Wallmart Recalls Ozark Trail camp axe. Walmart has received two reports of axe heads detaching from the handle, resulting in minor cuts and abrasions

Recalled Ozark Trail camp axe

Name of product:

Ozark Trail camp axes

Hazard:

The axe head can detach from the handle, posing an injury hazard.

Remedy:

Refund

Recall date:

October 3, 2018

Units:

About 246,000

Consumer Contact:

Walmart at 800-925-6278 from 7 a.m. through 9 p.m. CT any day or online at www.walmart.com and click on "Product Recalls" for more information..

Recall Details

Description:

This recall involves Ozark Trail camp axes. The steel shaft tubular axes measure about 14 inches long from handle to axe head, and weigh about 1.25 lbs. The axes have a black, non-slip rubber grip and claw feature. “Ozark Trail” and model number 60111140 are printed on the product packaging.

 

Remedy:

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled axes and return them to Walmart for a full refund.

Incidents/Injuries:

Walmart has received two reports of axe heads detaching from the handle, resulting in minor cuts and abrasions.

Sold Exclusively At:

Walmart stores nationwide and online at www.walmart.com from January 2017 through July 2018 for about $8.

Manufacturer(s):

Gardex, of India

Importer(s):

Walmart Inc., of Bentonville, Ark.

Distributor(s):

Walmart Inc., of Bentonville, Ark.

Manufactured In:

India

Recall number:

19-003

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $1 trillion annually. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to help ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters and household chemicals -– contributed to a decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 40 years.
Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a mandatory recall ordered by the Commission.
To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury go online to www.SaferProducts.gov or call CPSC's Hotline at 800-638-2772 or teletypewriter at 301-595-7054 for the hearing impaired. Consumers can obtain news release and recall information at www.cpsc.gov, on Twitter @USCPSC or by subscribing to CPSC's free e-mail newsletters.

New York Style Sausage Co., a Sunnyvale, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 371 pounds of raw chorizo sausage products due to misbranding. The product also contains sesame seed, which is not declared on the product label.

New York Style Sausage Co. Recalls Raw Chorizo Sausage Products due to Misbranding and an Undeclared Ingredient

Class II Recall 077-2018

Health Risk: Low Sep 5, 2018

En Español

Congressional and Public Affairs
Adam Ghering
(202) 720-9113
Press@fsis.usda.gov

WASHINGTON, Sept. 5, 2018 – 

New York Style Sausage Co., a Sunnyvale, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 371 pounds of raw chorizo sausage products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. The product contains sesame seed, which is not declared on the product label.

The raw, Salvadoran chorizo sausage items were produced on June 8, 2018. The following products are subject to recall: [View Labels (PDF only)]

• 8-oz. cardboard packages containing “Artesana Specialty Sausages CHORIZO SALVADORAN RECIPE ALL NATURAL.” The product is labeled “Keep refrigerated or frozen” and does not bear a use by or sell by date.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 9027” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were sold at farmers markets in California.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during routine inspection label verification activities.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.  

FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ freezers or refrigerators. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms are notifying their customers of the recall and that actions are being taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall can contact Pasquale Bitonti, vice president of New York Sausage Co., at (408) 745-7675.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

USDA Recall Classifications
Class I	This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.
Class II	This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.
Class III	This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences.

SELFISH TO THE DEATH: More than 250 people have died worlwide while taking selfies since 2011. Most selfie deaths occurred in India, followed by Russia, the US and Pakistan.

SELFISH TO THE DEATH: 
More than 250 people have died while taking selfies since 2011


Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:41PM
Think twice before taking that next selfie. It could actually become deadly if you're not careful.

A new report says 259 people died while taking selfies in a 6-year period between 2011 and 2017.

Researchers in India came out with the numbers. Indian, Russia, the U.S. and Pakistan filled out the top four spots.

The leading cause was drowning, from people being hit by waves or falling out of boats while posing.

