ON
TRACK WITH RAILWAY CLAIM SERVICES, Inc.
Volume
15 Issue 1
January 2008
RAILWAY
CLAIM SERVICES, INC.
Our 21st Year of Service
Ø
BACKGROUND
CHECKS
Ø
AIR
TRAVELERS NOTE
Ø
DOT
ANNOUNCES RANDOM DRUG TESTING PERCENTAGES FOR RAIL WORKERS
Ø
FATAL
WORKPLACE INJURIES DROP SLIGHTLY IN 2006
Ø
RAIL
SAFETY STATISTICAL INFORMATION – FIRST HALF OF 2007 V. FIRST HALF OF 2006
Ø
QUOTES
FROM HISTORY
Ø
FARMERS
INSURANCE STUDY SAYS, “BUCKLE UP”
Ø
COURT
ICES NHL PLAYER’S WORK COMP CLAIM FOR BAR FIGHT
Ø
CAR
RENTERS CONFUSED ABOUT NEED FOR COVERAGE
Ø
U.
S.
TORT OSTS DOWN IN 2006, ACCORDING TO TOWERS PERRIN STUDY
Ø
SOUTH
FLORIDA
TOPS LIST OF NATIONAL “JUDICIAL HELLHOLES”, ACCODING TO PRO-BUSINESS GROUP
Ø
COLLECTIONS?
Ø
RAILWAY
CLAIM SERVICES, INC. WEBSITE
Ø
POINTS
OF LEGAL INTEREST
Ø
RCSI
INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
CHECKS & 49
CFR
PART 172
Railway
Claim Services
, Inc. (RCSI) can perform
background checks for potential job applicants.
RCSI can also check injury histories for employees.
For further information contact
Brenda Cox
of RCSI at 731-967-1796, Fax 731-967-1390, or via email at coxb@railway-claim-services.com.
Background
checks are required for new employees under the Haz Mat Security Plan
implemented by
CFR
Part 172, Hazardous Materials: Security Requirements for Offerors and
Transporters of Hazardous Materials.
This rule states in part, “No later than the date of the
first scheduled recurrent training after
March 25, 2003
, and in no case later than
March 24, 2006
, each hazmat employee must receive training that provides an awareness of
security risks associated with hazardous materials transportation and methods
designed to enhance transportation security”.
If
your railroad has not yet implemented 49
CFR
Part 172,
Railway
Claim Services
can assist.
AIR
TRAVELERS NOTE
Effective
January 1, 2008, air travelers will be required to keep all spare lithium
batteries in carry-on baggage, with the terminals covered.
For more details, please visit the Department of Transportation's Safe
Travel Web site at http://safetravel.dot.gov/whats_new_batteries.html.
DOT
ANNOUNCES RANDOM DRUG TESTING PERCENTAGES FOR RAIL WORKERS
The
U.S. Department of Transportation has announced random rail worker drug and
alcohol testing rates for calendar year 2008.
According to the Federal mandate, a minimum of 25 percent of rail workers
will be subject to random drug testing. In addition, a minimum of 10 percent
will be subject to random alcohol testing.
The
Federal Railroad Administration sets the number each year based on test results
of the previous 12 months. The more positive tests the FRA finds, the higher the
percentage of workers tested. The
reverse is also true, as the percentage of workers tested decreases when fewer
positives tests are found. The 2008
rates for drug and alcohol testing are the same as 2007.
FATAL
WORKPLACE INJURIES DROP SLIGHTLY IN 2006
The
Department of Labor's BLS National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries for
2006 reported that 5,703 people died from on-the-job injuries in 2006, compared
with 5,734 in 2005. The rate of
fatal work injuries in 2006 was 3.9 per 100,000 workers, down from a rate of 4.0
per 100,000 workers in 2005 BLS reported.
The
overall fatal work injury rate for the
U.S.
in 2006 was lower than the rate for any year since the fatality census was
first conducted in 1992.
Fatal
highway incidents remained the number one cause of on-the-job deaths claim 1,329
lives, accounting for nearly one out of four fatal work injuries.
While fatal highway incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal
work-related event, the number of highway incidents fell 8 percent in 2006.
