alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# PROPOSED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

**MP-3400 (Ratesetting Services)**

**PROCEDURE NUMBER:**  FY2002-1

**DATE:**  October 30, 2002

**SUBJECT:**  Accounting and Ratesetting Procedures for Rescheduled Sacramento River Base Supply water in accordance with renewal of their long-term settlement contract.

**PURPOSE:** Provide technical instructions for accounting for Sacramento River Base Supply water that is not used and subsequently rescheduled (with Reclamation’s approval) within the same contract water year.

**PAYMENTS:**  Required payments for rescheduled Sacramento River Base Supply water would be based on the applicable rescheduling rate (consisting of Storage Capital and O&M) as shown in the CVP Special Water Ratebook  and  the payment would need to be received prior to the delivery of the rescheduled water.

**RESCHEDULED WATER IS DELIVERED:**

**Revenues and Costs** – once the rescheduled Sacramento River Base Supply water is delivered it will be recorded in the Water Operations Record Keeping System (WORKS) as rescheduled Base Supply water charges under the long-term settlement contract.

These Rescheduled Base Supply water charges under the long-term settlement contract will be accounted for as temporary contractor revenues and, as such, will be used to reduce Water Marketing expenses in accordance with the current CVP Water ratesetting policies.  No capital or O&M costs will be prorated to these contractors based on this rescheduled Base Supply water.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2010-1301

Docket Number

2010-SW-008-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained 

in the Supplemental AD Docket

ASB No. MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-110R1, dated December 

3, 2008.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
Overflow Parking Lot for Permits and Groups at Weir Farm NHP

• Park in the Overflow Parking Lot located in a field just north of the brown Weir Barn, notated by the Yellow Arrow and 

highlighting below. The entrance is through a gap in the stone wall just across from the Weir Pond Trail entrance on Nod Hill Road, at the crosswalk. 

• DO NOT park in the regular Visitor Parking Lot (located at 735 Nod Hill Road and notated with a Red X below). • If traveling South on Nod Hill Road and coming from Route 102/Old Branchville Road, watch for the entrance on the RIGHT. If 

driving North on Nod Hill Road and coming from the South, pass by the Visitor Parking Lot at 735 Nod Hill Road and watch for the entrance after the stop sign and brown Weir Barn on the LEFT.

• A Park Ranger in a reflective vest will be stationed at the entrance . If you do not see the Park Ranger when you arrive, you

may turn into the Overflow Parking Lot and park in the designated spaces to the RIGHT, highlighted in Yellow below.
Draft Proposal CB-16 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Below-Grade Wall Insulation (CB-16) 

Objective:  Clarify where and how insulation is to be installed on below‐grade walls.  The term “installed

in or continuously on" is potentially confusing in that it infers that the insulation could be inside the wall

but not necessarily continuous.  Also clarify where the depth of burial measurements are to be made.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C402.2.4 as follows:  

C402.2.4 Thermal resistance of below-grade walls. The minimum thermal resistance (R-value) of the 

insulating materials installed in, or continuously within or on the below-grade walls shall be as specified 

in Table C402.2 and shall extend to a depth of at least 10 ft below the outside finish ground level, or to 

the level of the finished floor associated with the conditioned space adjacent to the wall, whichever is 

less. 

Reason: Where insulation is required, the current code requires it to be continuous insulation.  The term

“installed in or” is potentially confusing in that it infers that the insulation could be inside the wall but

not necessarily continuous.  The proposed change ensures that regardless of the location, the insulation

that is applied must be continuous as provided in Table C402.2.  As a minimum code, it is more

appropriate to state measurements such as depth of burial as minimums that can be exceeded rather

than a single “one length only” criterion.  The term “floor” can be clarified further to indicate what floor

is being considered.  For instance, a wall separating an unconditioned crawl space from a basement or

below‐grade room could be a below‐grade wall bounded by two floors (conditioned space and crawl

space).  The proposed text ensures there is no confusion as to what floor the insulation depth is to be

measured.