Other causes include getting hit by cars, falling from high places and getting attacked while posing with dangerous animals.

======================================

Snapping the perfect selfie can be fun. But if it involves flying a plane or holding a loaded handgun or standing on slippery rocks near the top of a waterfall, you may want to think twice.

Some 259 people worldwide have died while taking selfies, according to a study published in the Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. Researchers from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, a group of public medical colleges in New Delhi, scoured news reports on selfie deaths that occurred from October 2011 to November 2017.

Teen accidentally kills self taking selfie 00:45

 

They found that the most selfie deaths occurred in India, followed by Russia, the US and Pakistan. Most of the victims were men (about 72%) and under the age of 30.

 

India accounted for more than half the total -- 159 reported selfie deaths since 2011. Researchers attributed the high number to the country's enormous population of people under 30, which is the world's largest.

 

Although women generally take more selfies than men, researchers found that men were more likely to take risks -- like standing at the edge of a cliff -- to capture a dramatic shot. "It justifies the higher number of deaths and incidents for men," the study said.

Drownings and fallings

Drowning is the leading cause of selfie deaths, usually involving people being washed away by waves on beaches or falling out of a boat.

 

The second-leading cause is listed as "transport" -- people killed, for example, while trying to snap a quick pic in front of a moving train. 

 

Tied for third are selfie deaths involving fires and falls from high places. Eight people died while taking selfies with dangerous animals.

 

Unsurprisingly, the US led in the number of selfie deaths involving a firearm -- people accidentally shooting themselves while posing with guns.

How selfie-related deaths happen

 

The study says the problem is almost certainly underreported. For example, it notes that when a person decides to pose for a selfie while driving and is then killed in a car crash, it's most often reported as just a fatal traffic wreck. And there are several developing countries where reports of selfie deaths may not make it into the local news.

Selfie deaths are on the rise, too. There were just three reported selfie deaths in 2011. By 2016 that number had shot up to 98.

 

"The youth and tourists are frequently affected because of the desire of 'being cool,' posting photos on social (media) and getting rewards in forms of likes and comments," the study says. "Selfies are themselves not harmful, but the human behavior that accompanies selfies is dangerous. Individuals need to be educated regarding certain risky behaviors and risky places where selfies should not be taken."

'No selfie' zones

The study's authors suggest that "no selfie zones" be established in tourist areas, especially on mountain peaks, near bodies of water and on top of tall buildings. India has more than a dozen of these zones, including several in Mumbai.

Woman falls off bridge taking selfie 00:45

 

Police there say they've pinpointed locations around the city where they want to "restrain" people to prevent further casualties. The high-risk areas are mostly along the city's oceanfront -- a popular destination for young people armed with camera phones.

 

"This is a new problem for us," police spokesman Dhananjay Kulkarni told CNN in 2016. "We have identified spots in Mumbai. We want to restrain people from going there so that mishaps don't happen."

 

After a spate of selfie-related fatalities in 2015, police in Russia put out a brochure urging people to take "safe selfies."

 

Authorities: This selfie cost pilot his life 01:00

 

"A cool selfie can cost you your life," reads the brochure, which police handed out to both students and the general public.

 

The two-page guide contains infographics that resemble road signs, most of which are based on actual incidents -- such as the case of a 21-year-old woman who accidentally shot herself in the head and a teen who was struck by a train after trying to take a photograph of herself on railway tracks.

 

The brochure also warns against are taking selfies with animals, on rooftops and with exposed live wires.

PILOTS: Ensure Your Fuel Selector Works. Worn components can lead to fuel starvation and sudden loss of engine power

 

 

PILOTS: Ensure Your Fuel Selector Works.
Worn components can lead to fuel starvation and sudden loss of engine power

The problem

• Worn fuel selectors have led to fuel starvation and loss of engine power, resulting in serious and fatal injuries.
• 
  As fuel selectors wear, the fuel selector handles may be difficult or even impossible to turn. If a pilot applies too much force, the internal components can fracture and obstruct the fuel flow, resulting in a total loss of engine power.
• 
  In addition, worn detents could make it difficult for a pilot to properly position the fuel selector to the desired tank. Positioning the fuel selector incorrectly to an empty tank or in between tanks could ultimately starve the engine of fuel.

