alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 148

**Question 148:** What is the dose limit for a member of the public in a restricted area?

**Answer:** By definition (10 CFR 20.1003), the dose received by an individual in a restricted area is an occupational dose. Also, by definition, "member of the public" means an individual in a controlled or unrestricted area (not an individual in a restricted area). Therefore, the occupational dose limits (and not the dose limits for individual members of the public) apply to the dose received by any individual in a restricted area. See related Question 26.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1003)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Editorial Note on Part 124
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

§ 124.508 How is an 8(a) contract executed? ( a ) An 8(a) contract can be awarded in the following ways: ( 1 ) As a tripartite agreement in which the procuring activity, SBA and the Participant all sign the appropriate contract documents. There may be separate prime and subcontract documents (i.e., a prime contract between the procuring activity and SBA and a subcontract between SBA and the selected 8(a) concern) or a combined contract document representing both the prime and subcontract relationships; or
( 2 ) Where SBA has delegated contract execution authority to the procuring activity, directly by the procuring activity through a contract between the procuring activity and the Participant.
( b ) Where SBA receives a contract for signature valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, it will sign the contract and return it to the procuring activity within three (3) days of receipt.
( c ) In order to be eligible to receive a sole source 8(a) contract, a firm must be a current Participant on the date of award. (*See* § 124.507(d) for competitive 8(a) awards.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-61232-RAR

CAROLINE LE GRANDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOMMY BAHAMA R&R 

HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with 

Prejudice [ECF No. 32], filed on September 27, 2021. Being fully advised, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 27th day of September, 2021.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61232-RAR Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2021 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.170 Flood insurance.

Under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Sec. 205(b) of Pub. L. 93-234; 87 Stat. 983 (42 U.S.C. 4000 *et seq.*)), a loan recipient must obtain flood insurance if any building (including mobile homes), machinery, or equipment acquired, installed, improved, constructed, or renovated with the proceeds of SBA financial assistance is located in a special flood hazard area. The requirement applies also to any inventory (business loan program), fixtures or furnishings contained or to be contained in the building. Mobile homes on a foundation are buildings. SBA, Lenders, CDCs, and Intermediaries must notify Borrowers that flood insurance must be maintained.
§ 142.29 Are witness lists exchanged before the hearing? ( a ) At least 15 days before the hearing or at such other time as ordered by the ALJ, the parties must exchange witness lists and copies of proposed hearing exhibits, including copies of any written statements or transcripts of deposition testimony that the party intends to offer in lieu of live testimony.
( b ) If a party objects, the ALJ will not admit into evidence the testimony of any witness whose name does not appear on the witness list or any exhibit not provided to an opposing party unless the ALJ finds good cause for the omission or concludes that there is no prejudice to the objecting party.
( c ) Unless a party objects within the time set by the ALJ, documents exchanged in accordance with this section are deemed to be authentic for the purpose of admissibility at the hearing.
#### Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v. Tailored Woman, Inc., Appellant. 754 Fifth Avenue, Inc., Respondent, v. Tailored Woman, Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### [§71. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–97, title I, §11051(b)(1)(B), Dec. 22, 2017, 131 Stat. 2089]

Section, Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 19; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §422(a), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, §1843(a)–(c)(1), (d), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2853, 2855, related to inclusion in gross income of amounts received as alimony or separate maintenance payments.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to any divorce or separation instrument (as defined in former subsec. (b)(2) of this section as in effect before Dec. 22, 2017) executed after Dec. 31, 2018, and to such instruments executed on or before Dec. 31, 2018, and modified after Dec. 31, 2018, if the modification expressly provides that the amendment made by section 11051 of Pub. L. 115–97 applies to such modification, see section 11051(c) of Pub. L. 115–97, set out as an Effective Date of 2017 Amendment note under section 61 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23125]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-50499; File No. SR-Amex-2004-75]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed 
Rule Change by the American Stock Exchange LLC Relating to Revisions to 
Amex Rule 154

October 6, 2004.
    On August 30, 2004, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, \2\ to 
amend Amex Rule 154 to prohibit specialists from charging commissions 
and fees in certain instances. The proposed rule change was published 
for comment in the Federal Register on September 9, 2004. \3\ The 
Commission received six comments on the proposal. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50307 (September 2, 
2004), 69 FR 54709.
    \4\ See letter to Elizabeth King, Associate Director, Division 
of Market Regulation (``Division''), Commission, from James D. Van 
De Graaff, Partner, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman, dated September 7, 
2004; letters to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, from 
Charles B. Cox III, dated September 27, 2004, from Todd Silverberg, 
General Counsel, Susquehanna Investment Group, dated September 29, 
2004, from Simon Lubershane, dated September 29, 2004, from Matthew 
Hinerfeld, Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel, Citadel 
Derivatives Group LLC, dated September 30, 2004, and from Ryan 
Primmer, Managing Director, UBS Securities LLC, dated September 30, 
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 2004, the Amex withdrew the proposed rule change. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See letter from Bill Floyd-Jones, Associate General Counsel, 
Amex, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division, Commission, 
dated September 30, 2004.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 04-23125 Filed 10-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
No: 23-003 January 12, 2023

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC to Host 8th Annual Flood Hazard Assessment Workshop

The NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research is hosting its 8th Annual Probabilistic 

Flood Hazard Assessment Workshop as a hybrid event, both at the agency’s headquarters in 

Rockville, Maryland and online, March 21 through March 24.

