alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3175.118 Gas chromatograph requirements. ( a ) All GCs must be installed, operated, and calibrated under GPA 2261-13 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30).
( b ) Samples must be analyzed until the un-normalized sum of the mole percent of all gases analyzed is between 97 and 103 percent.
( c ) A GC may not be used to analyze any sample from an FMP until the verification meets the standards of this paragraph (c). ( 1 ) GCs must be verified under GPA 2261-13, Section 6 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30), not less than once every 7 days.
( 2 ) All gases used for verification and calibration must meet the standards of GPA 2198-03, Sections 3 and 4 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30).
( 3 ) All new gases used for verification and calibration must be authenticated prior to verification or calibration under the standards of GPA 2198-03, Section 5 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30).
( 4 ) The gas used to calibrate a GC must be maintained under Section 6 of GPA 2198-03 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30).
( 5 ) If the composition of the gas used for verification as determined by the GC varies from the certified composition of the gas used for verification by more than the reproducibility values listed in GPA 2261-13, Section 10 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30), the GC must be calibrated under GPA 2261-13, Section 6 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30).
( 6 ) If the GC is calibrated, it must be re-verified under paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
( d ) The operator must retain documentation of the verifications for the period required under § 3170.6 of this part, and make it available to the BLM upon request. The documentation must include: ( 1 ) The components analyzed;
( 2 ) The response factor for each component;
( 3 ) The peak area for each component;
( 4 ) The mole percent of each component as determined by the GC;
( 5 ) The mole percent of each component in the gas used for verification;
( 6 ) The difference between the mole percents determined in paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) of this section, expressed in relative percent;
( 7 ) Evidence that the gas used for verification and calibration: ( i ) Meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, including a unique identification number of the calibration gas used, the name of the supplier of the calibration gas, and the certified list of the mole percent of each component in the calibration gas;
( ii ) Was authenticated under paragraph (c)(3) of this section prior to verification or calibration, including the fidelity plots; and
( iii ) Was maintained under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, including the fidelity plot made as part of the calibration run;
( 8 ) The chromatograms generated during the verification process;
( 9 ) The time and date the verification was performed; and
( 10 ) The name and affiliation of the person performing the verification.
( e ) Extended analyses must be taken in accordance with GPA 2286-14 (incorporated by reference, see § 3175.30) or other method approved by the BLM.
# Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali C NaN/14 t

| | ISSN 1725-5015 |
| --- | --- |
| Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali
  ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea | C NaN |
| | |
| Edizzjoni bil-Malti | Informazzjoni u Avviżi | Volum 4814 ta' Ottubru 2005 |

ISSN 1725-5015

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea

C NaN

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 4814 ta' Ottubru 2005

---

| Avviż Nru | Werrej | Paġna |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Avviżi |
| | Il-Kunsill |
| 2005/C /1 | Avviż ta' post vakanti għal kap ta' l-iskwadra tad-duty officers / komunikant; duty officer / komunikant — Ref. Conseil/B/023 u Conseil/B/024 | 1 |

Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

III   Avviżi

Il-Kunsill

2005/C /1

Avviż ta' post vakanti għal kap ta' l-iskwadra tad-duty officers / komunikant; duty officer / komunikant — Ref. Conseil/B/023 u Conseil/B/024

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Din il-Ħarġa Speċjali bil-Malti hija ppubblikata bil-lingwi uffiċjali ta' l-istituzzjonijiet ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-ĠU C 254 A. |

---

(1)   Din il-Ħarġa Speċjali bil-Malti hija ppubblikata bil-lingwi uffiċjali ta' l-istituzzjonijiet ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-ĠU C 254 A.