Related accidents

Since 2008, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has cited the fuel selector in 104 accidents; 63 of those accidents involved incorrect use/operation of the fuel selector, and 28 cited degraded function of the fuel selector. Typically,
these types of accidents result in fuel starvation and loss of engine power.

During the initial climb after a touch-and-go landing in a
Piper PA-38-112, the flight instructor reported an emergency
and indicated that he would return to the airport.
The airplane then spun to the left and impacted a marsh.
The airplane was destroyed (figure 1); the flight instructor
sustained serious injuries, and the student pilot died.
Although the fuel selector handle was positioned to the
right main fuel tank, an insert in the fuel selector had
fractured into multiple pieces that showed overstress
and wear (figure 2, next page). The fuel selector handle
likely had been difficult to move for some time, and excessive
force would have been required to move the handle
from one position to another, thus causing the wear.
The failure of the fuel selector valve in a position that restricted fuel flow to the engine led to the total loss of engine power due to fuel starvation. The operator failed
to detect and resolve the wear of the fuel selector valve.

 
The pilot of a Mooney M20 airplane reported that, during
the initial climb from the airport, he noted the engine
power slowing, turned on the boost pump, checked the
magnetos and fuel mixture, and then attempted to switch
the fuel selector to the other fuel tank, which had usable
fuel. The engine experienced a total loss of power, and
the airplane impacted the ground. A passenger sustained
minor injuries, and the pilot and another passenger were
uninjured. The fuel selector handle screw was loose
and prevented the fuel selector from moving to the fuel
tank position for the tank with usable fuel, resulting in
fuel starvation and the subsequent total loss of engine
power (see figure 3). (GAA17CA260)
 
A witness observed the pilot of a Piper PA-28-140
airplane perform an engine run up, and two witnesses
reported that the takeoff sounded normal. However, after
they did not hear the airplane continue around the airport
traffic pattern, one of the witnesses located the wreckage
at the end of the runway and saw that fuel was flowing
out of the wing area. The airplane was substantially
damaged when it collided with trees and terrain (figure
4), and the private pilot died. Although the fuel selector
valve handle was in the right tank position at the time
of the accident, testing of the valve with air indicated
that the valve was closed. The selector valve was stiff
to rotate, and positive engagement of the detents could
not be consistently obtained. Disassembly of the valve
revealed rotational scoring in the valve and on the plug
cock, which had heavily worn detents (figure 5). Debris
was also found in the valve and was the result of excessive
wear. Both the owner, who was also the operator,
and maintenance personnel stated that they checked the
fuel selector valve during an annual inspection that was
completed about 11 hours before the accident. The total
loss of engine power after takeoff occurred due to
fuel starvation as a result of excessive wear of the fuel
selector valve. Also causal was the owner/operator and
maintenance personnel's inadequate maintenance and
inadequate postmaintenance inspection. (ERA15FA128)

What can pilots do?

• Check the fuel selectors for proper operation during your preflight
  assessment, ensuring that the fuel selector moves freely and stays in the
  correct detent when selected and that fuel selector placards are accurate
  and legible.
• Do not force a handle that is difficult to turn; it could lead to fractured
  components inside the fuel selector that may prevent proper operation.
• Do not fly if your fuel selector exhibits any of the following:
  • Sticking and binding,
  • Requires greater-than-average pressure to turn or move, or
  • Worn detents that do not stop the selector in the desired position.
   
• If you encounter any problems with the proper operation of the fuel selector,
  do not attempt the flight. Report the anomaly to maintenance personnel for
  inspection or repair.
• 
  Be informed and review and comply with any applicable airworthiness
  directives and service bulletins regarding the fuel selector and components.
  

