alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EPA-420-R-10-007

February 2010 

# Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for EPA by

ICF International

and

T&B Systems

EPA Contract No. EP-C-06-094

Work Assignment No. 3-6 

# Development and Evaluation of an Air

**Quality Modeling Approach for Lead**

**Emissions from Piston**

- **Engine Aircraft**

**Operating on Leaded Aviation Gasoline**

**Appendix E**

**Year**

- **long Modeling Results**

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or

positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data

that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to

facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of

technical developments.

# ii 

# T

HIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



# .Figure E-1. All emissions average January through March 2008 (ng/m3).E-1Figure E-2. All emissions average February through April 2008 (ng/m3).E-2Figure E-3. All emissions March through May 2008 (ng/m3).E-3Figure E-4. All emissions average April through June 2008 (ng/m3).E-4Figure E-5. All emissions average May through July 2008 (ng/m3).E-5Figure E-6. All emissions average June through August 2008 (ng/m3).E-6Figure E-7. All emissions average July through September 2008 (ng/m3).E-7Figure E-8. All emissions average August through October 2008 (ng/m3).E-8Figure E-9. All emissions average September through November 2008 (ng/m3).E-9Figure E-10. All emissions average October through December 2008 (ng/m3).E-10Figure E-11. All emissions average November through January 2008 (ng/m3)..E-11E-12Figure E-12. All emissions December through February 2008 (ng/m3).
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No. II-96-101 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Friday, December 6, 1996)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

SUMMER NUCLEAR PLANT RATED "SUPERIOR" IN THREE AREAS,

"GOOD" IN FOURTH AREA OF NRC ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Summer nuclear power plant received performance ratings of

"superior" in three areas and "good" in the fourth area of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s latest systematic assessment of

licensee performance (SALP) of the facility.

The SALP report was sent today to South Carolina Electric & Gas

Company, which operates the facility near Columbia, South Carolina.

It evaluates the plant's performance from January 29, 1995, through

October 26 of this year.

NRC and SCE&G officials will discuss the report during a meeting set

for 1:00 p.m. Monday, December 16, at the Summer site. The meeting

will be open for public observation. NRC officials will be

available after the meeting to speak with reporters, state and local

officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four functional

areas ˇ plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant

support ˇ and assign ratings of Category 1, 2 or 3 depending on

whether their performance in those areas was superior, good or

adequate.

The report on Summer gives the plant a Category 1 rating in plant

operations, engineering and maintenance, indicating "superior"

performance, and a Category 2 rating in plant support, indicating

"good" performance.

In the previous SALP report in March 1995, the plant received the

same Category 1 or "superior" ratings in operations and maintenance.

Performance in engineering improved from Category 2 (good) to

Category 1 (superior). Performance in plant support declined from

Category 1 (superior) to Category 2 (good).

###

EDITORS: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this

office. SALP reports are also available on the NRC's

Internet web site (http://www.nrc.gov/OPA) and by e-mail

subscription. To receive SALP reports by e-mail as they

are issued, send an e-mail to listproc@nrc.gov with the

following message: subscribe salp yourfirstname

yourlastname.
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. 98-221 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, December 16, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards has scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on fire protection on January

20-21, in Rockville, Maryland.

The subcommittee will meet at 8:30 a.m. on both days in Room T-2B3 of the

NRC’s Two White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The subcommittee will

review the insights gained from the review of the licensee submittals of individual plant

examination of external event reports, results of the pilot fire protection functional

inspections, electrical circuit analysis, and the proposed National Fire Protection

Association standard.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for public comment, will

be described in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

###
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT III-98-32 May 18, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF WITHDRAWS NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED $25,000 FINE

AGAINST MICHIGAN UTILITY IN 1993 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has withdrawn a proposed $25,000

fine against American Electric Power Company for alleged employment discrimination

by a contractor at the utility's D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located

near Bridgman, Michigan.

A Notice of Violation and the proposed fine were issued in August 1993 as a

result of a finding by a Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative Law Judge that the

contractor, American Nuclear Resources, Inc., had discriminated against an employee

who raised questions about his exposure to radiation during work at the plant.

