman Solomons presented Texans with their proposed congressional map.
"This map is the very definition of an unfair and illegal congressional plan, one that was constructed behind closed doors with reckless disregard for the testimony of Texans who asked for a plan that adheres to the Voting Rights Act and preserves communities of interest," Rep. Veasey explained. "The Seliger-Solomons Plan is a slap in the face of minority voters responsible for 90% of Texas growth in the last decade."
An initial review of the proposed plan clearly indicates that it is retrogressive and creates only 10 effective minority opportunity districts out of 36 compared to the 11 effective districts in the current 32 member plan.
"In fact, preserving only 11 effective minority opportunity districts when the state now has four additional seats due to minority population growth would still be retrogressive, and I have no doubt that a plan that has only 10 effective minority opportunity districts runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act," Rep. Veasey said.
Across the state, this discriminatory plan splits and packs minority communities. Nowhere is that illegal scheme more apparent than Tarrant and Dallas Counties. Veasey pointed out that once again, the Southeast Ft. Worth community he represents is separated from other areas of African American growth in Tarrant County and placed in a district that would be controlled by suburban Anglo voters. This time, the North Side Hispanic community is exiled to a Denton County district and Latino voters in Dallas-Ft. Worth are split into at least seven different districts.
"A plan that splits and packs the 2.1 million African Americans and Latinos in Dallas and Tarrant Counties to provide us only one effective voice in Congress is not just illegal, it's wrong," concluded Rep. Veasey.
MALDEF has a similar reaction.
A coalition of Latino groups which submitted partial state maps for congressional districts blasted the Republican plan. "The Solomons-Seliger map does not increase the number of Latino opportunity congressional districts despite the fact that 65% of the State's growth over the past decade was comprised of Latinos," said MALDEF's Nina Perales. "Instead, the map gerrymanders more than nine million Latinos in Texas to make sure that we have no more electoral opportunity than we did in 1991."
And as of Tuesday evening, the issue is now on the call with a hearing scheduled for Friday. In the meantime, another lawsuit has been filed.
Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed congressional redistricting because he said it neglects Hispanic population growth in Harris County and elsewhere in Texas.
"Personally, the map is fine with me," said Green, whose district remains largely the same. "But the reason I'm not totally happy with the plan is because I don't think it fairly treats Harris County — and particularly the Hispanic community in Harris County. I don't think it recognizes the huge increase in the Hispanic population."
Green said that he and three Democratic House members from Texas who represent large Hispanic populations – Reps. Charlie Gonzalez of San Antonio, Silvestre Reyes of El Paso and Lloyd Doggett of Austin, have filed suit in federal and state courts in Austin seeking court-ordered creation of two Hispanic congressional districts in Harris County with more than 60 percent Hispanic population.
Just something to consider here: After the 1991 redistricting, subsequent litigation led to the redrawing of several districts, for which special elections had to be held in 1996. After the 2001 redistricting and 2003 re-redistricting, subsequent litigation also led to the redrawing of several districts, for which special elections had to be held in 2006. Point being, whatever map we have in 2012 is unlikely to be the map we still have in 2020.
Anyway, take a look at this map and react as appropriate. I have 2010 electoral data here, and Greg has further analysis here and here. PoliTex, Trail Blazers, and the Trib have more.


text:
[David Donley] has wanted to make a LED matrix for a while now, and has decided to finally pull the trigger — after all, that many LEDs certainly aren't cheap!
He's using a set of 16 Adafruit 8×8 NeoPixel LED Matrices (almost $600 worth of LEDs) and a BeagleBone Black to control them. To mount the LED matrices he bought a sheet of 6061-T6 aluminum for two purposes — one to act as a giant heatsink, and two, to look cool. All he had to do was drill some holes in the sheet for the connectors, and then use 3M 300LSE double-sided adhesive to stick the NeoPixels to the surface. The result is a border-less display that looks clean and professional.
To power the array he's using a 5V 90A power supply — at full brightness these LEDs can consume around 325W, or 65A at 5V! Taking notes from the opensource LEDscape code on GitHub he's made his own software to control the display — stick around after the break to see it in action.
Continue reading "Aluminum LED Matrix Looks Professionally Made"


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Show All Answers
The first thing you should do is check our online resources for the answer to your question. Our interactive mapping site, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and the Code of Ordinances can help answer many questions related to zoning and regulations.
If you cannot find what you are looking for, please contact the Planning Department at 910-692-4003 and speak with our staff before submitting a formal information request.
In addition to the information we provide here on the site, the Town maintains an e-mail list that we call our 'Sunshine List'. The list receives notifications about upcoming hearings and decisions. If you would like to be added to the Sunshine List, please sign up for the website notification and click the Notification Center checkbox.
Meeting agendas and Minutes of Town Council and volunteer board meetings are posted on the Town website regularly.
TARPO (Triangle Area Rural Plannning Organizations) is primarily involved when a potential site's transportation needs impact the region, along with the NCDOT.
