Between 1993 and 2001, the Food Code was issued in its current format, every two years. With the support of the Conference for Food Protection (CFP), FDA decided to move to a four-year interval between complete Food Code editions. During the interim period between full editions, FDA may publish a Food Code Supplement that updates, modifies, or clarifies certain provisions. The 2005 Food Code was the first full edition published on the new four-year interval, and it was followed by the Supplement to the 2005 Food Code, which was published in 2007. The 2022 Food Code is the most recent full edition published by FDA.
The F-22 has a significant capability to attack surface targets. In the air-to-ground configuration the aircraft can carry two 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally and will use on-board avionics for navigation and weapons delivery support. In the future air-to-ground capability will be enhanced with the addition of an upgraded radar and up to eight small diameter bombs. The Raptor will also carry two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s in the air-to-ground configuration.Advances in low-observable technologies provide significantly improved survivability and lethality against air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. The F-22 brings stealth into the day, enabling it not only to protect itself but other assets.The F-22 engines produce more thrust than any current fighter engine. The combination of sleek aerodynamic design and increased thrust allows the F-22 to cruise at supersonic airspeeds (greater than 1.5 Mach) without using afterburner -- a characteristic known as supercruise. Supercruise greatly expands the F-22 's operating envelope in both speed and range over current fighters, which must use fuel-consuming afterburner to operate at supersonic speeds.The sophisticated F-22 aerodesign, advanced flight controls, thrust vectoring, and high thrust-to-weight ratio provide the capability to outmaneuver all current and projected aircraft. The F-22 design has been extensively tested and refined aerodynamically during the development process.The F-22's characteristics provide a synergistic effect ensuring F-22A lethality against all advanced air threats. The combination of stealth, integrated avionics and supercruise drastically shrinks surface-to-air missile engagement envelopes and minimizes enemy capabilities to track and engage the F-22. The combination of reduced observability and supercruise accentuates the advantage of surprise in a tactical environment.The F-22 will have better reliability and maintainability than any fighter aircraft in history. Increased F-22 reliability and maintainability pays off in less manpower required to fix the aircraft and the ability to operate more efficiently.BackgroundThe Advanced Tactical Fighter entered the Demonstration and Validation phase in 1986. The prototype aircraft (YF-22 and YF-23) both completed their first flights in late 1990. Ultimately the YF-22 was selected as best of the two and the engineering and manufacturing development effort began in 1991 with development contracts to Lockheed/Boeing (airframe) and Pratt & Whitney (engines). EMD included extensive subsystem and system testing as well as flight testing with nine aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The first EMD flight was in 1997 and at the completion of its flight test life this aircraft was used for live-fire testing.The program received approval to enter low rate initial production in 2001. Initial operational and test evaluation by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center was successfully completed in 2004. Based on maturity of design and other factors the program received approval for full rate production in 2005. Air Education and Training Command, Air Combat Command and Pacific Air Forces are the primary Air Force organizations flying the F-22. The aircraft designation was the F/A-22 for a short time before being renamed F-22A in December 2005.General characteristicsPrimary function: air dominance, multi-role fighterContractor: Lockheed-Martin, BoeingPower plant: two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners and two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles.Thrust: 35,000-pound class (each engine)Wingspan: 44 feet, 6 inches (13.6 meters)Length: 62 feet, 1 inch (18.9 meters)Height: 16 feet, 8 inches (5.1 meters)Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms) Maximum takeoff weight: 83,500 pounds (38,000 kilograms) Fuel capacity: internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms); with 2 external wing fuel tanks: 26,000 pounds (11,900 kilograms)Payload: same as armament air-to-air or air-to-ground loadouts; with or without two external wing fuel tanks.Speed: mach two class with supercruise capabilityRange: more than 1,850 miles ferry range with two external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)Ceiling: above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)Armament: one M61A2 20-millimeter cannon with 480 rounds, internal side weapon bays carriage of two AIM-9 infrared (heat seeking) air-to-air missiles and internal main weapon bays carriage of six AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles (air-to-air loadout) or two 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAMs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles (air-to-ground loadout)Crew: oneUnit cost: $143 millionInitial operating capability: December 2005Inventory: total force, 183 (Current as of August 2022)Point of ContactAir Combat Command, Public Affairs Office; 115 Thompson St., Suite 210; Langley AFB, VA 23665-1987; DSN 574-5007 or 757-764-5007; e-mail: email@example.com
