U. S. Department of Commerce

Healthcare System models and simulations may be used to support analysis, planning, and training needs for the healthcare institutions, epidemics, and other healthcare-related emergencies. Simulation models may be used to understand healthcare systems, interdependencies with other systems, their vulnerabilities, and the impact of emergency incidents on the population and healthcare community. These models and simulations will also be used to support training exercises, performance measurement, conceptual design, impact evaluation, response planning, analysis, acquisition, conceptualizing and evaluating new systems, vulnerability analysis, economic impact, and determining interdependencies between healthcare and other infrastructure systems. The goal of this document is to capture the current knowledge and information resources that can serve as a common baseline for researchers and developers of models and simulations of healthcare systems for homeland security applications.

U. S. manufacturing is in the midst of a potential resurgence. Since February 2010, manufacturers have added 877,000 jobs" the sectors first sustained job growth since the 1990s. Americas 230,000 small manufacturing firms have played a key role in this resurgence, adding the majority of new manufacturing jobs every year, while forming the backbone of U. S. supply chains. Dense networks of these small manufacturers are vital to the process of taking a product from concept to market, and the exchange of manufacturing know-how across suppliers is essential for the diffusion of the new technologies and innovative processes that give U. S. manufacturing its cutting edge. However, these networks are under stress. From 2000 to 2010, manufacturing output and investment stagnated as companies offshored production previously done domestically. The U. S. supplier base weakened, raising doubts about the future of manufacturing's contribution to American innovation. Small manufacturers then and now face steep barriers to innovation - from invention, to commercialization, to the diffusion of new technology. For example, small manufacturers contribute less than one-third of all manufacturing R&D, despite making up 98 percent of manufacturing firms and as a general rule, small firms are one-seventh as likely as large firms to conduct R&D. As a result, small manufacturers are often in the positon of having to adopt technologies invented by others. Small manufacturers also face unique barriers in accessing the capital and expertise to take on the risk of new technologies. In part because of the challenges they face in adopting new technologies and processes, small manufacturers are only 60 percent as productive as large manufacturers. Strengthening America's supply chains and the small manufacturers at their core is essential to the long-term competitiveness of U. S. manufacturers both large and small. Manufacturers spend on average 60 percent of the price of their final product on purchased inputs, so differences in the quality and nimbleness of their supply chains can make or break a manufacturer's ability to compete.

American households include a variety of living arrangements. Recent trends in increased life expectancy, single parent families, and femaleemployment, increase the potential for grandparents to play an important role in the lives of their grandchildren. Increases in grandparentsliving with grandchildren are one way that the grandparent role has changed. This report explores the complexity of households in which grandparents and grandchildren live together. It uses data from the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), the Current Population Survey (CPS), and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Itcapitalizes on the strengths of each of these data sources to provide a more complete picture of households containing grandparents andgrandchildren. This report contains five sections: (1) an overview of households with coresident grandparents and grandchildren; (2) historical changes in coresidence of grandparents and grandchildren; (3) characteristics of grandchildren who live with a grandparent; (4) characteristics of grandparentswho live with grandchildren; and (5) a comparison of coresident grandparents to grandparents who do not live with their grandchildren

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) annually hosts the Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (IHC) to provide a forum for the responsible Federal agencies, together with the user communities, such as emergency management, to review and improve the Nation's hurricane forecast and warning program. The 2014 Tropical Cyclone Research Forum (TCRF)/68th IHC was conducted 3-6 March. The forum had a large "virtual" participation with two primary locations where attendees gathered to participate-the NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, College Park, MD, and the National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL. The OFCM-sponsored Working Group for Hurricane and Winter Storms Operations and Research (WG/HWSOR) met on the first day of the forum to review various action and informational items related to the hurricane program, including recommended changes to this plan, the National Hurricane Operations Plan (NHOP). The results of the meeting were presented by the WG/HWSOR chair during the forum's final plenary session. New procedures and agreements briefed at the forum were incorporated into this publication-the 52nd edition of the NHOP. This plan is published annually prior to the hurricane season and documents the interdepartmental effort to provide the United States and designated international recipients with forecasts, warnings, and assessments, concerning tropical and subtropical weather systems. The WG/HWSOR addressed 20 action items. Of those, six were closed by incorporating changes into this edition of the NHOP, two items were deferred, and four items were for. The remaining items will be worked through follow-on actions by the group. The remaining items will be worked through follow-on actions by the group.