1

| MT | |
| --- | --- |

MT

---

III Avviżi

Il-Kunsill

| 14.10.2005 | MT | Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea | C NaN/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2005

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea

C NaN/1

---

AVVIŻ TA' POST VAKANTI

KAP TA' L-ISKWADRA TAD-DUTY OFFICERS / KOMUNIKANT

DUTY OFFICER / KOMUNIKANT

Ref. Conseil/B/023 u Conseil/B/024

(2005/C 254 A/01)

Is-Segretarjat Ġenerali tal-Kunsill ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea qiegħed joffri, fuq bażi temporanja:

| — | impjieg tal-Kategorija B*, grad 7 (AST7) - Conseil/B/023 |
| --- | --- |

—

impjieg tal-Kategorija B*, grad 7 (AST7) - Conseil/B/023

| — | tmien impjiegi tal-Kategorija B*, grad 5 (AST5) - Conseil/B/024 |
| --- | --- |

—

tmien impjiegi tal-Kategorija B*, grad 5 (AST5) - Conseil/B/024

fi ħdan iċ-Ċentru tas-sitwazzjoni konġunta ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea (SITCEN), fi Brussell. Is-SITCEN isegwi u jevalwa l-avvenimenti internazzjonali 24 siegħa kuljum waqt li jikkonċentra fuq iż-żoni sensibbli, it-terroriżmu u l-proliferazzjoni ta' l-armi tal-qerda tal-massa, u jassigura appoġġ u sostenn lis-Segretarju Ġenerali/Rappreżentant Għoli ta' l-UE, lir-rappreżentanti speċjali u lil funzjonarji għolja oħra ta' l-UE kif ukoll għal operazzjonijiet militari jew ta' mmaniġġjar ta' kriżijiet ċivili ta' l-UE.

Għal informazzjoni aktar dettaljata, inti mitlub tikkuntattja lis-servizz ta' reklutaġġ, fl-indirizz tal-posta elettronika segwenti:

service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int

jew iżżur is-sit ta' l-internet ta' dan is-servizz, fl-indirizz:

http://ue.eu.int/concours.

Skadenza: 10.11.2005, it-timbru tal-posta jservi bħala prova.

---
### §565. Expenses of the Service

The Director is authorized to use funds appropriated for the Service to make payments for expenses incurred pursuant to personal services contracts and cooperative agreements, authorized by the Attorney General, for security guards and for the service of summons on complaints, subpoenas, and notices in lieu of services by United States marshals and deputy marshals.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7608(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4513.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 565, added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 620, related to filling vacancies, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, §7608(a)(1). See section 562 of this title.
Basic ADR Flow Chart

Discrimination 

complaint or NRC 

suspicion of 

wrongdoing

Pre-investigation ADR 

(aka “Early ADR”) 

(Discrimination 

complaints only)

No NRC 

investigation if 

parties settle and no 

restrictive 

covenants

NRC investigation 

if parties do not 

settle

NRC investigation and 

finding of discrimination 

or other wrongdoing

Stage 1: Prior to a predecisional enforcement 

conference

Post-investigation ADR

opportunity

Stage 2: After initial

enforcement action

Post-investigation ADR

opportunity

Stage 3: After imposition 

of CP but prior to hearing 

request

Post-investigation ADR

opportunity

Between 

Alleger and 

Company
From: "Schmidt Cortney" <CKSchmidt@vcsmc.com>

To: John Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US@EPA,

Cc: <FDindoffer@BODMANLAW.COM>, "Cox Dirk" <DACox@vcsmc.com>, "Straw Ann"

<ALStraw@vcnainc.com>, "Gower Matthew" <MMGower@vcsmc.com>

Date: 09/28/2012 10:57 AM

Subject: Phone conversation with John Summerhays

John,

During our most recent phone conversation this week you asked me two questions, one if we wanted

enforcement personnel at our Oct 10 meeting and I said no to that question. The other request was that

I send a cleaner copy of the graph that was on page 14 of our submittal. Please find enclosed a larger

version of that graph on the Power Point attachment.

Cortney Schmidt

SMC EM typical time and temp profile page 14 chart to USEPA 2012.pptx
MARIO HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Miami Division 

Case Number: 20-22721-CIV-MORENO 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION, JANET DHILLON, Chair of the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

Defendant. 

----------------------'/ 

ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Motion for a Protective Order (D.E. 27), filed on 

August 6, 2021. 

THE COURT has considered the motion, the response, the reply, pertinent portions of the record, 

and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is 

ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff does not intend to call his wife, Sulena Hernandez, as a witness. She never worked at the 

EEOC and only met the Defendant once, while accompanying her husband on a work trip. The burden 

and embarrassment of this deposition of the non-party outweighs its utility, thus the Court grants the 

protective order. 