The contractor subsequently appealed the decision, and a federal appellate

court reversed the DOL decision earlier this year. In the light of the court's decision, the

NRC staff has withdrawn the notice of violation and proposed fine and closed the

enforcement action without further action.

NRC regulations prohibit discrimination against an employee of an NRC licensee

and its contractors for raising safety issues, including requesting information about

exposure to radiation. Under federal statues, allegations of employment discrimination

at nuclear facilities are investigated by the Department of Labor. The NRC bases any

resulting enforcement action on the DOL findings.

#####
Volvo Cars of North America

Emission Defect Information Report

EDIR No. 09002D01A

1. Manufacturer's Corporate Name: Volvo Cars of North America, LLC

2. Component Description

Component Name:	

Fuel Pump Unit Including Fuel Level Sensor

Component Part Number:	

8616811, 8634832, 30636948, 30794757

Description of Component:	

The fuel pump is located in the fuel tank. The fuel level sensor

(FLS) is part of the fuel pump assembly.

3. Failure Description

In certain model year 2004 vehicles, the fuel level sensor attached to the fuel pump assembly may

experience reduced functionality due to oxidation or contamination of the fuel level sensing plate.

4. Affected Vehicles by Test Group

4.1	Test Group:	4VVXV2.43S2N

Model Year:	2004

Models Involved:	S60, V70

Engine Description:	B5244S (64) – 2.44 Liters, 5 Cylinders, OHV, DOHC,

CVVT, 20-valve naturally aspirated engine with OBDII,

Bosch ME7 Engine Management, Sequential Fuel

Injection (SFI), Heated Oxygen Sensors (HO2S), and

Three Way Catalytic Converter (TWC)

Sales Area:	California and S177 States

5. Affected Vehicle Population

5.1	Sales volumes, claims, and distribution are from Volvo's warranty records as of January 5,

2009. Failure estimate is from component manufacturer sample testing of components

claimed under the 15-year/150,000-mile warranty, which yielded a failure rate of 75% of the

test sample.

Affected Vehicle Population by Test Group

Test US Claim Total Failure

Group Sales Rate Claims Estimate

4VVXV2.43S2N 8,147 1.84% 150 112

1 of 2	Volvo Cars of North America, LLC - EDIR No. 09002D01A 2009-03-16
5.2	Assembly plants producing the potentially affected vehicles . are:

Volvo Cars Torslanda	Volvo Cars Europe Industry

SE-405 31 GOteborg	J. F. Kennedylean 25

Sweden	 B-9000 Ghent

Belgium

6. Impact on Emissions and Drivability

There is no impact on emissions The most common symptom s an incorrect fuel level reading

Failure analysis is under review

7. Available Emissions Data

This failure does not affect evaporative or exhaust emissions

8. Anticipated Manufacturer Follow-Up

Volvo tested a sample of thirty of the affected pumps, with fuel level sensor being the primary

presenting condition. Volvo will continue analysis to determine root cause and effect.

2 of 2	Volvo Cars of North America, LLC - EDIR No 09002D01A	

2009-03-16
#### Frederick J. Wallace, Appellant, v. Millward H. Hendley and Others, Impleaded with Lillian M. Moore, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
#### City of Pineville v. Helton.

June 1, 1945.

W. L. Hammond for appellant.

Cleon K. Calvert for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Tilford

Affirming.

Pineville is a tíity of the fourth class and has enacted an ordinance authorizing the licensing of places of public entertainment where sandwiches and soft drinks are dispensed, and in connection with which electric Yictrolas are operated. The ordinance is not before us and our knowledge of it is gathered from the untraversed allegations of the petition.