Chapter 1 presents an introductory overview of surface weather observations. Chapter 2 discusses the surface weather observation program, types of observations, criteria for specials, general observing standards, and dissemination. Chapter 3 presents the certification and quality control standards. It discusses certification of observers and quality control performed on-site, and at remote locations. Chapter 4 defines the requirements for maintaining records of surface weather data. It discusses the types of records, preparation and maintenance of the Station Information File, types of storage, and procedures for maintaining records of surface weather data. Chapters 5 through 11 focus on a specific element (e.g., Visibility is an element) and all the associated parameters (e.g., Prevailing Visibility and Sector Visibility are visibility parameters) of that element that appear in the weather report. The elements are: Wind (Chapter 5), Visibility (Chapter 6), Runway Visual Range (Chapter 7), Present Weather (Chapter 8), Sky Condition (Chapter 9), Temperature and Dew Point(Chapter 10), and Pressure (Chapter 11). Each chapter contains a similar format: a brief overview of the chapter, a section that describes parameters, and a section that defines further the observing and reporting standards for the reports. Each chapter also contains a Summary Table that offers an abridged listing of standards described in the chapter. By design, these summary tables do not contain all of the details found in the text. Therefore, these tables should only be used as an overview of the standards contained in thechapter. Chapter 12 defines the coding procedures for reports in the METAR/SPECI format. Appendix A is a Glossary. Appendix B is a list of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Appendix C lists Sensor Standards. Appendix D contains Runway Visual Range Tables. Throughout this Handbook, the following definitions apply: a. "shall" indicates a standard is mandatory.b. "should" indicates a standard is recommended.c. "may" indicates a standard is optional.d. "will" indicates futurity; it is not a requirement to be applied to standards

Families and living arrangements in the United States have changed over time, just as they have developed distinct regional trends because of factors such as local labor markets and migration patterns. As a result, it is difficult to talk about a single kind of family or one predominant living arrangement in the United States. The goals of this book is to provide an updated picture of the composition of families and households and to describe trends in living arrangements in the United States. The book also describes how families and households have changed in recent years, notably during the latest economic recession, which lasted from 2007-2009. This book uses data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey (ACS). It capitalizes on the strengths of both data sets, using CPS detailed information about family structure and characteristics over time, along with ACS data about how basic family and household characteristics vary across states. The book contains five sections: (1) a review of some data sources for studying family life in the United States; (2) households and living arrangements of adults; (3) family groups; (4) spouses, partners, and couples; and (5) the economic well-being of families before and after the 2007-2009 recession, focusing on children's perspective.

America's innovative and entrepreneurial culture is often regarded as one of this country's greatest national advantages in an increasingly competitive world. This innovation infrastructure includes a large number of universities and colleges, research institutions, laboratories, and start up companies all across the United States - from major cities to rural areas. Every day, these institutions, often in partnership with federal agencies, develop breakthrough technologies in the life sciences, energy, telecommunications, information technology, education, social innovation, and other areas. This, in turn, has attracted many of the world's best and brightest people to pursue careers in R&D and innovation in the United States. Many of these same minds become leaders and entrepreneurs across the nation - creating cutting-edge innovation products and services and building our great companies. As other nations increasingly compete with the United States for leadership in innovation, America's colleges and universities are doing their part to maintain our leadership and to nurture more innovation, create processes and programs to commercialize that innovation, and promote entrepreneurship as a viable career path for students. Universities use different approaches to encourage innovative thinking. Their approaches depend on their local environment and objectives, which in turn varies on geography, institutional size, history, culture, and funding resources. This diversity of approaches is proving to be both appropriate and successful for universities and colleges as they seek to create academic and economic benefits through innovation and entrepreneurship. Across the United States, state and local governments, economic development agencies, non-profits, universities, and business groups are trying to develop innovation ecosystems that foster market focused innovation and nurture startup companies to drive job creation. They all share some common goals - to find ways to create millions of new jobs in emerging industries where the United States can maintain its economic leadership, gain market share or create entirely new industries. At the same time, the challenges of globalization require that America remain nimble and constantly deliver new, innovative products and services. Research has shown that business startups and surviving young firms disproportionately create jobs relative to their size in the U. S. economy. For example, while firm startups only account for roughly three percent of total U. S. employment in any given year, they are responsible for about 20 percent of gross job creation. For the United States to remain economically competitive there is need for a strong national infrastructure to commercialize innovation and support high-growth entrepreneurship. If the nation needs to create millions of jobs, and many jobs are created by startup companies, then America will need to significantly increase the number of high-quality, startup companies in the coming years. In the United States, universities are a significant source of the ideas and R&D that are the value proposition of these high-growth startups. But those startups cannot be based solely in the traditional centers of American innovation, such as Silicon Valley, Boston, New York, and North Carolina. In order to develop local entrepreneurial ecosystems, these start ups must also be based in new cities and rural communities in order to build their long-term economic prospects.