alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chloropicrin Manufacturer’s Task Force and Metam Task Force Meeting with EPA

December 11, 2013 2:00 pm

Potomac Yard South 

Agenda

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Update on Issues Related to the Development of the Ambient Air Monitoring Studies

a. Update on and Discussion of Issues Generic to Both Task Forces

b. Chloropicrin Manufacturer’s Task Force-Specific Details

c. Metam Task Force-Specific Details

3. Next Steps

4. Summary and Adjourn

List of Participants

EPA

Cathryn Britton, Dana Friedman, Kevin Costello, Jose Gayoso, Carolyn Schroeder, and Susan 

Bartow (PRD)

Shalu Shelat and Jeff Dawson (HED)

Metam Task Force

Lisa Campbell, Jeannie Hemiller, Edward Lyle, and W.A. Feiler

Brian Thomassen, Jonathan Akins, and Ann Vermaete via telephone

Chloropicrin Manufacterer’s Task Force

David Barnekow, John Butala, and Sara Beth Watson

Steve Wilhelm, Mike Stanghellini, and Jim Baxter via telephone

Methyl Bromide Industry Panel

Roger Miksad

Meeting Summary

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013, individuals from the Office of Pesticide Programs’ Health 

Effects Division (HED) and Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD) met with representatives 

from the Chloropicrin Manufacturer’s Task Force and the Metam Task Force regarding the 

ambient air monitoring studies requested following the 2009 soil fumigant amended 

reregistration eligibility decisions. The task forces anticipate submitting an outline of their 

progress on site selection, study design, and analytical methods by the end of December.
Order filed O c tober 6, 2014

In The 

### Court of Appeals

For The 

### First District of Texas

___________ NO. 01

- 13

- 00539

- CR

____________ ROBERT NELSON LAUDER DALE, JR. , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1382005



### ORDERThis court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of Stat e ’ s exhibit 27

.
The clerk of the 337th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this court the original of State ’ s exhibit 27 , on or before October 16, 2014

. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the origi nal of State ’ s exhibit 27 , to the clerk of the 337th
District Court.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the six months ended December 31, 1997 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                 3,354,437
<SECURITIES>                           4,061,582
<RECEIVABLES>                          2,233,055
<ALLOWANCES>                              82,750
<INVENTORY>                              510,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      11,395,817
<PP&E>                                 2,262,216
<DEPRECIATION>                         1,050,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        27,866,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  3,039,130
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  95,457
<OTHER-SE>                            20,189,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          27,866,732
<SALES>                               19,048,207
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      19,687,109
<CGS>                                 12,000,261
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         12,000,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       5,542,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        2,529,746
<INCOME-TAX>                             965,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,564,746
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           1,564,746
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.16
        


</TABLE>
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 98-26 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson June 23, 1998

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC RATES DIABLO CANYON "SUPERIOR" IN TWO AREAS "GOOD" IN TWO

OTHERS IN LATEST REPORT

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant has received

performance ratings of "superior" in maintenance and plant

support and "good" in operations and engineering in the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission's latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee

Performance (SALP).

The SALP report was issued on June 15 to the Pacific Gas and

Electric Co., operator of the twin-reactor facility near Avila

Beach, Calif. It evaluates the plant's performance for the period

from August 18, 1996, to May 9 of this year.

NRC and PG&E officials will discuss the report at a meeting

at 10 a.m. Wednesday, July 8, at the PG&E Community Center in San

Luis Obispo. The meeting will be open to the public for

observation; NRC officials will be available afterwards for

questions.

SALP reports rate safety performance at nuclear plants in

four functional

areas -- plant operations, maintenance, engineering and plant

support -- and assign ratings of Category 1, 2 or 3, reflecting

superior, good or adequate performance, respectively. Current

and previous SALP scores for Diablo Canyon are as follows:

Functional Areas and Ratings

Plant Operations Current 2 Previous 2

Maintenance Current 1 Previous 2

Engineering Current 2 Previous 2

Plant Support Current 1 Previous 1
In a letter to PG&E, Ellis W. Merschoff, Regional

Administrator of NRC Region IV in Arlington, Texas, said,

"Performance in the plant support area was again determined to be

superior. Improvements were observed in the component areas of

radiological controls, emergency preparedness, security, fire

protection, and housekeeping."

"Performance in the Maintenance area achieved the superior

level with improvements in the management of maintenance backlogs

and the reduction of plant events due to balance of plant

problems," Mr. Merschoff said.