In this action for a mandamus, it was alleged by • appellee that although he had been engaged in such authorized business at the same location for several years, the clerk of the City to whom appellee, on January 3, 1945, presented an application for a license accompanied by the required fee, refused to issue it on the ground that she had been instructed by the Mayor not to do so. The defense interposed was that two homicides and many lesser offenses had been committed at appellee’s place of business; that one of the homicides had been committed by the appellee; that on several occasions he *171had been arrested and fined for violating the law; that the street on which appellee’s place of business is located has the reputation for being “the scene of more homicides and violations of law than any other of like size in the United States of America”; and that the refusal to issue appellee a license was the result of an effort of the City .authorities to ride the City of appellee’s club and similar places of bad repute which had likewise been refused licenses. The court sustained.a demurrer to the answer, and upon the City’s declination to plead further, granted appellee the relief sought. Hence, this appeal.

It would seem obvious that in the absence of prescribed standards or qualifications for applicants which appellee failed or was unable to meet, the clerk was without authority to refuse the license, since “Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic.” Constitution of Kentucky, Sec. 2. See also Town of Jamestown v. Allen, 284 Ky. 347, 144 S. W. 2d 807.

However commendable the motives of the Mayor in instructing the clerk to. refuse to issue appellee a license, he was clearly without power to do so. If, as alleged, appellee’s place of business is a nuisance, the City may institute proceedings to abate it; and if appellee violates the statute law or ordinances of the City, he may be prosecuted. But, under an ordinance such as the one described in the pleadings, appellee had a right, equal to that of all other applicants, to the license which the ordinance authorized.

This action properly should have been instituted against the official charged with the duty of issuing the license; but since the City, which alone was sued, did not raise this question by special demurrer and has not referred to it in its brief, we will regard it as waived.

Judgment affirmed.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-80 September 16, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC REGION I MONITORS HURRICANE FLOYD

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in King of

Prussia, Pa, is monitoring storm preparations at several nuclear

plants in the mid-Atlantic region as Hurricane Floyd makes its

way up the Atlantic coast.

NRC Region I has staffed its Incident Response Center and

currently is assessing whether precautions need to be taken. The

Resident Inspectors are monitoring activities from the control

rooms. Provisions are being made for round-the-clock coverage,

should that be necessary.

A hurricane warning has been issued for the Oyster Creek

site in Lacey Township, N.J. Tropical storm warnings are in

effect for the Salem/Hope Creek (Hancocks Bridge, N.J.) and

Calvert Cliffs (Lusby, Md.) sites. Plants farther north and

farther inland are also tracking the storm and preparing for

possible weather-related problems.

The plants have been following their procedures in response

to the storm conditions, including securing loose equipment and

making sure adequate supplies and personnel are available. In

general plants’ safety procedures specify that the plants begin

to shutdown should winds or other conditions reach preestablished levels. At this point, it’s not expected that those

conditions will be reached at any plant.

The safe operation of nuclear plants during any event,

including hurricanes, remains the responsibility of the company

licensed to operate the plant. The NRC's role is to monitor

events for compliance with safety procedures and advise the

operator if necessary.

The NRC has been coordinating with the affected states and

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

#
### §136c. Authorized additional expenses and services for which Library of Congress salary appropriations are available

From and after October 1, 1983, appropriations in this Act available to the Library of Congress for salaries shall be available for expenses of personnel security and suitability investigations of Library employees; special and temporary services (including employees engaged by day or hour or in piecework); and services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 98–51, title II, §201, July 14, 1983, 97 Stat. 276.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 98–51, July 14, 1983, 97 Stat. 263, known as the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1984. See page 36 of Senate Report 98–161, 98th Congress, 1st Session, to accompany H.R. 3135, which became Pub. L. 98–51. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
### **CHAPTER 24—TECHNOLOGY RELATED ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES**
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. 99-174 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, August 10, 1999)

PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION PANEL

TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Pilot Program Evaluation Panel will hold its

second meeting on August 17 in Rockville, Maryland.

The NRC established the panel to independently evaluate and review its new inspection,

assessment and enforcement processes now being conducted as a pilot program at nine

nuclear power plants. It will meet periodically to review data being supplied by NRC licensees

on plant performance, as well as the results of NRC's baseline inspection, assessment and

enforcement activities.