Interested in more information?

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3B, Chapter 2, “Ground Operations,” page 2-3, contains tips for pilots performing preflight assessments, including checking the fuel selectors for proper operation in all positions, including the OFF position. The handbook notes that “[s]tiff fuel selectors or where the tank position is not legible or lacking detents are unacceptable.” In addition, your airplane flight manual/pilot operating handbook will also likely include instructions in the preflight checklist regarding checking the fuel selector valve.

FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) CE-14-22, “Fuel Selector/Shut-Off Valve,” alerts owners and operators of certain Piper model airplanes that the fuel selector valve may bind when switching fuel tanks and can cause a loss of power in flight. To reduce the possibility of binding in flight, the SAIB recommends inspection and maintenance of fuel selector valves.

The Experimental Aircraft Association article “Avoiding Fuel Related Problems” indicates that fuel problems can occur due to malfunction or failure of a fuel system component or poor preventative maintenance and cites situations with fuel selector handles that were difficult to turn.

A companion video to this safety alert can be accessed from the Safety Alerts web page.
The reports for the accidents referenced in this safety alert are accessible by NTSB accident number from the Aviation Accident Database link, and each accident’s public docket is accessible from the Accident Dockets link for the Docket Management System.

Safety Recommendation Report: Using Technology to Protect Maintenance-of-Way Employees

58415 NTSB/RSR-18/03
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

Safety Recommendation Report

Using Technology to Protect Maintenance-of-Way Employees

Accident Number: DCA16FR007
Operator: Amtrak
Accident: Amtrak/Backhoe Collision
Location: Chester, Pennsylvania
Date: April 3, 2016
Recommendation Numbers: R-18-024 and -025
Adopted: September 28, 2018

On April 3, 2016, about 7:50 a.m. eastern daylight time, southbound Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) train 89 struck a backhoe at milepost (MP) 15.7 near Chester, Pennsylvania. Train 89 was authorized to operate on track 3 at the maximum authorized speed of 110 mph. Two days prior to the accident, Amtrak had started track-bed restoration at MP 15.7 on track 2 in this portion of the Northeast Corridor. Track 2 was taken out of service between control points Baldwin (MP 11.7) and Hook (MP 16.8) for the 55-hour duration of the track restoration project.

As train 89 approached the work zone, the engineer saw railroad equipment and employees on and near track 3 and initiated an emergency brake application. The train speed was 106 mph before the emergency brake was applied, and 99 mph when train 89 struck the backhoe. Two maintenance-of-way (MOW) employees were killed, and 39 other people, mostly passengers, were injured.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on the Chester, Pennsylvania, accident detailed numerous safety deficiencies that existed at the Amtrak work site immediately prior to the accident.1

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the unprotected fouled track that was used to route a passenger train at maximum authorized speed; the absence of supplemental shunting devices, which Amtrak required but the foreman could not apply because he had none; and the inadequate transfer of job site responsibilities between foremen during the shift change that resulted in failure to clear the track, to transfer foul time, and to conduct a job briefing. Allowing these unsafe actions to occur were the inconsistent views of safety and safety management throughout Amtrak’s corporate structure that led to the company’s deficient system safety program that resulted in part from Amtrak’s inadequate collaboration with its unions and from its failure to prioritize safety. Also contributing to the accident was the Federal Railroad Administration’s failure to require redundant signal protection, such as shunting, for maintenance-of-way work crews who depend on the train dispatcher to provide signal protection, prior to the accident.

This investigation found that Amtrak’s safeguards to protect MOW employees failed at a number of levels, including: the MOW night foreman released his track authority improperly, the MOW day foreman did not conduct a safety briefing, and none of the work crews used supplemental shunting devices to provide redundant protection to the MOW employees, as well as other issues. These failures highlight problems with solely relying on procedural safeguards to protect MOW employees who foul tracks.