FEDERIC O NO 

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to: 

Counsel of Record 

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2021 Page 1 of 1
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 47

**Question 47:** Will the NRC provide guidance on preparation of applications pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1204 (c) (2) for approval to adjust DAC or ALI values to reflect the actual physical and chemical characteristics of airborne radioactive materials (e.g., aerosol size distribution or density)?

**Answer:** The NRC staff is considering developing such guidance. Some limited guidance on "adjusting DAC's for particle size" is included in draft Regulatory Guide 8.25, Rev. 1, Section 3.7; however, the staff recognizes that more extensive guidance, including considerations of other physical and chemical characteristics of particles, may be needed.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1204 (c) (2))

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
#### § 404.5 Who is responsible for implementing this rule?

Authority to implement and make determinations under this rule has been delegated from the Secretary to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is authorized to implement this program and may re-delegate that authority as needed. Questions regarding the program should be directed to your local Reclamation office.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-249

November 22, 1999

NRC TO HOLD WORKSHOP JANUARY 10-13

ON RESULTS OF ITS PILOT PLANT EVALUATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public workshop January 10-13 in

Washington, D.C. to evaluate the results of its new reactor oversight process pilot program.

Interested parties can pre-register through December 20 via the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/workshop.html

The workshop will be held at the Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. Meeting times are from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 10;

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 11 and 12; and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00

noon on Thursday, January 13.

Members of the public, and representatives from states, industry and public interest

groups are invited to meet with the NRC to discuss and provide views on the prioritization and

resolution of issues identified during a pilot program which began June 1, the purpose of which

was to test and adjust a new oversight process at 13 nuclear power plants, and to determine if

program revisions are needed prior to full implementation. The process is expected to be fully

implemented next year for all 103 commercial nuclear power plants.

The NRC’s new reactor oversight process, which includes inspection and assessment

activities, is intended to maintain safety, improve public confidence, increase efficiency and

effectiveness, and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. The changes reflect, in part,

improvements in nuclear power plant safety performance over the past 20 years. Plants that

perform well generally will have less regulatory oversight than plants that have problems.

The pilot plant sites are: (1) Salem 1 and 2, near Wilmington, Delaware, operated by

Public Service Electric & Gas; (2) Hope Creek near Wilmington, Delaware, operated by Public

Service Electric & Gas; (3) Fitzpatrick, near Oswego, New York, operated by the Power

Authority of the State of New York; (4) Shearon Harris, near Raleigh, North Carolina, operated

by Carolina Power & Light Co.; (5) Sequoyah 1 and 2, near Chattanooga, Tennessee, operated

by the Tennessee Valley Authority; (6) Prairie Island 1 and 2, near Minneapolis, Minnesota,

operated by Northern States Power Co.; (7) Quad Cities 1 and 2, near Moline, Illinois, operated

y Commonwealth Edison Co.; (8) Ft. Calhoun, near Omaha, Nebraska, operated by the Omaha

Public Power District; and (9) Cooper, near Nebraska City, Nebraska, operated by the

Nebraska Public Power District.
Workshop participants are asked to familiarize themselves with details of the new

oversight process. Any questions about the workshop should be directed to August Spector at

(301) 415- 2140. Information about the oversight process can be found on the NRC’s website

at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html. Registration confirmation notices and the

workshop final agenda will be sent out by December 27.

##
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:20-cv-61176-WPD

WESMI DAOUT,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MEDICAL TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

A Florida Profit Corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

FINAL ORDER APPROVING FLSA SETTLEMENT 

AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Joint Notice of Settlement, Request for Judicial 

Approval, and Order Dismissing the Case With Prejudice (the “Joint Notice”) [DE 37], filed 

herein on July 23, 2021. The Court has carefully considered the Joint Notice, and is otherwise 

fully advised in the premises. 

“When a plaintiff’s FLSA claim is compromised, acceptance of a Rule 68 offer of 

judgment does not relieve the Court of its duty to determine whether the settlement is a “fair and 

reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute” as required by Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United 

States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.1981).” Sommer v. Augie My Boy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-77-FTM29CM, 2015 WL 268991, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2015); see also Kingsley v. Noonan, No. 