Cost Impact:   There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81036-AHS

TWISTED TSUNAMI, LLC, d/b/a TWO

TWISTED ITALIANS BISTRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, TWISTED TSUNAMI, LLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(i), and in light of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss wherein it is alleged 

insurance coverage does not exist based on the specific facts of this case, Plaintiff hereby 

voluntarily dismisses this action with prejudice.

/s/ Donna DeVaney Stockham 

Donna DeVaney Stockham, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 121088

Kelly A. Fantetti, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 96141

STOCKHAM LAW GROUP, P.A.

109 S. Edison Ave. 

Tampa, Florida 33606

Telephone: (813) 867-4455

Facsimile: (813) 867-4454

Attorney for Plaintiff

dstockham@stockhamlawgroup.com

kfantetti@stockhamlawgroup.com

Tampa.Pleadings@stockhamlawgroup.com

Case 9:20-cv-81036-AHS Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished 

via Electronic Mail to Gregory W. Coleman, Esq., and Santo DiGangi, Esq., at 

gcoleman@lawclc.com, sdigangi@lawclc.com, and cwoodward@lawclc.com on this 20

th day of 

November 2020. 

/s/Donna DeVaney Stockham

Attorney

Case 9:20-cv-81036-AHS Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/20/2020 Page 2 of 2
No: III-23-008 May 9, 2023

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663 

NRC to Hold Public Meeting to Discuss 2022 Performance 

of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will discuss the agency’s annual safety performance 

assessment of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant during a hybrid public meeting scheduled for May 17. 

The single-unit plant, located in Oak Harbor, Ohio, is operated by Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. 

The meeting will be held at 5 p.m., Eastern time, at the Oak Harbor Public Library, 

147 W. Main Street, in Oak Harbor. NRC staff responsible for plant inspection and oversight, including the 

resident inspectors based full-time at the site, will make a presentation and then answer questions from the 

public. Members of the public are welcome to attend in person or virtually using the following webinar link. 

The NRC determined that Davis-Besse operated safely during 2022. NRC inspectors identified a 

greater than green finding in the area of security in 2021, which the licensee continues to address. As a result, 

Davis- Besse remains under increased NRC oversight as of the third quarter of 2021. 

Last year, Energy Harbor notified the NRC that the plant was ready for a follow-up inspection on the 

security issue. After conducting an entrance meeting, the NRC inspection team determined that it could not 

complete its objectives per the inspection procedures and suspended the inspection. The NRC plans to 

resume the follow-up inspection when the company notifies the NRC of its readiness.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to measure 

plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the 

safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or performance indicators with more than very 

low safety significance trigger increased NRC oversight. 

Inspections are performed by two NRC resident inspectors assigned to each plant and specialist 

inspectors from the Region III Office in Lisle, Illinois.

The annual assessment letters for Davis-Besse and the meeting notice are available on the NRC 

website. Current performance information for the plant is also available and is updated on a quarterly basis.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5002 

To allow for alternatives to animal testing for purposes of drug and biological 

product applications. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. MARSHALL, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KING, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

TUBERVILLE, Mr. LUJA ́N, and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and 

passed 

A BILL 

To allow for alternatives to animal testing for purposes of 

drug and biological product applications. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FDA Modernization 

5 Act 2.0’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 505 of the Federal Food, 

8 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (i)— 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5002 CPS

1 (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘pre2 clinical tests (including tests on animals)’’ and 

3 inserting ‘‘nonclinical tests’’; and 

4 (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘ani5 mal’’ and inserting ‘‘nonclinical tests’’; and 

6 (2) after subsection (y), by inserting the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(z) NONCLINICAL TEST DEFINED.—For purposes 

9 of this section, the term ‘nonclinical test’ means a test con10 ducted in vitro, in silico, or in chemico, or a non-human 

11 in vivo test that occurs before or during the clinical trial 

12 phase of the investigation of the safety and effectiveness 

13 of a drug, and may include animal tests, or non-animal 

14 or human biology-based test methods, such as cell-based 

15 assays, microphysiological systems, or bioprinted or com16 puter models.’’. 