The number of fatal highway incidents in 2006 was the lowest annual total
since 1993.
Falls
ranked second, increasing 5 percent in 2006, claiming 809 lives.
The 809 fatal falls in 2006 was the third highest total since 1992, when
the fatality census began. Fatal
falls from roofs increased from 160 fatalities in 2005 to 184 in 2006, a rise of
15 percent.
Being
struck by objects ranked third, with 583 fatalities, although the number of
workers who were fatally injured from being struck by objects was lower in 2006,
after increasing for the last three years. The 583 fatalities resulting from
being struck by objects in 2006 represented a 4 percent decline from the 2005
total.
Workplace
homicides ranked fourth claiming the lives of 516 workers, with more than 80
percent of those workers being shot. However, the number of workplace homicides
in 2006 was a series low and reflected a decline of over 50 percent from the
high reported in 1994, the Census reported.
Fatalities
involving fires and explosions increased by 26 percent in 2006, rising from 159
in 2005 to 201 in 2006. Fatalities
resulting from exposure to harmful substances or environments were also higher
in 2006, led by a 12 percent increase in exposure to caustic, noxious, or
allergenic substances.
RAIL
SAFETY STATISTICAL INFORMATION – FIRST HALF OF 2007 V. FIRST HALF OF 2006
In
2007, when compared to the corresponding first six months of 2006, the railroad
industry frequency rate declined from 2.17 to 2.03, and the severity rate
decreased from 5.84 to 5.68. Trespasser
casualties (deaths and injuries) decreased from 553 to 481 (5.9%).
Highway-rail incidents at public and private crossing decreased from
1,658 to 1,537 (a decrease of 11.5%).
During
the first half of 2007 railroads had 246 fewer train accidents, or a 16.8
percent reduction, when compared to the first six months of 2006.
Specifically, derailments decreased by 14.3 percent and train-to-train
collisions fell 12.1 percent.
The
preliminary data shows that the two leading causes of train accidents, human
error and track issues, declined 13.9 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively.
Incidents caused by equipment failure fell by 10.3 percent and by signal
problems declined by 37.0 percent.
All
railroad statistical information can be found at:
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/
 QUOTES
FROM HISTORY
A
strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad
measures. Daniel
Webster
When
they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer
'Present' or 'Not guilty.'
Theodore
Roosevelt
If
two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the
thinking.
Lyndon
B. Johnson
FARMERS
INSURANCE STUDY SAYS, “BUCKLE UP”
Farmers
Insurance has finished a preliminary study on driver mortality rates in
multi-vehicle accidents using 2006 fatal data recently released by the United
States Department of Transportation.
The
study uses a logistic econometric model with forty-one variables to analyze the
probability of a driver’s death in an accident, including safety features,
location and time of the accident, and driver demographics.
The
report found “. . .strong statistical evidence that seat belts remain the most
important protection for the driver.” The
report went on to say, “We found that when a driver used a seat belt, the odds
of a fatality dropped nearly 70% compared to a driver who did not.”
The
Farmers study also reported that several other factors showed significance in
decreasing the odds of a driver’s death. For example, rear-end collisions
proved less deadly than head-on or T-bone collisions.
COURT
ICES NHL PLAYER’S WORK COMP CLAIM FOR BAR FIGHT
According
to court documents, the Washington Capitals had gone to
New York
to play the Rangers. Joe Murphy, a Capitals’ player, was injured and not
playing in the game, went out for a team-paid dinner with his teammates, where
he and others "drank a substantial amount of beer and vodka." They
"drank more beer and vodka" at a subsequent nightclub visit.
At
closing time outside the club, Murphy was hit over the head by a bottle-wielding
man who knew a woman the hockey player was trying to persuade to get in his
limousine, court records state.
Murphy,
who required medical treatment, filed for workers comp benefits that he asserted
"arose out of and in the course of his employment."
However,
an administrative law judge blocked the claim. While the dinner "was an
activity related to employment," the "venture to the Lower East Side
to patronize a bar" afterward "was not an activity incidental to his
employment, nor would have it been foreseeable by employer," the judge
ruled.
The
District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld an administrative law judge's
ruling in favor of Murphy's former employer, the Washington Capitals, and
Warren, N.J.-based Chubb Corp.