RLUAC (Regional Land Use Advisory Commission) monitors and has input on sites that may impact Fort Bragg
US Fish & Wildlife manages the regional habitat for a number of endangered species that make their home in the Sandhills. US Fish and Wildlife
The UDO applies not only to the area within the Town limits but also the Town's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Other than the UDO section, the Code of Ordinances applies within Town limits only. For a map of Town limits and the ETJ, please view the Town's interactive mapping site.
You can find a complete zoning map for the new UDO below, while referring to the explanations of zoning codes in this section of the UDO. We also encourage you to use our interactive mapping service to explore zoning in the Town and its Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
View up-to-date signage ordinance.
Please contact the local US Fish & Wildlife Service office regarding development in areas where an endangered red cockaded woodpecker habitat may be located.
The Planning Board is a volunteer board supported by Planning Department staff that advises the Southern Pines Town Council on planning matters. It conducts studies related to the Town's growth, development, and redevelopment, and makes recommendations to the Town Council based on its findings and on the experience of its members. It also interprets the standards of the zoning ordinances and hears individual cases by citizens such as appeals, requests and variance petitions (requests to deviate from typical zoning or regulation standards). The Board is made up of seven members, five of whom are residents of the Town proper and two of whom live in the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). You can get involved by applying to be a member of the Board and/or by attending the monthly Board meeting, where you can find out what's currently happening in the Town's development and have the chance to voice your opinions. The Board meets the second to last Thursday of every month at 6:00 pm at the Douglass Community Center, 1185 W Pennsylvania Avenue. When a seat on the Board becomes vacant, Town Council will consider all applications and notify you if you have been selected to join the Board.
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) consists of staff members from Planning, Public Works, Fire, Inspections and Utilities. TRC meetings are held weekly at the Community Development Building, 801 SE Service Road, to review site plan submittals and provide consolidated feedback. Please contact the Planning Department at (910) 692-4003 for more information.


text:
This is not an offer for credit and should be used for estimation purposes only based on the information you provided. You should not base your decision on this estimate alone. Title, registration, tax and other fees, and personal circumstances such as employment status and personal credit history, were not considered in the calculations.
Front - 7.8 in. (198 mm) disc
Rear - 6.3 in. (160 mm) disc
Front - WP, AER 35 fully adjustable air fork; 8.5 in. (215 mm) travel
Rear - WP monoshock; 10.6 in. (270 mm) travel


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Mayor John Tecklenburg and city of Charleston leaders remain in close communication with federal, state and regional officials including representatives of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), the U.S. Coast Guard and the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) on the situation related to the coronavirus.
In addition, city officials are working to review and update city plans, policies and procedures to reflect all current recommendations and best practices.
For the latest on the city's preparations please visit, https://www.charleston-sc.gov/2408/City-of-Charleston-Coronavirus-Updates.
And for answers to many frequently asked questions, please see our City of Charleston Coronavirus FAQ.
There is currently no vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus. However, as a reminder, CDC always recommends everyday preventive actions to help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases, including:
Business & Neighborhood Services has developed a COVID-19 resource list for the Charleston community to include essential resources, small business support, and recreation/education/entertainment resources, as well as opportunities to donate and volunteer to help those impacted by the coronavirus.
Those with questions about COVID-19 can call the DHEC Care Line at 1-855-472-3432. Staff is answering calls from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. seven days a week.


text:
Batik Frou Pants - Isya
Frou Frou Frou !
These Klassik Batik Frou Pants are extremely comfortable, easy to wear and just makes wearing pants a party. You'll love it. Made of 100% cotton batik. Limited in print.
- has pockets
- elastic waistband
All around waist - 27 inch / 68cm , (maximum stretch 41 inch / 104cm)
All around hips - 42 inch /107cm
Length - 34.5 inch / 88 cm
**FREE SIZE Good for a size S and M for a larger size checkout the BIG GIRL Frou Pants.
Care: Machine or hand wash. Put in a laundry mesh before putting it into the washing machine for better care.
* Photo of pants on model is just for illustrative purpose.


text:
How do I obtain a replacement remote control?
You can order a replacement remote control from any Epson parts distributor.
Published: Oct 12, 2017
Was this helpful? Thank you for the feedback!
Thank you for your interest in Epson. To subscribe and receive promotional emails, please visit Epson Global to find your local site.


text:
Sessegnon rescues Black Cats
Stephane Sessegnon got Sunderland out of jail as they fought back to snatch a 2-2 draw against Fulham.
The Londoners led 2-0 after 35 minutes through Dimitar Berbatov's audacious penalty and Sascha Riether's close-range finish.
However, Craig Gardner, who had conceded the spot-kick, dragged the Black Cats back into it when he too converted a penalty before the break and Sessegnon prevented his side from slipping to a fourth successive Barclays Premier League defeat when he fired home with 20 minutes remaining.