17 (b) BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT APPLICA18 TIONS.—Item (bb) of section 351(k)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the 

19 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)(2)(A)(i)(I)) 

20 is amended to read as follows: 

21 ‘‘(bb) an assessment of tox22 icity (which may rely on, or con23 sist of, a study or studies deVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:03 Sep 30, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S5002.CPS S5002

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5002 CPS

1 scribed in item (aa) or (cc)); 

2 and’’. 

Æ 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with BILLS
### §113. Definitions of terms and words used in chapter

When used in this chapter, and for the purposes of this chapter—

(a) A case shall be held to involve or to grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation; or have direct or indirect interests therein; or who are employees of the same employer; or who are members of the same or an affiliated organization of employers or employees; whether such dispute is (1) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees; (2) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employers or associations of employers; or (3) between one or more employees or associations of employees and one or more employees or associations of employees; or when the case involves any conflicting or competing interests in a "labor dispute" (as defined in this section) of "persons participating or interested" therein (as defined in this section).

(b) A person or association shall be held to be a person participating or interested in a labor dispute if relief is sought against him or it, and if he or it is engaged in the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation in which such dispute occurs, or has a direct or indirect interest therein, or is a member, officer, or agent of any association composed in whole or in part of employers or employees engaged in such industry, trade, craft, or occupation.

(c) The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.

(d) The term "court of the United States" means any court of the United States whose jurisdiction has been or may be conferred or defined or limited by Act of Congress, including the courts of the District of Columbia.

(Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, §13, 47 Stat. 73.)
From: David Schwartz <DSchwartz@hawkeyefla.com> 

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:48:19 +0000

Subject: Reasonable Accommodation Request

To: Sanne Unger <sanne.majorca@gmail.com>, "SAMA59@GMAIL.COM" <SAMA59@gmail.com> 

Cc: Tara Scott <tara@taraleighscott.com>, "Daniel Johnson, Secretary"

<magansbay2@gmail.com> 

Good Morning:

At this time, the board of directors does not record audio or video of the Board meetings. This is not 

normal practice for the board meetings. If and when you are able to attend the Board meetings, you are 

able to record the Board meetings. I believe the location of the meetings which are held at Sugar Sand 

Park is ADA compliant. If you are not able to attend the meetings, you may designate a set 

representative by power of attorney to attend the meetings for you and then that person may record or 

take notes as necessary of the Board meeting.

The only transcripts which are available are the approved meeting minutes from the previous meeting. 

A website is being developed, once that is up and running, you will be able to have access to the 

community information easily. In the meantime, when the community information is available, we will 

email you a copy.

Should you have any additional questions please let me know.

Thank you,

David Schwartz, LCAM

Hawk-Eye Management, Inc.

3901 North Federal Highway, Suite 202

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

561-392-1600

561-392-1608 Fax

www.hawkeyefla.com

dschwartz@hawkeyefla.com

Exhibit B

Case 9:20-cv-81175-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.313 Applicability of subpart B provisions.

Except where inconsistent with this subpart C, the provisions of subpart B of this part apply to appeals from size determinations and NAICS code designations.

[67 FR 47250, July 18, 2002]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Hygrade Management Corporation, Appellant, against Joseph Lilly et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. [601 W. 156th St., Borough of Manhattan.]

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGalileo: Earth avoidance study reportThe 1989 Galileo mission to Jupiter is based on a VEEGA (Venus Earth Earth-Gravity Assist) trajectory which uses two flybys of Earth and one of Venus to achieve the necessary energy and shaping to reach Jupiter. These encounters are needed because the Centaur upper stage is not now being used on this mission. Since the Galileo spacecraft uses radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for electrical power, the question arises as to whether there is any chance of an inadvertent atmospheric entry of the spacecraft during either of the two Earth flybys. A study was performed which determined the necessary actions, in both spacecraft and trajectory design as well as in operations, to insure that the probability of such reentry is made very small, and to provide a quantitative assessment of the probability of reentry.Document ID19900018414Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMitchell, R. T.*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 4, 1988Subject CategoryAstronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberJPL-1625-396-REV-ANASA-CR-186424JPL-D-5580-REV-ANAS 1.26:186424Accession Number90N27730Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900018414.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2015