Workshop sessions will cover topics such as climate and precipitation; site-scale, river, 

and coastal flooding; external flooding probabilistic risk assessment; other (non-seismic) external 

hazards (e.g. high winds, extreme temperatures); and external event operational experience. 

Presenters will include NRC staff and contractors, as well as representatives of federal agencies, 

industry, academia, and other domestic and international organizations.

The workshop will run from 10 a.m.-5 p.m. Eastern time each day and will be available 

online through the Microsoft Teams platform. The workshop is free of charge. Those interested 

in providing presentations or posters for consideration should submit abstracts online by Feb. 6. 

Those interested in attending should register online by March 1. More information on the 

workshop and previous events is available on the agency website.
#### Marjorie I. Kennedy, Respondent, v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company of Illinois, Appellant.

Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 561.]
#### In the Matter of Leo Pinkwater et al., Petitioners, against Lazarus Joseph, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent. In the Matter of Sadie Cavanagh et al., Petitioners, against Lazarus Joseph, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 803.]
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL
- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0326n.06
No. 13

- 2606
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DEIDRA LUCAS , Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: MERRITT, COOK, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Deidra Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed for violating the terms of her supervised release.
O n February 11, 2011, Lucas pleaded guilty to a charge of embezzlement. She was sentenced to one day of imprisonment and three years of supervised release , which s he violated by committing new violations of state law. In September 2012, Ohio law enforcement stopped
Lucas for a traffic offense an d discovered that her passenger was carrying quantities of both
Xanax and heroin. Lucas plea ded guilty in an Ohio state court to two charges of permitting drug use, and served ninety days of imprisonment. The sentencing guideline range in this case was three to nine months. After hearing argument from both parties, the district court imposed a sentence of four months of imprisonment. Lucas argues that her sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to consi der the relevant sentencing factors.No. 13

- 2606

United States v. Lucas

- 2

- We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness; a sentence within the guideline range is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Robinson , 503 F.3d 522, 528 (6th Cir. 2007). A sentence may be found to be procedurally and substantively unreasonable where it appears that the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors. United
States v. Conatser , 514 F.3d 508, 519

- 20 (6th Cir. 2008). Her e, Lucas argues that the district court could have continued her supervised release, or imposed a sentence of home confinement or a shorter sentence, but instead imposed a sentence within the guideline range without consideration of the other sentencing fa ctors. T he sentencing hearing transcript , however, shows that the district court explicitly addressed 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s factors , including the serious nature of the offense, Lucas’s underlying criminal history, and the need to promote respect for
the law, provide just punishment, provide deterrence, and protect the public. Therefore, the record does not support the argument that the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors. A defendant ’s desire for a more lenient sentence is insufficient to disturb the district court’s judgment. United States v. Trejo

- Martinez , 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm t he district court’s judgment.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home
National Historic SiteArkansas
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.301 Scope of the rules in this subpart C. The rules of practice in this subpart C apply to all appeals to OHA from: ( a ) Formal size determinations made by an SBA Government Contracting Area Office, under part 121 of this chapter, or by a Disaster Area Office, in connection with applications for disaster loans; and
( b ) NAICS code designations, pursuant to part 121 of this chapter.
[61 FR 2683, Jan. 29, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 47249, July 18, 2002]
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.403 Are SBA size determinations and NAICS code designations binding on parties?

Formal size determinations and NAICS code designations made by authorized SBA officials are binding upon the parties. Opinions otherwise provided by SBA officials to contracting officers or others are advisory in nature, and are not binding or appealable.

[61 FR 3286, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 65 FR 30863, May 15, 2000]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

ALVE CAMPBELL, and

GERSIA INNOCENT-CAMPBELL, )

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 0:20-CV-61151-RKA

)

UNITED AUTO CREDIT CORPORATION, )

) 

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs, ALVE CAMPBELL and GERSIA INNOCENT-CAMPBELL, (“Plaintiffs”), by 

and through their attorney, Shireen Hormozdi, inform this Honorable Court that the Parties have 

reached a settlement in this case. Plaintiff anticipates dismissing this case, with prejudice, within 

60 days.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

DATED: July 14, 2020 By: /s/ Shireen Hormozdi

Shireen Hormozdi

Florida Bar No. 0882461

Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC

1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175

Norcross, GA 30093

Tel: 678-395-7795

Fax: 866-929-2434

shireen@agrusslawfirm.com

shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 0:20-cv-61151-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on July 14, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Court’s CM/ECF system to be sent via the electronic notification 

system.

By: /s/ Shireen Hormozdi

Shireen Hormozdi

Case 0:20-cv-61151-RKA Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### Samuel Segal, Respondent, v. Louis Segal, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant-appellant to answer within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
#### Leonard Ward, Respondent, v. Granby Pulp and Paper Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### Alice Shinkman, Appellant, v. Eli Shinkman, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, and stay vacated. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
HomeAbout NRCOrganization & FunctionsThe Commission

# Commissioner Bradley R. Crowell

The Honorable Bradley R. Crowell was sworn in as a Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on August 26, 2022, and is serving the remainder of a five-year term ending June 30, 2027.

Most recently, Commissioner Crowell served as Director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, first appointed in 2016 by former Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and was reappointed by Gov. Steve Sisolak in 2019. At DCNR, he led approximately 1,000 employees across eight divisions with a nearly $300 million biennial budget.

Commissioner Crowell has more than 20 years of experience in the fields of energy, environment, natural resources, climate change, and national security, including executive leadership positions in federal and state government. He previously worked for multiple Members of Congress, including former Nevada Gov. and Sen. Richard Bryan (D-NV) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Commissioner Crowell served in the Obama-Biden Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy from 2010 to 2016 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2013 as the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Crowell is a native of Carson City, Nevada and graduated from Santa Clara University, in Santa Clara California with a B.S. degree in Political Science.

**August 2022**

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 29, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Chair Christopher T. Hanson
          - Commissioner David A. Wright
          - Commissioner Annie Caputo
          - Commissioner Bradley R. Crowell

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Quick Facts

**Sworn In:** 08/26/22**Term Ends:** 06/30/27Commission VotesSpeeches and TestimonyCongressional CorrespondenceGallery PhotosPrintable Bio

#### Contact Information

**Tel:** 301-415-8420

**E-Mail:**CMRCrowell@nrc.gov

**Address:**U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionMail Stop O-16 B33Washington, DC 20555-0001

**Staff:**Amy Powell,Chief of StaffMaxine Keefe,Deputy Chief of Staff andLegal CounselDavid Brown,Technical Assistant for MaterialsBoyce Travis,Technical Assistant for Reactors

Janet Lepre,Administrative Assistant

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 29, 2024
**U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission**

**Selection of FY 2018 Special Interest Function for Analysis**

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has selected Product Service Code (PSC) R499 “Support- Professional: Other” for further review during fiscal year (FY) 2018.  NRC obligated $4,039,922.37 on contracts under this PSC during FY18.  PSC R499 has been selected for further analysis for the following reasons:

· It has not appeared previously on NRC’s Top 10 PSC list;

· The remaining Top 9 PSCs for FY18 are either being evaluated as part of NRC’s strategic acquisition process, and additional analysis in these areas would be duplicative, or further analysis would be unwarranted due to the nature of those services; and

· PSC R499 was not the subject of a previous focused analysis.
0-cr-06216-LSS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2000 Pa
0-cr-06216-LSS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2000 Pa
0-cr-06216-LSS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2000 Pa
0-cr-06216-LSS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2000 Pa
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Acceptability of New Technology Respirator Fit Testing Devices

## HPPOS-175 PDR-9111210266

See the memorandum from R. L. Pedersen to M. M. Shanbaky (and others) dated April 10, 1989.

The memo states that new technology devices can be used to conduct quantitative fit testing of respirators provided the device can be shown to be technically adequate, satisfies regulatory commitments, and meets the intent of the regulatory requirements.

The Radiation Protection Branch was queried on the acceptability of new respirator fit testing devices that were on the market.

When determining that a method is technically adequate, an inspector should keep in mind that:
        - Fit Factors determined by any quantitative fit test are not Protection Factors and can not be used as such.
        - Acceptance criteria for Fit Factors should be set at least ten times the Protection Factor of the mask being fit (i.e., to show a proper fit on a mask with a protection factor of 50, a Fit Factor of at least 500 should be measured).
        - Testing methods should reasonably simulate use conditions.
        - An adequate base for correlating the parameter being measured (aerosol concentration, pressure drop, etc.) to a Fit Factor, should be established.

It has been reported that one device on the market, QUANTAFIT, requires the subject to be absolutely still with no facial movement. Apparently momentary breaks in the face seal, caused by facial movement, fail the test. This type of leakage is well known even in a good fitting respirator and it is a major contributor to the overall leakage (or fit) of the mask. If this information is correct, it is difficult to see how this method can adequately measure the respirator fit.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.103, 10 CFR 20.1703

**Subject codes:** 5.6, 8.10

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### § 114.106 What if my claim exceeds $5,000?

The District Counsel or Disaster Area Counsel, as appropriate, must review and investigate your claim and forward it with a report and recommendation to the Associate General Counsel for Litigation, who may approve or deny an award, compromise, or settlement of claims in excess of $5,000, but not exceeding $25,000.

[64 FR 40283, July 26, 1999]