Both sides could have won it in a frenetic conclusion with Adam Johnson furious not to be awarded a third penalty of the afternoon when his shot appeared to strike substitute Emmanuel Frimpong's arm but they had to make do with a point apiece.
Martin Jol, whose Fulham side arrived on Wearside three points better off than their hosts, could be forgiven for thinking they should have been leaving with a victory but the Black Cats were just about value for their draw after a woeful stat to the game.
Sunderland desperately needed a win after taking just one point from their last four games but for more than half an hour they looked painfully incapable of achieving it.
They found themselves in deep trouble by the time 35 minutes had elapsed and worryingly for manager Martin O'Neill, Fulham barely had to break sweat to claim their advantage.
They took the lead with 16 minutes gone when Gardner, to his astonishment and that of the locals, was adjudged to have tripped Ashkan Dejagah inside the box with referee Mark Halsey taking an eternity to point to the spot.
Berbatov's execution from 12 yards was little short of outrageous as he stuttered up to the ball before side-footing it to the left of keeper Simon Mignolet, who was rooted to the spot as he attempted to second-guess the Bulgarian.
It could have been worse for the Black Cats nine minutes later when Dejagah got in on the left, only to fire across goal, but the respite was temporary.
Johnson's 35th-minute corner was cleared by, of all people, Berbatov and as the home side slept, Fulham broke at pace and in numbers before Mignolet could only parry Dejagah's shot from a tight angle to Riether, who gleefully tapped home.
Sunderland, who had gone close through John O'Shea's second-minute header, were in complete disarray but were handed a way back into the game within two minutes.
Central defender Philippe Senderos literally got to grips with striker Danny Graham as the pair challenged for a ball over the top and Mr Halsey awarded a second penalty to equal surprise.
Where Berbatov had opted for guile, Gardner chose power to smash a rising shot - his side's first on target - past Mark Schwarzer to give them hope.
The home side were instantly rejuvenated as they set about the task of restoring parity and Sessegnon might have levelled with a minute of the first half remaining when he unleashed a right-foot shot which Schwarzer bundled around the post.
O'Neill's men headed for the dressing room at least having taken the edge off the manager's half-time team-talk but knowing they needed to improve drastically if they were to turn the game around.
They might have been back on level terms within two minutes of the restart when Steven Fletcher and Graham combined for the fist time of note in the game but the former Swansea frontman scuffed his shot tamely at Schwarzer.
Berbatov blasted high and wide from distance after finding space on the right with 49 minutes gone but the visitors continued to pose the greater threat with Berbatov in imperious form.
Alfred N'Diaye went close twice within a minute, firing just too high from distance and then heading well over Schwarzer's crossbar, but the Black Cats were starting to cause problems on a sustained basis.
The game would have effectively been over had Mignolet not raced from his line to block Berbatov's effort after Bryan Ruiz had played him in with a lofted pass and the save proved crucial within seconds when Sessegnon drilled home from 15 yards after the ball broke invitingly for him.
Fletcher was inches away from getting a touch to Gardner's driven 75th-minute cross but Berbatov passed up a glorious opportunity to win it seconds later when he shot weakly at Mignolet.
Johnson was convinced Frimpong had handled his 79th-minute drive and it took a point-blank block by Brede Hangeland to deny Fletcher a headed winner but Sunderland were at last able to end their damaging losing run.
Source: PA
Source: PA


text:
October Baby and Doonby
Movies that deal with the sanctity of life are suddenly in the news. One of these, the long anticipated independent film "Doonby," is scheduled to open in theaters later this year. And another one, "October Baby," opens in theaters today, Friday, March 23.
Both of these films delve deeply and fearlessly into an issue that the entertainment industry has rarely been brave enough to tackle.
But of course, the biggest question is, how do they handle that issue? As I've said more than once, Christian filmmakers must always remember that a movie needs to be a movie, not a sermon. Movies reach people not by preaching at them, but by telling stories - stories that resonate with us and move us.
And that's what these filmmakers are doing. They tell stories about people whose lives have been deeply, permanently affected by abortion. And in doing so, they remind us of the human dimension of an issue that's too often treated as nothing more than a political football.
In "October Baby," we have the story of Hannah, a college student suddenly hit with earth-shattering news. Not only is she adopted, but her biological mother had tried to abort her. Her overprotective adoptive parents had tried to shield her from the truth, but the lingering health problems caused by the procedure finally force them to tell her what happened.
The devastating news propels Hannah on a journey to learn more about her origins, but she finds out even more than she bargained for.
Hannah's cinematic story was inspired by the real-life story of Gianna Jessen. Gianna was born with cerebral palsy after a botched abortion and has become a celebrated pro-life speaker. After watching "October Baby," Giann said that watching the film was a healing experience for her.
For those of us who haven't been through anything like what Gianna has, the film is a valuable glimpse at experiences that we can hardly begin to imagine. It raises awareness of the unseen person who is always involved in an abortion, and asks us to identify with that person in a way that we never have before.