A clear understanding of how signal and train control systems affect their safety and how to avoid interfering with their proper functioning is vital to allow MOW personnel to use all available tools so there is redundant protection. Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 236.1049, “Training Specific to Roadway Workers” and 214.319, “Working Limits, Generally” directs railroads to identify, implement, and comply with the method(s) of providing redundant protections in its on-track safety program. The failure of Amtrak safeguards to protect MOW employees in these accidents highlight the importance of redundant roadway worker protection and the importance of understanding the role of signal and train control equipment to establish redundant levels of protection. These redundant levels of protection guard against the potential error by dispatching control center personnel or roadway workers-in-charge (RWIC) to remove work zone authorities without knowing if tracks are fouled by MOW crewmembers.

In March 2018, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued the Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual to help FRA inspectors, specialists, and railroads to understand Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) rules and applications.2 But there is no FRA guidance on RWP regulations that help railroads identify, implement, and comply with the method(s) of providing redundant protections in its on-track safety program. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FRA, in addition to compliance inspection activities, issue a guidance document that railroads can use to assess their on-track safety program to ensure it encompasses the role of signal and train control equipment, including redundant protection, such as supplemental shunting devices to protect roadway workers and their equipment.

Positive Train Control Technology

Positive Train Control Technology (PTC) is a technology-based system intended to reliably and functionally prevent train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and movements of trains through a switch left in the wrong position. PTC is designed to prevent many types of train accidents caused by human error. For PTC systems to provide redundant protection for MOW employees, a RWIC of on-track safety for a work group must establish working limits with the dispatcher. When working limits are established, PTC enforces the limits using the railroad’s method of authorizing train movements.3 Methods of on-track safety that do not establish working limits rely solely on human awareness instead of the redundant protection that PTC provides.

Congress mandated implementation of a PTC system on each rail line over which intercity passenger or commuter service is operated or over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported. In 2008, Congress required the affected railroads to implement PTC by December 31, 2015. But, in late 2015, Congress extended the deadline by at least 3 years to December 31, 2018. According to the FRA’s public PTC dashboard, the majority of affected railroads are implementing the necessary infrastructure to support PTC.4 Nonetheless, a representative of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that the 41 affected railroads had significant work remaining before realizing full implementation of PTC.5

The Amtrak accident in Chester, as well as the other investigations, show that procedural-based protections for MOW employees are fallible to human error. Recent NTSB investigations show that MOW employees and RWIC are not likely to follow all rules without exception, and mistakes are made for a variety of reasons. Moreover, these procedural safeguards can be supplemented with PTC protections by requiring the establishment of working limits whenever the track must be fouled in controlled track territories. When working limits are established using the signal and train control systems, PTC provides a redundant level of safety by enforcing the working limits. Title 49 CFR Part 236, Subpart H, “Standards for Processor-based Signal and Train Control Systems” mandates that PTC prevent trains from entering into established working limits.

Recent NTSB Investigations of MOW Employee Fatalities

The NTSB has several other investigations involving failures in planned safeguards to protect MOW employees. Recent MOW employee fatalities have occurred when work groups used TAW as their method of on-track safety.6 These incidents have occurred on signaled tracks where MOW employees could have established working limits with the controlling dispatcher and would have benefited from PTC’s redundant protection.

On January 17, 2017, about 10:09 a.m. mountain standard time, a BNSF Railway train struck and killed two MOW employees at MP 477 on the Black Hills subdivision in Edgemont, South Dakota.7 The MOW employees were clearing ice and snow from a track switch. The crew of the striking train gave audible warnings and applied the emergency braking after observing the work crew, but the train could not stop before reaching the work location. Prior to the application of the emergency brake, the train was traveling about 35 mph. MOW employees in this accident were using TAW as their method of on-track protection.8