The
appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling and rejected Murphy's suit seeking
benefits for injuries he received in a December 2000 fight outside a
New York
nightclub.
Editor's
Comments:
If the assault/injury had arisen after the "team-paid dinner with
his teammates" instead of the "subsequent nightclub" stop, would
this injury have been covered by WC since it was an activity incidental to his
employment? Probably.
Don't you find it strange that we are at the point in our claims and
litigation system that someone would pursue a claim of this type?
CAR
RENTERS CONFUSED ABOUT NEED FOR COVERAGE
When
the clerk behind the car rental desk slides that form across the counter and
says, "Initial here, sign here" and "Oh, check here if you waive
liability and collision," it's just natural to picture the worst.
Should
you check that little box on the rental form? Do you really need that insurance?
It's only a few extra dollars, but why pay more?
No
matter what you choose, you may still end up feeling confused and, if you do,
you have plenty of company.
According
to a survey by the Kansas City, Mo.-based National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (NAIC), nearly 42% of
U.S.
residents don't understand car rental insurance.
"When
renting a car, many consumers purchase unnecessary insurance and end up wasting
money. Meanwhile, other drivers inadvertently underinsure their rental car,
placing themselves at risk," NAIC President and Alabama Insurance
Commissioner Walter Bell said in a statement.
Of
the 632 people surveyed in September, 34% of respondents said they purchased the
rental company's insurance just to make sure they were covered, and 24% were not
sure whether their credit card provided coverage when renting a car, the NAIC
said.
The
NAIC recommends consumers contact their car insurance and credit card
companies before renting a vehicle, to inquire about specific coverage needs.
The NAIC noted that company travel is not covered by personal car insurance and
rentals of longer than a week might have different conditions.
A
company policy regarding rental car insurance should be in place and all
employees renting cars on behalf of the company should be familiar with that
policy.
U.
S.
TORT COSTS DOWN IN 2006, ACCORDING TO TOWERS PERRIN STUDY
U.S.
tort costs totaled $247 billion in 2006, which is approximately $825 per person
and $57 less per person than in 2005, according to the 2007
Update on
U.S.
Tort Cost Trends from the Tillinghast insurance consulting practice
of Towers Perrin. Tort costs
declined by 5.5% in 2006, significantly lower than the growth rate of 0.4% in
2005, 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2003. The
$13.4 billion decrease over tort costs in 2005 marks the first downward trend
since 1997. The 2007 report
analyzes
U.S.
tort costs from 1950 through 2006, with projections through 2009.
The
5.5% decline in tort costs was markedly less than overall
U.S.
economic growth of 6.1%, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP).
Since 1950, growth in tort costs has exceeded growth in GDP by an average
of 2% to 3%. However, over the last
20 years, the ratio of tort costs to GDP has stayed within a relatively narrow
range, at approximately 2%. In
2006, the ratio slipped below 2% for the first time in the last six years.
U.S.
tort cost growth since 1950 far exceeds
U.S.
population growth. Even after
adjusting for inflation, tort costs per capita have risen by a factor of more
than nine between 1950 and 2005, but inflation-adjusted tort costs per capita
were lower in 2006 than in the prior three years.
Looking
ahead, Tillinghast anticipates growth of
U.S.
tort costs to be 2.5% in 2007, with slightly higher growth of 4.5% for the
following two years.
A
variety of factors may have an effect on the growth of tort costs in the near
future, including:
Looking
at the list, several of the issues that will impact future trends in tort costs
-- from subprime mortgages to global warming to backdating of options -- were
not even a consideration a decade ago. Yet these factors and their prospect for
continued and new lawsuits have the potential to make a major impact on overall
costs in 2007 and beyond.
The
2007 Update on
U.S.
Tort Cost Trends is the 11th study of
U.S.
tort costs published by the Tillinghast business of Towers Perrin. The study
examines only one side of the
U.S.
tort system: the costs. No attempt has been made to measure or quantify the
benefits of the tort system, such as a systematic resolution of disputes, and
the study makes no conclusion that the costs of the
U.S.
tort system outweigh the benefits or vice versa. The report is conducted
entirely by Tillinghast and it is not funded or subject to approval by any
outside organization. The report is available at: www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast.