But another one of "October Baby's" strengths is that it doesn't present only a single perspective. Hannah talks with a nurse involved with her abortion. She learns about a clinic bombing that affected that nurse's life.
The film, you see, doesn't do any demonizing; it shows the pain that surrounds this issue for everybody, from the abortion-minded mother to the adoptive parents dealing with the fallout of her decision.
As I mentioned, "October Baby," which is rated PG-13 for mature themes, opens today. Come to BreakPoint.org, and we'll link you to the movie's website so you can see if it's playing at a theater near you. Then go and see this strong yet sensitive depiction of the human side of abortion, and take your friends.
As "October Baby" and "Doonby" show, a good story can do so much - even more than a sermon or a lecture - to reach people and help them look at life in a whole new way.
And we Christians would do well to support films and filmmakers that do just that.


text:
Posted by Editoress on 10/23/08
The Hub/Devinci Cyclocross Team - Mid-Season and Nationals Report
Courtesy The Hub Bicycle Shop
The first half of the cyclocross season has been a good one for The Hub/Devinci Cyclocross team. All four riders, Sarah Lynch, Erik Box, Peter Mogg and the newest recruit Christina Bouchard have put on impressive performances to date. Results so far include multiple podiums, series leaders and even a new national champion.
In the U17 Women's category, Sarah has gone undefeated so far and leads her category at the midpoint of the season. In the elite women's category, Christina has finished on the podium 3 times and sits in 4th overall. Erik has finished on the podium 4 times and is leading the elite men's series. Peter, like Sarah, has won all of his races this season as well and sits in first overall for the Master 1 men's series.
On October 9th, Peter, Erik, and Assistant Team Manager, Alex Sanna made their way out to Edmonton, Alberta to challenge for this year's Canadian National Championships. The trip was a successful one and a great learning experience for both Peter and Erik. They arrived two days before the championship race on Saturday and a bonus race, the Jim Horner Classic UCI race on Sunday. This gave the riders time to ride the course in preparation and get adjusted to the slight time difference.
The same course was used for both races. It was a long (3.1km), fast, mostly grass loop with a few tight corners and a fun bowl section with lots of ups and downs. Nothing too crazy, but not a lot of recovery either. First up on Saturday was Peter riding in the 50 minute, Master (30-39) Men's race. Peter rode with the same might he has been showing all season long. He took the holeshot, gained a small gap and never looked back. He extended his lead every lap right up to the finish line winning his first National Cyclocross Championship (a href=http://www.canadiancyclist.com/races08/cross_nats/partfive/index.htm target=_blank>Photos) with a lead of over a minute.
Next was Erik in the Elite Men's 60 minute race. The elite men's field was stacked this year with many top riders from across the country. Erik definitely had his work cut out for him. He started the race strong, getting into a small group within the top 15. Half way through the race, after a couple of crashes and dropping back Erik decided to call it a day and save something for the next day's race.
Sunday was the Jim Horner Classic UCI race. Peter was first up again in the late morning. Today though, he had a new National Champion's jersey to wear, and a small hangover from his celebrations the night before. Despite not feeling too great he rode the same way he did the day before. Taking the prime on the first lap and running away with the win.
Erik's race took place in the afternoon. After collecting himself the night before Erik was ready to do battle. Erik had a great start and rode strong for the whole race, ending up 20th. A much better day for Erik than the previous one.
All together it was a very successful trip. With the tremendous support Alex provided, Erik gained a lot of experience racing at a high level and Peter brought home two more wins, including an amazing National Championship.
Look out for The Hub/Devinci Cyclocross team to continue their success in the second half of cyclocross season. Including the Toronto International Cyclocross Races in Etobicoke on November 8th and 9th and the Ontario Provincial Cyclocross Championships in Toronto on November 23rd.
Return to Canadian Cyclist homepage | Back to Top |


text:
Click her to view Property Maintenance Code
Show All Answers
Beginning in March 2017, City Council set a Strategic Plan goal of "Redevelopment of Downtown" during their annual retreat. Within that goal, the Council also established the creation of a comprehensive Downtown Master Plan as one of the goal objectives. In April 2017, the Council appointed a Downtown Steering Committee (DTSC) comprised of a number of Downtown stakeholders, tenants and city staff to begin work on the master plan. The consulting firm of Freese and Nichols was hired to work with the DTSC and associated subcommittees on the master plan development for Council consideration and approval. The DTSC and city staff worked with Freese and Nichols for over a year, and recommended the 13-point plan to the City Council in August 2018.
In September 18, 2018, the Wichita Falls City Council approved recommendations of the DTSC and directed staff to begin implementation of those approved recommendations. One of the recommendations approved by City Council included enhanced property maintenance in the defined greater downtown area. Upon City Council approval, staff was directed to seek a greater downtown property maintenance code (PMC), which ultimately included the development of a Vacant Structure Registry Ordinance (VSRO) as a key element, from among various alternatives presented to help establish a higher level of property maintenance in the greater downtown area. This enhanced maintenance is designed to help prevent further deterioration and neglected maintenance of buildings and properties that have plagued downtown for decades.