6:12-CV-500-ORL-22, 2012 WL 5378743, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2012); c.f. Mackenzie v. 

Kindred Hospitals E., L.L.C., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1217 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (holding that Lynn’s 

Food Stores fairness analysis does not apply where defendant offered plaintiff more than full 

relief). The Court has reviewed the record and the relevant terms of the settlement, and finds 

Case 0:20-cv-61176-WPD Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2021 Page 1 of 2
that the settlement is fair and reasonable. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Joint Notice of Settlement, Request for Judicial Approval, and Order 

Dismissing the Case With Prejudice is [DE 37] GRANTED;

2. The parties’ settlement is APPROVED;

3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

4. This case shall remain CLOSED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 

23rd day of July, 2021.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61176-WPD Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2021 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1999 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                       961
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,366
<PP&E>                                         142,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           754
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,645
<SALES>                                         28,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,479
<CGS>                                           24,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,928)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    79
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  59
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,115)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,115)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.53)
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MALIK HAMID ZAMAN

, Appellant,

v.

MARGIT MA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2169

[ October 7, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Howard K. Coates, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502019CA003465

.

Malik Hamid Zaman, Palm Beach Gardens, pro se.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T E L L A V E L A S C O ; e t a l., P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. TH E U N I TED STA TES CI TI ZEN SH I P & I M M I G R A T I O N S E R V I C E S ( C I S ) ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 55261 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 3 4 1 - A H M - CT ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A . H ow a r d M a t z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , S IL V E R M A N , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t el l a V el as co and h erfam i l y app ea l the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of the U ni t ed S t at es C i t i ze nshi p and Im m i grat i on S ervi ce s (“ U S C IS ”) , w hi ch deni ed thei r app l i cat i on s f or adj ustm entof st atus. W e r evi ew



# FI LED OC T 7 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 55261 2 the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m aryj udgm e ntde novo. P a n P a c. R eta i l P ro p s. I nc . v . G ul f I ns . C o. , 4 7 1 F .3 d9 6 1 , 9 6 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s a c t i on. U S C I S ’ s de ni a l of the V e l a s c os ’ appl i c a t i ons t o a dj us ts t a tus i s nonf i na l , a nd the pe t i t i one r s ha ve not e x h au s te dth e ira d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . Se e Cabac c ang v . U . S. C i t i z e ns hi p & Im m i g ra t i o n Servs. , 6 2 7 F .3 d1 3 1 3 , 1 3 1 6 - 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . W e th e r e f o r e v a c a te th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e ro f D e c e m b e r2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , an dr e m an dw ith in s tru c tio n s to d is m is s th e a c tio n f

o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n . VA C A TED a nd R EM A N D ED w i t h i ns t r uc t i o ns .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region II

101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No: II-96-104 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Tuesday, December 17,

1996)

Telephone: (404) 331-5503 or 331-7878

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

TO DISCUSS VOGTLE EQUIPMENT CONCERNS WITH GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a

predecisional enforcement conference with Georgia Power Company on

December 19 at 10:00 a.m. in the NRC Atlanta regional office to

discuss apparent violations of NRC requirements at the Vogtle

nuclear power plant. The conference is open to observation by

members of the public and the press.

An NRC inspection, completed at the Vogtle plant on November

9, listed an apparent violation based upon information identified

by a Georgia Power engineering evaluation which determined that a

Unit 1 safety injection pump could have been unable to perform its

intended safety function during a major accident because its motor

bearings could fail. Other safety injection pumps would be

available to mitigate the effects of such an accident.

The conference will be begin at 10:00 a.m. in the NRC's

Atlanta regional office, located at 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

NRC officials said the decision to hold an enforcement

conference does not mean that a determination has been made that a

violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken.

The purpose of the conference is to discuss the apparent

violations, their causes and safety significance, to provide the

licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have

been made in the NRC inspection report and to outline proposed

corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a civil penalty, will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later time.

The meeting is between the NRC and Georgia Power Company, but

NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to answer

questions from interested observers.

#