Americans spend much of their days in buildings, yet relatively little is known about how the design of buildings or their site influences physical activity. Although some evidence suggests that using specific features of buildings and their immediate surroundings such as stairs can have a meaningful impact on health, the influences of the physical environment on physical activity at the building and site scale are not yet clear. While there is some research suggesting that people will be more active in buildings that have visible, accessible, pleasing, and supportive features, such as motivational point-of-decision prompts and well-designed stairs, there is only limited evidence to support that assertion. This paper reviews the available evidence linking design and site decisions to physical activity, and suggests a framework for connecting research and implementation strategies for creating activity-friendly buildings. In consideration of the kinds of physical activities associated with buildings and their sites, it is proposed that the form of buildings and sites affect physical activity at several spatial scales: the selection and design of sites with respect to a building's location on its site and within its immediate community and the provision and layout of site amenities; building design such as the programming, layout, and form of the building; and building element design such as the design and layout of elements such as stairs or exercise rooms. The paper concludes with an overview of opportunities for research and intervention strategies within the building industry, focusing on public buildings, which provide numerous high-leverage opportunities for linking research and implementation.
Vector maps (Figure 6) showing the downslope maximum-gradient direction were generated from the DEM, and drainage system divides were then drawn on these maps, primary divides along major ridges, and secondary divides starting at points of interest on the coastline (e.g., between systems 6 and 7) or grounding zone (e.g., between systems 18 and 19), drawn upslope until meeting a primary divide or another secondary divide. The divides were continued on the ice shelves based on a combination of surface elevation, shear crevasses, rumples and dolines orientation, as well as ice-front lobe splits. A number of other sources, such as the Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica (Bindschadler et al., 2008, 2011a,b) and the MODIS Mosaic of Antarctica (Haran et al., 2005), were used to help refine the drainage divides on some of the ice shelves.
Divides were drawn to the MOA coastline (Haran et al., 2005). This coastline was edited to remove minor errors such as dangling nodes, improper loops, etc. This was done so that the divides could be converted to polygons, which requires the points to be ordered consecutively. Once this was done, polygons extended to the coast were created via a third party GIS application called Xtools. The grounded versions of the polygons were generated by masking the coastline polygons with the MOA grounding line (Haran et al., 2005), using the clipping function in ArcGIS. The resulting drainage system divides are shown in Figure 1.
Finally, our particular appreciation goes to the Working Group Technical Support Units whose tireless dedication, professionalism and enthusiasm led the production of this Special Report. This Report could not have been prepared without the commitment of members of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit, all new to the IPCC, who rose to the unprecedented Sixth Assessment Report challenge and were pivotal in all aspects of the preparation of the Report: Yang Chen, Sarah Connors, Melissa Gomis, Elisabeth Lonnoy, Robin Matthews, Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, Clotilde Péan, Roz Pidcock, Anna Pirani, Nicholas Reay, Tim Waterfield, and Xiao Zhou. Our warmest thanks go to the collegial and collaborative support provided by Marlies Craig, Andrew Okem, Jan Petzold, Melinda Tignor and Nora Weyer from the WGII Technical Support Unit and Bhushan Kankal, Suvadip Neogi and Joana Portugal Pereira from the WGIII Technical Support Unit. A special thanks goes to Kenny Coventry, Harmen Gudde, Irene Lorenzoni, and Stuart Jenkins for their support with the figures in the Summary for Policymakers, as well as Nigel Hawtin for graphical support of the Report. In addition, the following contributions are gratefully acknowledged: Jatinder Padda (copy edit), Melissa Dawes (copy edit), Marilyn Anderson (index), Vincent Grégoire (layout) and Sarah le Rouzic (intern). 2b1af7f3a8