Initial committee/staff work on the PMC/VSRO began in February 2019, but due to a vacancy in the Development Services Director position beginning shortly thereafter, progress on the code stalled. Additionally, in September 2019, the DTSC charge from City Council of developing a Downtown Master Plan had ended, and the committee effectively "sunsetted".
Following the hiring of a new director in September 2019, staff re-established a working group of Downtown property owners, the Director of Downtown Wichita Falls, Inc., Planning Commission members and city staff to review previous work on the PMC/VSRO and finalize an ordinance for Council consideration and future implementation. The new working group began work in January 2020, but public meetings to discuss the proposed ordinances stalled due to the COVID-19 crisis. On December 1, 2020, staff and the working group held a virtual forum to present the ordinance and answer any questions from downtown property owners and/or the general public. Questions from the forum and subsequent feedback following the meeting was generally positive and questions were minimal.
The Wichita Falls City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 2, 2021, which establishes a Downtown Property Maintenance District by adopting portions of the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code for the greater downtown area. The ordinance will begin implemented on October 1, 2021.
The property maintenance code in the greater downtown area is intended to be applied only to non-residential properties that comprise the greater downtown area.
The PMC seeks to reach and maintain property compliance by:
The ordinance consists primarily of Chapter 3 of International Property Maintenance Code (IMPC) which guides exterior maintenance of a structure. Although the International Property Maintenance Code in its entirety regulates many other aspects of property maintenance, the focus from previous recommendations and input has been primarily on exterior maintenance for the downtown area. The included IMPC sections cover areas of property maintenance that are not covered in current City ordinances and regulations.
The property maintenance code in the greater downtown area is intended to be applied only to non-residential properties that comprise the Greater Downtown Area as defined in the Ordinance. Click here for a map of the Greater Downtown Area.
October 1, 2021
A brief description of the sections of Chapter 3 of the IMPC that are included in the proposed ordinance are listed below:
Section 301
Section 302
Section 304
Please click here for NotifyMe


text:
Oliver was anxious all the time. He demonstrated compulsive behavior, and he howled every time his parents left him alone at home. Oliver was a dog - a Bernese Mountain Dog.
But he, like many animals, displayed some amazingly human psychological traits. That was the inspiration for Laurel Braitman's new book. It's called "Animal Madness." It looks at the mental states and behaviors of animals and how they sometimes mirror our own. Laurel Braitman joins me now from KQED in San Francisco. Welcome.
LAUREL BRAITMAN: Thank you so much for having me.
GONYEA: So you begin the book by talking about your dog, Oliver. How long did you have Oliver?
BRAITMAN: We had Oliver for three years.
GONYEA: And what happened?
BRAITMAN: My ex-husband and I had a wedding to go to in South Carolina, and we left him with a human he really liked - our downstairs neighbor. But our neighbor had to go to the farmer's market and left him alone for about two hours. And Oliver just panicked and ended up pushing a window air-conditioning unit out of the way and chewing a hole through the metal screen, holding a sash up and then jumping out of our apartment. And we lived on the third floor of a brownstone.
And he survived, which was, in a lot of ways, miraculous. But a year after that, he developed bloat during the middle of an anxiety attack. And the damage to his internal organs was so extreme that we were forced to put him down.
GONYEA: You did learn something from this, and it set you on a path toward kind of trying to find out what this is when an animal - in this case, an animal that you owned, had such troubles.
BRAITMAN: He really cracked open my world. And he really set me on a path of seven years of research in historical archives, speaking to everyone from dog trainers to neuroscientists, trying to put together the story, which is can other animals be mentally ill? And if so, how similar is it to our human forms of mental illness?
GONYEA: You don't just write about dogs. You write about gorillas who've been neglected and then who have trouble connecting to other gorillas once they grow up. How do you think understanding this kind of behavior helps us maybe even understand humans?
BRAITMAN: It helps a lot. The gorillas at Boston's Franklin Park Zoo, for example, have a human psychiatrist. He treated Gigi, an elderly female gorilla at the Franklin Park Zoo, for what he believed is a panic disorder, PTSD, and a mood disorder.
And what he said was that it was very, very similar to diagnosing these issues in his human patients. He couldn't necessarily do an oral interview. But so much of how he diagnoses people who wind up in his office is through observation.
GONYEA: Is anthropomorphizing animal behavior like that maybe a distraction, though, to maybe getting to what's really going on?
BRAITMAN: I think that we can anthropomorphize well or we can anthropomorphize poorly. And recognizing suffering or something like an obsessive-compulsive disorder, whether that's a dog compulsively chasing his tail or a mouse who's compulsively washing her paws, this can be similar to humans also engaging in OCD behaviors.
Many of these things are grooming behaviors gone awry. So taking care of ourself is a really healthy animal activity. The problem is that when we start to do it to a point where it interrupts our normal life.