On June 10, 2017, about 10:12 a.m. eastern daylight time, a Long Island Rail Road train on track 3 of a four-track main line approached five MOW employees in Queens Interlocking, near Queens Village, New York. The work crewmembers, consisting of a foreman, followed by two MOW employees and a watchman, were walking single file in track 1, which ran parallel to track 3. Another MOW employee was walking along the track right-of-way.9 The surviving MOW employees confirmed that the watchman warned of the approaching train by raising his hand-held banner, but they disagreed about the timing of the warning. A security video revealed that the MOW employees made no attempt to clear the tracks as the train passed their location, suggesting that the watchman did not provide the warning in sufficient time for the MOW employees to clear the track safely. The two MOW employees and the flagman remained in the wayside of track 1, but the foreman moved into the path of the train. The train was traveling about 78 mph when the engineer applied emergency braking, immediately before impact with the foreman. Investigators determined that the MOW employees were using TAW as their method of on-track safety.10

Contemporary safety engineering principles advocate for the development and use of procedures and practices that protect MOW employees through layered and redundant safeguards; in other words, through concurrent and overlapping safety measures that ensure the health and safety of personnel in workplaces. Resilient and self-enforcing safety measures are key countermeasures to prevent accidents and injuries. An example of this multifaceted approach is to identify high-risk work activities that warrant focused attention and then implement complementary safety controls. The NTSB believes that, based on its investigations of accidents involving failures of individuals to follow prescribed rules and procedures, the use of layered safety protections beyond rule compliance is warranted. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FRA study available technologies that automatically alert MOW workers fouling tracks of approaching trains, then require that such technology be implemented as a redundant protective measure.

Recommendations

As a result of these investigations, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendations:

To the Federal Railroad Administration:
 
Issue a guidance document railroads can use to assess their on-track safety program to ensure it encompasses the role of signal and train control equipment, including redundant protection, such as supplemental shunting devices to protect roadway workers and their equipment. (R-18-024)

Study available technologies that automatically alert maintenance-of-way workers fouling tracks of approaching trains, then require that such technology be implemented as a redundant protective measure. (R-18-025)

BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
ROBERT L. SUMWALT, III                        EARL F. WEENER
Chairman                                              Member

BRUCE LANDSBERG                               T. BELLA DINH-ZARR
Vice Chairman                                      Member

JENNIFER HOMENDY
Member

Adopted: September 28, 2018


NOTE$:
1 National Transportation Safety Board, Amtrak Train Collision with Maintenance-of-Way Equipment, Chester, Pennsylvania, April 3, 2016, RAR-17/02 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2017).
2 Federal Railroad Administration, Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual; Volume III Railroad Workplace Safety, Chapter 3, “Roadway Worker Protection” (March 2018).
3 The use of other methods of on-track safety, such as train approach warning (TAW) or individual train detection, require employees to detect an approaching train and notify coworkers in sufficient time to clear the tracks safely prior to the train’s arrival at their work location.
4 FRA’s PTC Implementation Status by Railroad dashboard is available on the Internet at https://www.fra.dot.gov/app/ptc/, accessed on August 18, 2018.
5 United States Government Accountability Office, Positive Train Control: Many Commuter Railroads Still Have Significant Additional Implementation Work and Opportunities Exist to Provide Federal Assistance, Testimony of GAO director of Physical Infrastructure before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, GAO-18-367T, March 1, 2018.
6 Train approach warning is a method of establishing on-track safety by warning MOW employees of approaching trains in ample time for them to move or to remain in a place of safety in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 214, “Railroad Workplace Safety”.
7 National Transportation Safety Board, BNSF Railway Roadway Worker Fatalities, Edgemont, South Dakota, January 17, 2017, RAR-18/01 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2018).
8 For more information about this accident, see docket number DCA17FR004.
9 Right-of-way refers to a strip of land owned by the railroad on which railroad tracks are built for the operation of trains. The entire strip of land owned by the railroad is considered right-of-way, both where tracks exist and where no tracks exist. Persons are on the right-of-way when they are on railroad property whether in the foul of tracks or not.
10 For more information about this accident, see docket number DCA17FR009.