The August 17 meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in the auditorium of the

agency’s Two White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Here is the meeting agenda:

9:00 - 9:30 a.m. -- Introduction and opening remarks, noticing requirements and public

participation.

9:30 - 11:00 a.m. -- Discussion of conduct of panel and rules of operation, location and

frequency of meetings, and approach to report generation.

11:00 a.m. - noon -- NRC presentation on initial results of pilot plant inspections, final

criteria and measurement approach for criteria.

1:00 - 2:00 p.m. -- Presentation by the Nuclear Energy Institute -- the nuclear industry's

policy organization.

2:00 - 3:00 p.m. -- Discussion on need for any additional data or analyses.

3:00 - 4:00 p.m. -- Open discussion.

Transcripts of the Pilot Program Evaluation Panel’s meetings and reports will be

available through the NRC’s Public Document Room. Meeting transcripts will be placed on the

NRC’s homepage at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/overview.html
The panel includes NRC staff from headquarters and regional offices and a

representative of NEI, as well as representatives from participating licensees, the Union of

Concerned Scientists, and the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.

At the end of the pilot program, which began May 30, the panel will prepare a written

report containing the views of the panel. The NRC will use the report to consider whether any

changes to the new oversight program should be considered before it is fully implemented next

year.

Those seeking information on opportunities to present oral statements or on schedule

changes, should contact Frank Gillespie at (301) 415-1004, or Mohan Thadani at (301) 415-

1476.

##
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 6, 2011 

h0829 

Order 

 

September 6, 2011 

142881 & (9)(14) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142881 

 COA: 302094 

Oakland CC: 1998-161463-FC 

PERSCELL DOYLE DAVID, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for appointment of 

counsel and the motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing are DENIED.
#### §§ 206.192-206.199 [Reserved]
Sugarbush and Moose Fence Ski Trails

5.7

10.1

3.5

2

3.4

3

3.7

5.2

0.4

7.4

0.1

7.7

A B

C

G

O

H

I

J

K

W

L

Y

X

M

N

P

Q

R

F

D

E

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Z

Picnic Loop

Homestead Loop

Bridge Run

Hogback

Loop

Piece of Cake Loop

Wood Duck Loop

Maple Loop

Upland Loop

Oberg Loop

Onion River Road Route

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

Skijoring and dogs

only allowed on 

Maple Loop and

Upland Loop.

This is a georeferenced map for use with wayfinding apps such as Avenza. It may also be used as a standard hard copy map. 

For more information regarding skiing in this area, see the Superior National Forest's Recreational Opportunity Guide available 

online at www.fs.usda.gov/activity/superior/recreation/wintersports 

Digital maps are not intended as primary sources of navigation. Always bring a hard copy map with you. Batteries will go dead, 

especially in cold weather.
#### Rose Sperling, Appellant, v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company and Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, Respondents.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present—Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No.: II-97-30 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, April 2, 1997)

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-550

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

TO DISCUSS VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONCERNS WITH LICENSEE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a

predecisional enforcement conference with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company in Atlanta on April 18 to discuss an apparent violation

regarding the transportation of a package containing radioactive

materials which originated at the Vogtle plant and was found to have

surface dose rates exceeding regulatory limits. The Vogtle plant is

located near Waynesboro, Georgia.

The meeting will be held in the NRC Atlanta office, located at

101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900, at 8:45 a.m. It will be open

to observation by the public.

NRC officials said the decision to hold a predecisional

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 is to discuss 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 NRC

inspection reports; and to enable the company to outline its

proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

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

conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a

later time.

#
#### The Tax Lien Company of New York, Respondent, v. Mary E. Bird, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 29 September 2005

in Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to satisfy the requirements of Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC - Article 7(6) - Water intended for human consumption)

(2005/C 296/04)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiros and G. Valero Jordana) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and M. Lois) — action brought on 11 June 2003 under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 September 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Shore Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott C. Harvard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: March 18, 2005 

 

This certificate accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and will not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

 

70
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-122 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 2


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-122 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 2