GONYEA: In the book, you talk a lot about how we can understand animal behavior by looking at it through the lens of human behavior. What about - what about the opposite? How does this research help us to understand humans?
BRAITMAN: Well, first of all, what I learned was that almost everything that we know about the unhinged human mind, we learned from watching other animals. So everything from a concept of emotional resilience, which really stems from Ivan Pavlov's work in dogs in the early 20th century, to a lot of what we've learned about the kinds of things that infants need for healthy development, we learned from watching monkeys. A monkey who has been denied affection just won't become a healthy adult. So those are just some examples.
But really, almost everything that cheers up your dog is also going to cheer you up. So things like exercise and if you're a social animal, getting to know another social animal who may be a little bit more emotionally healthy than you is really helpful. And that doesn't even have to be the same species as you. So, you know, goats can cheer up dogs and tortoises can cheer up hippos. It's not just the stuff of Internet forwards and memes is what I discovered.
GONYEA: I wonder, how has writing this book changed the way you interact with animals, if it has?
BRAITMAN: Well, first of all, I'm a really weird zoo-goer. You can be like every other person there, which is, first, you know, we always pull out our hand and we do, like, a jaunty open-palmed human hello, as if they're going to wave back to us. And then we pull out the camera phone. And then we nudge the person next to us. And we say, look, they're just like us. And then we keep walking on.
But actually, if you want a slightly more meaningful encounter, you should try to be a slightly more entertaining person. And if you do something like - you take off your shoes, for example. A lot of apes want to see your toes. A lot of animals will be interested if you hold up a young infant to the glass.
At the Bronx Zoo, according to the docents, the gorillas' favorite day of the year is Halloween, when adults and kids come to the zoo dressed in costume. All the gorillas come up to the glass and they're curious because for one day out of the year we're interesting. That's just one tiny example. I have so many in the book of all of the ways that this work surprised me into more complex views of the creatures around me.
GONYEA: All right. Laurel Braitman. Her new book is called "Animal Madness: How Anxious Dogs, Compulsive Parrots And Elephants In Recovery Help Us Understand Ourselves." Laurel, thank you.
BRAITMAN: Thank you so much for having me.
MIIKE SNOW: (Singing) I change shapes just to hide in this place, but I'm still - I'm still an animal. Nobody knows it, but me. When I slip...
GONYEA: You're listening to WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
This article was published in the July 2014 issue of Construction Specifier. It is currently posted on ConstructionSpecifier.com.
The 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design went into effect in March 2012, but there are several requirements that continue to surprise architects and specifiers.
This article examines four particular changes related to doors on an accessible route:
- door hardware must now operate with 22.2 N (5 lb) of force—a limit most panic hardware does not meet;
- any low-energy automatic operators actuated by a motion sensor must meet the safety requirements for a full-powered automatic operator—possibly including safety mats and guide rails;
- bottom rails of manual swinging doors must be at least 254 mm (10 in.) high, and no hardware may protrude from the push side within the bottom 254 mm (10 in.); and
- automatic operators on doors that do not provide proper egress-side maneuvering clearance for a manual door must have standby power.
Some of these issues are specific to the 2010 ADA, while others are also addressed by International Code Council (ICC) A117.1, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. This standard is referenced by the International Building Code (IBC), International Fire Code (IFC), and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101, Life Safety Code, for doors on an accessible route.
Operable force for door hardware
An editorial change was made to the 2010 ADA to limit the operable force for door hardware to 22.2 N (5 lb). Editorial changes are normally used to address errors or make clarifications that do not affect the scope or application of the code requirements. These changes do not go through the normal code development process (i.e. committee hearings and opportunities for public comment). In other words, this change was unexpected.
In the 1991 edition of ADA, door hardware was required to have:
a shape that is easy to grasp, and does not require tight grasping, tight pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate.
This is the same language currently included in A117.1. No force limitation was mentioned with regard to the operation of hardware.
The 2010 edition of ADA changed the section that applies to door hardware, by referring to Paragraph 309.4–Operation:
Operable parts shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate operable parts shall be 5 pounds (22.2 N) maximum.
By referencing Paragraph 309.4, a limit for the operational force of hardware was established.
Conflicts and clashes
This change created conflicts with other codes and standards, and even within the 2010 ADA standards. For example, in ADA, section 404.2.9 addresses door and gate opening force – the force required to physically open the door. This section states the 22.2-N (5-lb) limit on opening force does not apply to the force required to release the latchbolts. This implies the allowable force required to release latchbolts could be greater than the 22.2-N (5-lb) opening force. The U.S. Access Board unofficially acknowledged there was a conflict between the opening force section and the operational force required by reference, but to date the standards have not been modified.
Another conflict lies with IBC, IFC, and NFPA 101, for which panic hardware is required to operate with a maximum of 66 N (15 lb) of force to release the latch. In an attempt to establish a level of operational force aligned with other codes and standards, a change proposal was submitted for the 2015 edition of ICC A117.1. If approved, the proposal would establish a limit of 66 N (15 lb) maximum for hardware operated by a forward, pushing, or pulling motion, and 3 N-m (28 inch-pounds) maximum for hardware operated by a rotational motion.
Additionally, the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) includes language virtually identical to the 2010 ADA operational force requirements, and requires hardware to operate with 22.2 N (5 lb) of force, maximum. However, the code contains conflicting language in Section 1008.1.10–Panic and Fire Exit Hardware, which requires panic hardware to operate with a maximum of 66 N (15 lb) of force.
Given the change to CBC and the delay in addressing the conflict within the 2010 ADA standards, there are projects where the 22.2-N (5-lb) limit is being enforced for both lever-operated and panic hardware. For each project, a decision must be made regarding whether to use hardware meeting the requirements of IBC (and its referenced standard, ICC A117.1), or whether to specify hardware that meets the 22.2-N (5-lb) limit to avoid a conflict with ADA standards.
Actuators for automatic operators
From a codes and standards perspective, there are three basic types of automatic operators for swinging doors:
- power-assist;
- low-energy; and
- full-power.
Power-assist operators reduce the opening force so the door can be manually opened more easily, but some manually applied force is still necessary. These operators are usually activated by pushing or pulling the door, although occasionally a wall-mounted actuator is employed to reduce the force only for users who need that feature.
Low-energy operators are often used when the door will be opened manually by some users and automatically by others. The doors are subject to limitations on opening speed and force to curtail the generation of kinetic energy and the potential for injury. Further, they must be operated by a 'knowing act,' as described later in this article.
Due to these limits, most doors with low-energy operators are not required to have safety sensors, control mats, or guide rails. Both power-assist and low-energy operators must comply with American National Standards Institute/Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association (ANSI/BHMA) A156.19, Power-assist and Low-energy-operated Doors.
Full-power operators are typically found on high-use openings like the entrance to a grocery store or department store. These operators are not subject to the same restrictions on speed and force, and safety sensors or control mats and guide rails are required to prevent the doors from opening if someone is in the path of the door swing. Full-power operators must comply with ANSI/BHMA A156.10, Standard for Power-operated Pedestrian Doors.
The 2002 edition of ANSI/BHMA A156.19 introduced a requirement for power-assist and low-energy-power-operated doors to be activated by a 'knowing act,' and this requirement carries forward to the 2013 standard. The 'knowing act' method may be:
- a push-plate actuator or non-contact switch mounted on the wall or jamb;
- the act of manually pushing or pulling a door; or
- an access control device like a card reader, keypad, or keyswitch.
The A156.19 standard also makes recommendations regarding the mounting location of a knowing act switch. Actuator switches should be located:
- a maximum of 3.7 m (12 ft) from the center of the door (0.3 to 1.5 m [1 to 5 ft] is preferred)—when further, the recommended increased hold-open time is one additional second per 0.3 m (1 ft) of distance;
- where the switch remains accessible when the door is opened, and the user can see the door when activating the switch;
- in a location where the user would not be in the path of the moving door; and
- at an installation height of 864 mm (34 in.) minimum and 1219 mm (48 in.) maximum above the floor.
The 2010 ADA and ICC A117.1 contain requirements pertaining to the actuators for automatic doors in addition to what is included in the referenced standard. Clear floor space for a wheelchair must be provided adjacent to the actuator, and beyond the arc of the door swing. The mounting height is variable, depending on the reach range associated with the switch location. However, the range recommended by ANSI/BHMA standards is acceptable for most applications. Actuators must not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate, and the operating force is limited to 22.2 N (5 lb) maximum.
Stepping into the field of a motion sensor is not considered a knowing act. If automatic operation via a motion sensor is desired, automatic doors must comply with the standard for full power operators—ANSI/BHMA A156.10, instead of A156.19. This means even though the door may have a low-energy operator, it has to meet the same requirements as a full-power operator, including the safety sensors or control mats and guide rails.
Typically 762 mm (30 in.) high, guide rails are required on the swing side of each door. For some locations, the need for guide rails may mean motion sensor operation is not feasible. When certain criteria are met, walls may be used in place of guide rails. When doors are installed across a corridor, guide rails are not required if the distance between the wall and the door in the 90-degree open position does not exceed 254 mm (10 in.)
The 2013 California Building Code requires two push-plate actuators at each actuator location—one mounted between 178 and 203 mm (7 and 8 in.) from the floor to the centerline, and the other mounted between 762 and 1118 mm (44 in.) above the floor. Vertical actuation bars may be used in lieu of two separate actuators, with the bottom of the bar at 127 mm (5 in.) maximum above the floor and the top at 889 mm (35 in.) minimum above the floor.
Actuators must be in a conspicuous location, with a level and clear ground space outside of the door swing. The minimum size for push plates is 102 mm (4 in.) in diameter or 102 mm square, and the minimum operable portion for vertical actuation bars is 51 mm (2 in.) wide. Both types of actuators must display the International Symbol of Accessibility.