The toxic-substance spill at the center of a hazardous-materials incident involving a UPS delivery truck on Bohannon Drive in Menlo Park on Tuesday (Oct. 2) was ethanol

Update: Chemical spill in UPS truck was ethanol


The toxic-substance spill at the center of a hazardous-materials incident involving a UPS delivery truck on Bohannon Drive in Menlo Park on Tuesday (Oct. 2) was ethanol, not benzonitril, a cyanide-related chemical originally thought to have leaked from a package in the truck.

A battalion chief from the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, after determining that the spill was contained inside the truck, allowed UPS officials on the scene to call in a clean-up crew under contract to UPS, according to fire district Chief Harold Schapelhouman.

The private clean-up crew, in protective suits, made a video recording of the truck's interior that showed a leak coming from a gallon-sized container of ethanol, Schapelhouman said in a press statement.

The incident began with the UPS driver, a 41-year-old man, calling 911 at 10:24 a.m. to report difficulty breathing and requesting medical assistance, Schapelhouman said. The driver also called UPS management, and representatives of the company arrived simultaneously with paramedics from the fire district, Schapelhouman said.

First-responders found the driver leaning against the outside of the truck and trying to breathe, Schapelhouman said, adding that medics transported him to San Mateo County General Hospital.

Menlo Park police issued a shelter-in-place advisory at 11:32 a.m. for occupants and visitors to 3885 and 4000 Bohannon.

The situation evolved from a medical call into a hazardous materials incident after UPS officials retrieved from the truck a data sheet describing the chemical thought to be leaking. They conferred with the fire crew on the scene, who called the battalion chief, who called in the hazardous materials crew, Schapelhouman said. The hazardous materials crew handed off the incident to a clean-up crew under contract to UPS after Menlo Park Battalion Chief Chris Pimentel downgraded the incident, released many of the firefighters called to the scene, and lifted the shelter-in-place order, Schapelhouman said.

JBS Tolleson, Inc., a Tolleson, Ariz. establishment, is recalling approximately 6,500,966 pounds of various raw, non-intact beef products that may be contaminated with Salmonella Newport

JBS Tolleson, Inc. Recalls Raw Beef Products Due to Possible Salmonella Newport Contamination

Class I Recall 085-2018

Health Risk: High Oct 4, 2018

Congressional and Public Affairs
Meredith Carothers
(202) 720-9113
Press@fsis.usda.gov

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4, 2018 –  

JBS Tolleson, Inc., a Tolleson, Ariz. establishment, is recalling approximately 6,500,966 pounds of various raw, non-intact beef products that may be contaminated with Salmonella Newport, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The raw, non-intact beef items, including ground beef, were packaged on various dates from July 26, 2018 to Sept. 7, 2018. The following products are subject to recall: (Products List | Product Labels (PDF only))

The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 267” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations and institutions nationwide.

On September 5, 2018, FSIS was notified of an investigation of Salmonella Newport illnesses with reported consumption of several different FSIS-regulated products by case-patients. The first store receipt potentially linking the purchase of FSIS-regulated product to a case-patient was received on September 19, 2018; FSIS was then able to begin traceback of ground beef products. To date, eight case-patients have provided receipts or shopper card numbers, which have enabled product traceback investigations.  FSIS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and state public health and agriculture partners have now determined that raw ground beef was the probable source of the reported illnesses. Traceback has identified JBS as the common supplier of the ground beef products. The epidemiological investigation has identified 57 case-patients from 16 states with illness onset dates ranging from August 5 to September 6, 2018. FSIS will continue to work with public health partners and will provide updated information should it become available.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider.

FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers’ freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160°F. Other cuts of beef should be cooked to a temperature of 145 °F and allowed to rest for at least 3 minutes. The only way to confirm that ground beef or other cuts of beef are cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact the JBS USA Consumer Hotline at (800) 727-2333. Members of the media with questions regarding the recall can contact Misty Barnes, Public Relations Specialist at JBS USA, at (970) 506-7805.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

Tolleson AZ




Beef Production

Located in the west end of the Salt River Valley, the Tolleson beef processing facility has provided high quality beef products to domestic and global customers for more than 45 years.

Team Members: More than 1,200

Producer Partners: More than 150

Annual Livestock Payments: More than $700 million

Community Involvement

JBS Tolleson team members support the local United Way, St. Mary's Food Bank, the Arizona National Livestock Show and many other local charities and organizations.

Brands Produced Here

5 Star Beef, 5 Star Reserve Beef, Cedar River Farms Natural Beef, Showcase Natural Beef, La Herencia, Four Star Beef, Clear River Farms Beef, Showcase Premium USA Beef, Showcase Premium Ground Beef, thinkpure Organic Ground Beef, thinkpure Natural Ground Beef

USDA Recall Classifications
Class I	This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.
Class II	This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.
Class III	This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences.

Johnston County Hams, a Smithfield, N.C. establishment, is recalling approximately 89,096 pounds of ready-to-eat ham products that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes

Johnston County Hams Recalls Ready-To-Eat Ham Products Due to Possible Listeria Contamination

Class I Recall 084-2018

Health Risk: High Oct 3, 2018

Congressional and Public Affairs
Meredith Carothers
(202) 720-9113
Press@fsis.usda.gov

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3, 2018 –   Johnston County Hams, a Smithfield, N.C. establishment, is recalling approximately 89,096 pounds of ready-to-eat ham products that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. The ready-to-eat deli-loaf ham items were produced from April 3, 2017 to Oct. 2, 2018. The following products are subject to recall: [View Labels (PDF only)] Varying weights of 7 to 8-lbs. plastic-wrapped “JOHNSTON COUNTY HAMS, INC. COUNTRY STYLE FULLY COOKED BONELESS DELI HAM.” Varying weights of 7 to 8-lbs. plastic-wrapped “Ole Fashioned Sugar Cured The Old Dominion Brand Hams Premium Fully Cooked Country Ham” with Sell-By dates from 4/10/2018 to 9/27/2019. Varying weights of 7 to 8-lbs. plastic-wrapped “Padow’s Hams & Deli, Inc. FULLY COOKED COUNTRY HAM BONELESS Glazed with Brown Sugar.” Varying weights of 7 to 8-lbs. plastic-wrapped “Premium Fully Cooked Country Ham LESS SALT Distributed By: Valley Country Hams LLC” with Sell-By dates from 4/10/2018 to 9/27/2019. Varying weights of 7 to 8-lbs. plastic-wrapped “GOODNIGHT BROTHERS COUNTRY HAM Boneless Fully Cooked.” The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. M2646” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to distributors in Maryland, North Carolina, New York, South Carolina and Virginia. On September 27, 2018, FSIS was notified that a person ill with listeriosis reported consuming a ham product produced at Johnston County Hams. Working in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state public health and agriculture partners, FSIS determined that there is a link between the Listeria monocytogenes illnesses and ham products produced at Johnston County Hams. The epidemiologic investigation identified a total of four listeriosis confirmed illnesses, including one death, between July 8, 2017 and August 11, 2018. FSIS collected two deli ham product samples from the Johnston County Hams, Inc. facility in 2016 and in early 2018. Whole genome sequencing results showed that Listeria monocytogenes identified in deli ham both years was closely related genetically to Listeria monocytogenes from ill people. FSIS is continuing to work with federal and state public health partners to determine if there are additional illnesses linked to these products and will provide updated information should it become available. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers’ freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Rufus Brown, Johnston County Hams plant manager, at (919) 934-8054. Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Largemouth Communications at (919) 459-6457. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

USDA Recall Classifications
Class I	This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.
Class II	This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.
Class III	This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences.