alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDevelopment of a versatile laser light scattering instrumentA versatile laser light scattering (LLS) instrument is developed for use in microgravity to measure microscopic particles of 30 A to above 3 microns. Since it is an optical technique, LLS does not affect the sample being studied. A LLS instrument built from modules allows several configurations, each optimized for a particular experiment. The multiangle LLS instrument can be mounted in the rack in the Space Shuttle and on Space Station Freedom. It is possible that a Space Shuttle glove-box and a lap-top computer containing a correlator card can be used to perform a number of experiments and to demonstrate the technology needed for more elaborate investigations. This offers simple means of flying a great number of experiments without the additional requirements of full-scale flight hardware experiments.Document ID19910007037Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMeyer, William V.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Ansari, Rafat R.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1990Subject CategoryLasers And MasersReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:182474NASA-CR-182474Accession Number91N16350Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC3-74Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910007037.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
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 455

**Question 455:** Part 50 license standard technical specifications define "Dose Equivalent I-131" as "...that concentration of I-131 (microcurie/gram) which alone would produce the same thyroid dose as the quantity and isotopic mixture of I-131, I-132, I-133, I-134, and I-135 actually present..." and "the thyroid dose conversion factors used for this calculation shall be those listed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109." 
> 
(a) After implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20, should licensees continue to use the Regulatory Guide 1.109 thyroid dose conversion factors or should they use the thyroid dose conversion factors in EPA Federal Guidance Report No. 11? 

(b) Will this be addressed in NRC's forthcoming generic letter on changes to technical specifications related to the revised Part 20?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) Licensees must continue to use the thyroid dose conversion factors DCFs) that are referenced in their technical specifications (TS). A TS amendment would be needed to allow the use of other technically acceptable values. It should be noted that in the absence of such regulatory requirements, the NRC has allowed licensees to use sources of intake-to-dose conversion factors other than Regulatory Guide 1.109.

(b) The use of Federal Guidance Report No. 11 thyroid DCFs is not planned to be included in the generic letter on changes to power reactor technical specifications to incorporate the revised Part 20 but will be addressed in a forthcoming health physics position document (which will be made publicly available).

(Reference: Reactor Technical Specifications)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Annual Report to the President: Implementation of Executive Order 13019 5 

 FMS will work with federal program agencies, especially credit granting agencies such as 

the Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture, to 

develop a process for accessing the TOP database of delinquent debtors. Access to the 

debtor database will assist federal agencies in denying federal financial assistance (loans 

and loan guaranties/insurance) to those individuals who owe delinquent child support 

obligations. 

CONCLUSION 

Adding payment streams to the offset process and encouraging states’ participation are critical 

to the success of Executive Order 13019. These steps will result in additional opportunities to 

collect delinquent child support obligations through offset. Treasury and HHS are committed to 

improving and enhancing systems and procedures to ensure that the administrative offset 

program continues to be an effective tool for collecting delinquent child support debts, as well 

as one that will complement the array of enforcement tools already available to state child 

support enforcement agencies. 

$1.6 

$1.4 

$1.2 

$1.0 

$0.8 

$0.6 

$0.4 

$0.2 

$0.0 

CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS THROUGH TOP 

$1.34 $1.39

$1.17

1998 1999 2000 

Fiscal Year 

Dollars in Billions
§ 19.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bernice Dickens, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Oral, Dental and Craniofacial Sciences Study Section, October 26, 2004, 8:30 a.m., to October 27, 2004, 3 p.m., The River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 5, 2004, 69 FR 59602-50603.                

The meeting will be held at Comfort Inn—Pentagon, 2480 South Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22206. The dates and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 12, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-23344  Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Simon Kocius, Respondent, v. William A. Jamison, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that the finding that defendant’s servant, Gilhooly, was authorized to represent the defendant and to give the order to lower the skid, is contrary to the weight of evidence. Jenks, P, J., Thomas, Stapleton, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 Exhibit 21.1
Subsidiaries of the Company
Hypercom Corporation List of Subsidiaries Name of Entity
    
    Jurisdiction of Organization1.
    
    Hypercom U.S.A., Inc.
    
    Delaware2.
    
    HBNet, Inc.
    
    Arizona3.
    
    Hypercom EMEA, Inc.
    
    Arizona4.
    
    Hypercom GEL, Inc.
    
    Arizona5.
    
    Hypercom Manufacturing Resources, Inc.
    
    Arizona6.
    
    Hypercom Latino America, Inc.
    
    Arizona7.
    
    HBNet Canada Ltd.
    
    Canada8.
    
    Hypercom de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
    
    Mexico9.
    
    Hypercom de Chile, S.A.
    
    Chile10.
    
    Netset Chile, S.A.
    
    Chile11.
    
    Hypercom Argentina S.A.
    
    Argentina12.
    
    Hypercom de Venezuela C.A.
    
    Venezuela13.
    
    Hypercom Colombia
    
    Colombia14.
    
    Hypercom do Brasil Industria e Comercio Limitada
    
    Brazil15.
    
    Hypercom do Brasil Comercial Limitada
    
    Brazil16.
    
    Netset SP Tecnologia e Servicos em Teleinformatica
Limitada
    
    Brazil17.
    
    Hypercom GmbH
    
    Germany18.
    
    Hypercom France S.A.R.L.
    
    France19.
    
    Hypercom Financial Terminals AB
    
    Sweden20.
    
    Hypercom Hungary KFT
    
    Hungary21.
    