Towers
Perrin is a global professional services firm that helps organizations improve
their performance through effective people, risk and financial management.
Through the Tillinghast line of business, Towers Perrin provides consulting and
software solutions to insurance and financial services companies and advises
other organizations on risk financing and self-insurance. More information about
Towers Perrin is available at www.towersperrin.com.
SOUTH
FLORIDA
TOPS LIST OF NATIONAL “JUDICIAL HELLHOLES”, ACCODING TO PRO-BUSINESS GROUP
Just in time for the end of the year, The American Tort Reform Association, a
pro-business group, said that
South Florida
topped its national list of “judicial hellholes” for, among other things,
“its reputation for high awards and plaintiff-friendly rulings that make it a
launching point for class actions, dubious claims and novel theories of
recovery.”
On the newest list, South Florida is followed by
Texas
’
Rio Grande
Valley
and
Gulf Coast
,
Illinois
’
Cook
County
including
Chicago
,
West Virginia
and
Nevada
’s
Clark
County
that includes
Las Vegas
.
ATRA said they strive
to “identify areas of the country where the scales of justice are radically
out of balance, and to provide solutions for restoring balance, accuracy and
predictability to the American civil justice system.”
Nevada
’s
Clark
County
’s debut in the rankings, ATRA said, come as a result of judges “criticized
for issuing favorable rulings in cases benefiting friends, campaign contributors
or their own financial interests”.
ATRA said that
Illinois
’
Cook
County
is home to what ATRA said was “a disproportionate number of the state’s
large civil cases” lately involving pet food and peanut butter.
According to ATRA, it
considers to be the nation’s biggest “judicial hellholes”, in order of the
worst being first on the list as: 1)
South Florida, 2) Rio Grande Valley and Gulf Coast, Texas, 3) Cook County,
Illinois, 4) West Virginia, 5) Clark County, Nevada; 6) Atlantic County, New
Jersey.
The group’s
“watch list”: 1) Madison
County, Illinois, 2) St. Clair County, Illinois, 3) Northern New Mexico, 4)
Hillsborough County, Florida, 5) Delaware; 6) California.
Further information
is available at: American Tort
Reform Association, http://www.atra.org
COLLECTIONS?
Problems
collecting for damages? Increase
your chances of collecting that money, or reducing the total you are legally
obligated to pay. All
without the cost and delays where litigation is involved.
Let
Railway
Claim Services
,
Inc. handle these collection issues for you.
You pay nothing if RCSI fails to collect or fails to reduce the bill for
the submitted loss. Email
or call
Randal
Little
or
Dave
Gardner
for further information. There
is no cost if we are not successful.
 RAILWAY
CLAIM SERVICES, INC. WEBSITE
Railway
Claim Services
, Inc. maintains
a website containing useful information for our industry.
If you haven’t visited our website recently, you may have missed some
of the content recently added.
The
Code of Federal Regulations, TITLE
49—Transportation, Subtitle B--OTHER REGULATIONS RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION, CHAPTER
II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Please visit our website and click on the following link. http://www.railway-claim-services.com/waycar.htm
Railway Claim Services
’ website has the complete General Code of Operating Rules posted for your
reference. http://www.railway-claim-services.com/safety_first.htm
As
a part of our ongoing efforts to provide RCSI clients with information vital to
the safe and efficient operation, RCSI’s website contains the complete text of
the Emergency Response Guidebook: http://www.railway-claim-services.com/waycar.htm
RCSI is always trying
to upgrade our website and make it a place for you to find the information you
need. If you have any suggestions,
comments, or questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
We appreciate your feedback.
 POINTS
OF LEGAL INTEREST
Minor
- Trespasser - Ten Year-Old Girl Killed By BNSF Train — As the
plaintiffs’ decedent daughter, age ten, walked a pedestrian path with a
cousin, the girls came to defendant’s railroad track on which a BNSF train was
approaching. According to testimony
filed with the court the decedent took off running, while telling the cousin
that she could make it. The
decedent was struck by the BNSF locomotive and was fatally injured.