While all these requirements have the same basic intent, it is best to check state and local codes to see which standard has been adopted, and what the specifics are in reference to actuators for automatic operators. It is important to verify the actuator type/quantity, location, and any additional requirements. Further, one must keep in mind additional safety features—including sensors and guide rails—may be required for low-energy operators actuated by a motion sensor.
Standby power for automatic operators
The 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act includes revisions to the section on automatic doors with regard to clear width and maneuvering clearance. (These have not been included in A117.1 to date.) The ADA standards read:
404.3.1 Clear Width. Doorways shall provide a clear opening of 32 inches (815 mm) minimum in power-on and power-off mode. The minimum clear width for automatic door systems in a doorway shall be based on the clear opening provided by all leaves in the open position.
404.3.2 Maneuvering Clearance. Clearances at power-assisted doors and gates shall comply with 404.2.4. Clearances at automatic doors and gates without standby power and serving an accessible means of egress shall comply with 404.2.4.
EXCEPTION: Where automatic doors and gates remain open in the power-off condition, compliance with 404.2.4 shall not be required.
According to both accessibility standards and egress requirements, most doors have to provide at least 815 mm (32 in.) of clear opening width. For pairs of doors, at least one leaf has to provide 815 mm clear (32 in.). The aforementioned Paragraph 404.3.1 states the required clear opening width must be provided "in power-on and power-off mode." The clear opening's full width is considered—for example, a 1.5-m (5-ft) pair of automatic doors would provide sufficient clear width even though neither leaf meets the minimum clear width for a manual door.
Maneuvering clearance for manual doors is addressed in Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA. This section establishes the minimum space around the door needed by a wheelchair user to manually operate the door. The previously cited Paragraph 404.3.2 requires power-assisted doors and gates (manually operated but with reduced opening force) to have the same maneuvering clearance as manual doors. Automatic doors and gates serving an accessible means of egress without standby power would also need the required maneuvering clearance. Therefore, automatic doors and gates with standby power do not need the maneuvering clearance that would be required for a manual door.
If an existing door serving an accessible means of egress does not have the required maneuvering clearance and an auto operator is added to overcome that problem, the operator needs to have standby power (unless the door stands open on power failure per the exception). This applies to doors part of a means of egress that must be accessible in an emergency, and is intended to avoid entrapment of a person with a disability if there is a power failure. The standard does not include a requirement for how much standby power must be provided.
It is important to keep in mind automatic operators on fire-rated doors are required to be deactivated upon fire alarm. Therefore, an automatic operator with standby power should not be used on a fire-rated door to overcome maneuvering clearance problems because it will not be functional when the fire alarm is sounding.
Flush bottom rails
For many years, ICC A117.1 has included a requirement for a 254-mm (10-in.) high flush bottom rail on manual doors, and this requirement is now included in the ADA standards. The text of both standards is similar, except ADA also addresses existing doors. (This requirement appears in the "Manual Doors" section of both publications, so it does not apply to automatic doors.)
The purpose is to avoid projections that could catch a cane, crutch, walker, or wheelchair and inhibit passage through the door opening, so the requirement applies to the push side of the door only. The 254-mm (10-in) measurement is taken from the floor or ground to the top of the horizontal bottom rail, extending the full width of the door. Prior to the 2003 edition of A117.1, the required dimension was 305 mm (12 in.).
The standards require the surface of swinging doors and gates within 254 mm (10 in) of the finish floor or ground to have a smooth surface on the push side that extends the full width of the door or gate. Narrow bottom rails and protruding surface bolts, surface vertical rods, kick-down stops, and full-height door pulls installed on the push side of the door would not comply with this requirement for a 254-mm (10-in.) high smooth surface. Horizontal or vertical joints in this surface must be within 1.6 mm (1/16 in.) of the same plane. If a kick plate is added to a door with a narrow bottom rail to resolve this problem, the cavity between the kickplate and the glass or recessed panel must be capped.
There are several exceptions to this requirement. Sliding doors are not required to comply. Tempered glass doors without stiles are not required to have a 254-mm (10-in) bottom rail (if the top of the bottom rail tapers at 60 degrees minimum from the horizontal), but protruding hardware is not allowed in the 254-mm (10-in) high area. Doors that do not extend to within 254 mm (10 in) of the finish floor or ground are also exempt.
As outlined in ADA, existing doors are not required to provide the 254-mm smooth surface, but if kick plates are added to widen the bottom rail, the gap between the top of the plate and the glass must be capped. Existing doors are not addressed by A117.1, which is typically used for new applications as referenced by IBC. Now the standards are consistent, and increased awareness and enforcement of this requirement seem likely.
With regard to these changes in the Americans with Disabilities Act standards, some accessibility requirements are not prescriptive and enforcement varies by jurisdiction. Therefore, it can be difficult to apply the standards, especially when conflicts exist. Additionally, some states have established their own accessibility standards. Following the most stringent requirements can help to avoid problems, and the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) can also provide assistance to determine what is required.
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.