d0518

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2015

149735(13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149735

COA: 321298

Wayne CC: 02-003922-FC

JOEL ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 3, 

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
§ 113.1 Purpose. ( a ) Part 112 of this chapter, issued pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by some recipients of financial assistance from SBA. The purpose of this part is to reflect to the fullest extent possible the nondiscrimination policies of the Federal Government as expressed in the several statutes, Executive Orders, and messages of the President dealing with civil rights and equality of opportunity, and in the previous determination of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration that discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, marital status, handicap or national origin shall be prohibited, to the extent that it is not prohibited by part 112 of this chapter, to all recipients of financial assistance from SBA.
( b ) In accordance with Pub. L. 94-239, 15 U.S.C. 1691, cited as the Equal Credit Act Amendments of 1976, it is unlawful for any recipient creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age: (*Provided,* the applicant has the capacity to contract), because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program, or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
( c ) It is the intention of the Administrator that the prohibitions in this part supplement those in part 112 of this chapter, that the two parts be read in pari materia, and that the procedures established herein be harmonized to the maximum extent feasible with those established in part 112 of this chapter.
§ 49.15 When does this part not apply? ( a ) The regulations in this part do not invalidate, modify, or impose additional restrictions or permitting requirements on mineral, reclamation, or related multiple-use activities which the Department or a bureau may authorize or for which permits may be issued under the general mining, mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, or mineral materials disposal laws.
( b ) The regulations in this part do not apply to Indian land.
( c ) The regulations in this part do not apply to any land other than Federal land as defined in this part, or resources other than paleontological resources as defined in this part.
( d ) On lands administered by BLM or Reclamation, the following are not subject to this part: ( 1 ) Fossilized minerals, including coal, oil shale, bitumen, lignite, asphaltum, tar sands, and other economic minerals that are subject to existing mining or mineral laws and geological units and industrial minerals, including, but not limited to, phosphate, limestone, diatomaceous earth, coquina, chalk beds, and paleosols. However, paleontological resources that occur within in these units may be subject to this part;
( 2 ) Petrified wood, defined at 30 U.S.C. 611.
( 3 ) Conodonts.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Employee Protection from Employers for Revealing Safety Violations

## HPPOS-141 PDR-9111210379

See the letter from J. M. Taylor to W. H. Owen (Duke Power Company) dated June 30, 1986.

The letter was written concerning a Notice of Violation (NOV) for alleged discrimination against an employee for engaging in protected activities. The Evaluation and Conclusion Appendix enclosed with the letter states that protected activities include the reporting of QA discrepancies and nuclear safety problems by an employee to his employer.

Employees are protected from retaliation and discrimination for internal safety activities that involve no contact with NRC. A licensee had disputed the NRC's view that "protected activities" under 10 CFR 50.7, as well as under paragraph 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, include the reporting of quality assurance discrepancies and nuclear safety problems by an employee to his employer. The licensee argued that an employee must contact the NRC "or some other competent organization of government." The licensee based its view on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Brown & Root, Inc., v. Donovan, 747 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1984), in which that court held that "employee conduct which does not involve the employee's contact or involvement with a competent organization of government is not protected" under paragraph 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act.

The NRC believes that the better view of "protected activities" under paragraph 210 is that employees are protected from retaliation and discrimination under the statute for purely internal safety activities that involve no contact with representatives of the NRC. The Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals support this construction of paragraph 210 and have rejected the analysis of the Fifth Circuit Court (see Mackowiak v. University Nuclear Systems, Inc., 735 F.2d 1159, 1162-63, Ninth Circuit 1984; Kansas Gas and Electric Co. v. Brock, 780 F2.d 1505, 1510-12, Tenth Circuit 1985). The Commission follows this view in the application of its own employee protection regulations such as 10 CFR 50.7.

**Regulatory references:**10 CFR 19.20, 10 CFR 30.7, 10 CFR 50.7

**Subject codes:** 12.1, 12.7, 12.13

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017