As a result of this accident the plaintiffs filed a two count complaint
in federal court: asserting: negligent operation of the train; and, liability
under the premises liability statute [C.R.S. § 13-21-115].
BNSF railroad moved to dismiss the first claim for relief, based on the
statutory provision that “the landowner shall be liable only as provided in
subsection (3) of this subsection.”
The district court granted the motion, concluding that, as a matter
of law, the negligence claim was precluded by the statutory provision. Nikki
Chris
tensen, et al v. BNSF Rail Way Company,
U.S.
District Court D.
Colorado
No. 07-00374.
Trespasser
- Trespasser losses both legs in accident that produced more than one version of
the Events - Troy
Bankston, a.k.a. Arthur Banks, age 41 alleged that on September 24, 2004 he was
walking beside an NS train in
Atlanta
,
Georgia
when his backpack was hooked by a pole extending from the train, resulting in
Plaintiff being pulled under the train. Both
legs were severed above the knees. Another
version of the accident came from the surgical notes wherein Plaintiff allegedly
stated that he was running beside the train trying to jump on it when he fell
under the train. Since the
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated he is not a candidate for prosthetics as
prosthetics are not allowed in prison. A
defense verdict was returned by the jury. Troy
Bankston v.
Norfolk
Southern
Railway
,
US
District Court for the Northern of Georgia,
Atlanta
Division
Trespasser
- BNSF Engineer Fails To Engage Emergency Stop Procedure Because “Full
Reduction” of Brakes Already in Progress On
November 5, 2001, after
drinking six beers between in a span of less than two hours started home.
On his way home the plaintiff, walked, without permission, on railroad
property. At the same time a BNSF
train entered
Arkansas City
,
Kansas
at between 10 and 20 m.p.h. The
engineer noticed the plaintiff near the tracks. The engineer realized that the
person was standing between the tracks and he sounded the whistle.
According to the
engineer, plaintiff continued towards the train with a stumbling gait. The
engineer did not activate the emergency stop feature notwithstanding that
railroad regulations called for such action when an individual is spotted on the
tracks since he already had hill reduction on the train’s brakes. The train
struck the plaintiff. The train came to a stop 1.4 miles after plaintiff was
struck. The engineer decided to keep the train moving in order to clear the
crossings for emergency personnel. The conductor got off the train at the depot
and contacted emergency services. The plaintiff survived and was taken to a
hospital where his blood alcohol was 0.20 grams per 100 milliliters.
Investigators determined that plaintiffs left leg was severed by the 102nd car
in the train (which had 107 freight cars and three locomotives). Plaintiff filed
suit claiming that the railroad and the crew were negligent, willful and wanton
in the operation of the train.
Discovery established
that there was nothing that either the engineer or conductor could have done to
avoid striking plaintiff. Although the men acknowledged that railroad
regulations required activation of emergency stop procedures, they testified
that they believed the safer course of action was to continue to the depot so
that tracks would be clear for emergency vehicles. The trial court granted a
defense motion to strike the expert report on which plaintiff relied as it found
that the opinions and conclusions provided were not admissible because they did
not address complicated or technical matters and would not assist the trier of
fact.
The defense then
sought summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff could not prove any breach
of duty because he was a trespasser. It
also asserted that plaintiff could not prove causation. The trial court
concluded that no duty was breached and granted summary judgment to the defense.
Plaintiff appealed. While not disputing that he was intoxicated, a
trespasser and voluntarily in a position of imminent danger, plaintiff claimed
that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the decision to continue the
train for more than a mile after impact was reckless, especially since the crew
did not know whether plaintiff was under or beside the train.
The appellate court
reversed the grant of summary judgment. It found that since proximate cause and
injury were unchallenged, only the question of duty remained.
As to that matter, the court pointed out that an investigation report
completed by the investigating police agency questioned the failure to activate
the emergency stop procedure. The court also pointed out that there was no
dispute that such action was required by railroad regulations. “Whether the
decision not to activate the emergency stop procedure constituted willful and
reckless conduct, is a question of fact,” the court concluded. The case was
remanded for further proceedings with directions that Culver be allowed to
testify, although the exclusion of his report was held appropriate, as it did
not include any event recorder data information. Joseph
L. Thielen v. BNSF Railway Co., Court of Appeals of
Kansas
, Case No. 96,272.
Minor
- Trespasser - Ten Year-Old
Walks on Railroad Right-of-Way, foot severed – Alabama Supreme Court Affirms
Grant of Summary Judgment to Defense.
Near a populated area in
Birmingham
,
Alabama
, on August 2000
the then ten year-old plaintiff left his home to play with a nine year-old
friend. According to plaintiff the
boys decided to walk along NS right of way enroute to a park.
As the boys walked along the tracks a train approached, then
slowed to a stop. Testimony was presented that after the train stopped the boys
began to walk towards plaintiff’s house, but when the boys passed an open
hopper car, the plaintiff’s friend climbed the ladder on the car.
The plaintiff then stood with his right foot on the rail in order to
reach his friend and pull him down. The train then began to move and the friend
fell on top of the plaintiff, whose foot was still on the rail.
The plaintiff’s right foot was severed.
The
plaintiff filed suit, asserting claims for negligence, wantonness and outrage.
According to the plaintiff, the railroad knew that children would
trespass, citing a high rate of pedestrian casualties in the area and that in
the past a trespasser-abatement program had been used in the area.
The plaintiff also claimed that the engineer failed to blow the horn
before releasing the brakes. Finally, the plaintiff faulted the defendant for
stopping the train in such a densely populated area.
The
railroad sought summary judgment, arguing that the only duty it owed was to
avoid wantonly or negligently injuring the trespassing children once it
discovered that they were in a position of peril.
It also argued that the boys’ contributory negligence was the sole
cause of plaintiff’s injury. In
an order without factual findings or legal analysis, the trial court granted the
defense motion. The Supreme Court
of Alabama affirmed the judgment. James
E. Laster, Jr. v.
Norfolk
Southern Railway Co., Inc., Supreme
Court of Alabama No. 1050532.
Passenger
-
New York City
Transit Authority Passenger Cannot Recall How She Fell Between Two Cars According
to witnesses, the thirty-year old plaintiff, exited the third car of
defendant’s train at
Manhattan
’s Spring Street Station and then staggered against the side of the train
three times before falling into the space between the third and fourth cars.
When
the train then moved forward the plaintiff sustained a crush, de-gloving injury
of the lower right leg, which eventually required multiple surgeries, including
a below-the-knee amputation. In her suit, plaintiff claimed that the operator
was negligent. She also asserted that the conductor failed to pull the emergency
cord until several minutes after the train stopped, and claimed that the
conductor failed to keep a proper lookout. At trial plaintiff testified that the
last thing she remembered was leaving a bar where she had been drinking martinis
with a friend. The friend testified that she immediately began to scream and
wave her hands when plaintiff fell.
The
defense denied any negligence, asserting that the conductor properly observed
the platform with some physical limitations because of column in the area. The
conductor testified that he also utilized three closed-circuit monitors, in
addition to a live view of the platform. He claimed that he pulled the emergency
cord as soon as a trip device near the wheel alerted him to the fact that
something had been run over. The
jury returned a defense verdict.
Chris
tine
B. Yi v. New York City Transit
Authority, New York Co. (NY) Supreme Court No. 121430/03. Joseph F.
Sullivan of Sullivan & Brill, New York, NY for defendant.
#########################################################
RCSI
welcomes your input. If you have
any questions or comments of interest to our industry, please contact either
Dave
Gardner
or
Randal
Little
at (731) 967-1796 or FAX your message to (731) 967-1390.
Visit the
Railway
Claim Services
,
Inc. webpage located at www.railway-claim-services.com.
Railway Claim Services
, Inc. is the recognized leader in independent railroad claims management, which
includes investigation, negotiations, and all those things in between.
If
RCSI
is not already a partner in your loss control and claims management program are
you accepting too much risk?
For
further information contact:
dave_gardner@railway-claim-services.com
or randal_little@railway-claim-services.com
Corporate
Offices at:
52 South Main Street
Lexington
,
Tennessee
38351
Phone:
800-786-5204, Fax: 731-967-1390 or visit us on the Web at www.railway-claim-services.com
Railway
Claim Services
, Inc. has offices THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES.
| 