    Hypercom EMEA Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom22
    
    Hypercom Italia S.r.l.
    
    Italy23.
    
    Hypercom Australia Pty., Ltd.
    
    Australia24.
    
    Hypercom Far East Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong25.
    
    Hypercom Asia Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong26.
    
    Hypercom Asia (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore27.
    
    Hypercom (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
    
    Thailand28.
    
    Hypercom Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    China29.
    
    Hypercom Electronic Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
    
    China30.
    
    Hypercom China Co. Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong31.
    
    Hypercom Asia Services Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong32.
    
    Hypercom Transaction Services, LLC
    
    Arizona
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6751

OSVALDO RIVERA RODRIGUEZ , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ROBERT HUDGINS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv - 00128

- JPB )

Submitted : July 20, 2022 Decided: July 21, 2022

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Osvaldo Rivera Rodriguez , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6751 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Osvaldo Rivera Rodriguez, a federal prison er, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Rodriguez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the conditions of his confinement . Rodriguez contend ed that he is inc orrectly assigned to a higher security correctional facility as the result of a miscalculation in his custody level. The district court held that the claim Rodriguez sought to raise was not cognizable under § 2241. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Rodriguez v. Hudgins , No. 5:20

- cv - 00128

- JPB (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 21, 202 1 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6751 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
No: III-23-007 April 25, 2023 

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663 

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a special inspection at the Davis-Besse 

Nuclear Power Station to investigate the circumstances surrounding ground settling occurrences at 

various locations around the plant. 

The NRC determined a special inspection was necessary after learning that an October 2022 

fire protection piping failure was likely caused by excessive stresses on piping from ground settling; 

learning of an additional fire protection piping failure in March 2023; and becoming aware of 

multiple occurrences of ground settling at the site. Fire protection piping, a system related to safety, 

delivers water to the plant for firefighting purposes. 

The five-person special inspection team will establish a historical sequence of events related 

to ground-settling zones and assess the licensee’s actions to evaluate, monitor or mitigate the 

phenomenon and its potential impact on equipment important to safety. The team has expertise in 

operations, fire protection, aging of components, license renewal, geotechnical science, geology and 

geophysics/seismology. 

NRC inspectors verified the plant was in a safe condition and that the licensee took prompt 

action to restore the fire protection function after both fire protection piping failures. 

Upon completion of the special inspection, NRC inspectors will document their findings in a 

publicly available inspection report, which will be distributed electronically to listserv subscribers 

and available on the NRC website. 

The plant, located in Oak Harbor, Ohio, is operated by Energy Harbor Corp.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Steven M. Belote, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Shore Financial Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:March 24, 2004
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF HYPERCOM CORPORATION PURSUANT TO
      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I certify that: (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 of Hypercom Corporation (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hypercom
Corporation.


By: /s/ John W. Smolak
   ---------------------------------
John W. Smolak
Chief Financial Officer

March 28, 2003
#### Frank Heiferman, Respondent, *v.*Greenhut Cloak Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Term, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 30th day of December, 1913, reversing an order of the City Court setting aside a verdict and granting a new-trial, and from an order of the City Court entered upon such determination.

Per Curiam:

We think the order of the trial judge setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial was under the circumstances proper and that such order should not have been reversed. The determination of the Appellate Term and the order of the City Court thereupon entered are, therefore, reversed, with costs in this court and- in the Appellate Term, and the original order of the City Court affirmed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Determination and order entered thereon reversed, with costs in this court and the Appellate Term, and original order of the City Court affirmed Order to be settled on notice.
#### § 208.8 Code of conduct.

The Assistant Administrator will develop and implement a code of conduct for System Members acting under DHS's direction and control. Nothing in this section or the DHS code of conduct will limit the authority of a Sponsoring Agency, Participating Agency or Cooperating Agency to apply its own code of conduct to its System Members or employees. If the DHS code is more restrictive, it controls.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fidel RODRIGUEZ-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51296.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*340PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Fidel Rodriguez-Herrera raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*528 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration   

          - [TA-W-55,688]   

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 27, 2004, in response to a petition filed by an employee on behalf of workers at California Manufacturing Company, California, Missouri.   

The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. In order to establish a valid worker group, there must be at least three full-time workers employed at some point during the period under investigation. One employee does not meet this threshold level of employment. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.   

Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day of September, 2004.   

Elliott S. Kushner,   

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.   

[FR Doc. 04-22804 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]   

BILLING CODE 4310-30-U
!






"







#
$%	
&

 



'!()!	(%





*+(,,
(	($







-
	
&./0$1	(%-!()2

3



45*+(
	,()(56	(5&44





&+!(!7(	8(#(&!






*,)	(%%	%&./0$,$
((

3 



!56,-!,)$59((%#-(

$56	! 

:;<

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-55 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
	





		

		


  

	


!	"
"	
#!"	

$


%		


&#	"

#"

	'"
	"	#	"


	#	

()*


%		


!#
""
	!
		'#+,				


	"	

() *

	


-	"#	#	
	"!!
.	
"	

!"	

($

	


/
"
		"0

($)


%		



!12

)$ )

	


-	
#
"#	'!
3
	
	


	



!"
	"

)$ *


%		


&"


)$$(*

	




	
	
.!"#	"

)( $ 


%		


-	+"
#!
		
	"

!
!		
"
1 ))

	


#
"#	

!
!
		



))(


%		


$4

567

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-55 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 2