Improvement was noted in operations, but the performance

rating remained good. "Operations management demonstrated

effective oversight and conservative decision making," Mr.

Merschoff said.

Good performance in engineering was noted with improvement

in several areas. "The large engineering backlog noted in the

previous assessment period was effectively reviewed, prioritized,

and issues worked so that only a small number of quality-related

items remained," Mr. Merschoff said.

Mr. Merschoff concluded that, "Overall, the SALP Board

observed strong Nuclear Quality Services audits and improvements

in self-assessments by all program functions. Continued

performance improvements will be dependent on management’s use of

these audits and assessments."

###

EDITORS/NEWS DIRECTORS: A copy of the full SALP report is

available from this office. It is also available in electronic

format on the NRC Office of Public Affairs Internet home page at

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA.
### §179s. Limitations of remedies

The remedies provided in section 179r of this title shall be the exclusive remedies under sections 179l to 179w of this title, or any other Federal or State law, regarding the use of the seal described in section 179m(a)(3) of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–285, title I, §109, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3381.)
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. 98-164 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, September 14, 1998)

NRC PROPOSES TO DELETE REPORTING REQUIREMENT

ON LOADING OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its regulations to

eliminate what has been determined to be an unnecessary reporting requirement

related to the loading of spent nuclear fuel into independent storage installations.

Current regulations require the licensees to submit a report summarizing the

results of preoperational testing 30 days before loading. The purpose of this

requirement was to give the NRC sufficient time to inspect a licensee’s preparations for

a new facility and, if necessary, to require changes or other actions before the loading

of spent fuel. The regulations do not require NRC approval of the 30-day report.

But experience has shown that the NRC does not need the report because NRC

staff representatives are on site during the preoperational testing and evaluate it as it

occurs. Agency inspectors review licensees’ normal, abnormal and emergency

operating procedures and observe their implementation during preoperational testing.

The agency has therefore not needed either a preoperational test report or a 30-day

hold period in order to complete its inspection activities.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposed changes

within 75 days after publication in the September 14 edition of the Federal Register.

Written comments should be mailed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications

Staff. Comments may also be submitted electronically via the NRC’s interactive

rulemaking web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/rule.html.

###
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Cary Baker, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, of RealNetworks, Inc.; and


2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact 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.





Date: April 27, 2018








/s/ Cary Baker


Cary Baker


Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### ANDREW J. LOCKHART et al, Respondents, v. CITY OF CLEAR LAKE et al, Appellants.

(195 N. W. 500.)

(File No. 5204.

Opinion filed October 18, 1923)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Deuel County; Hon. W. N. Skinner, Judge.

*Wiley W.*Knight, of Clear Lake, for Appellants.

*T. J. Law*,*of Clear Lake, for Respondents.

SHER WOO'D, J.

We have recently decided two cases which are decisive of the issues presented in this case. While the facts here are not identical with the facts in Kreger v. City of Clear Lake, — S. D. —, 195 N. W. 498, decided at this term of court, they are sufficiently near to bring this cause within the rules laid down in Kreger v. City of Clear Lake, supra.

The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed; and it is so ordered.

■DILLON, J., dissents.

Note.^ — Reported in 195 N. W. 500. See note on Kreger v. City of Clear Lake, — S. D. —
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-38 June 10, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF RESCHEDULES PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

ON POSSIBLE FIRE PROTECTION VIOLATIONS AT QUAD CITIES PLANT

***************************************************

New date for meeting previously scheduled for June 8

***************************************************

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet on June 18

with Commonwealth Edison Company officials in Lisle, Illinois,

for a predecisional enforcement conference on apparent fire

protection violations at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station.

The two-reactor facility is located at Cordova, Illinois.

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will be at

8:30 a.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room, NRC Region III

Office, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois. NRC staff members

will be available at the close of the meeting for questions and

comments from members of the public.

The meeting will cover apparent violations of NRC fire

protection requirements for the Quad Cities plant involving the

capability to safely shut the plant down in the event of a fire.

In September of last year, the utility shut down Unit 2 and

Unit 1 was subsequently shut down in December for reviews of

shutdown procedures and systems which would be used in the event

of a fire affecting normal shutdown systems.

The predecisional enforcement conference will cover the

findings of NRC inspections which found deficiencies in the

plant's shutdown procedures. The inspections -- conducted from

October through April -- also found that Commonwealth Edison had

not done the required safety review in December of a planned

change to its procedures and equipment for shutting the plant

down.

Following the shutdowns last year, the two units remained

out of service for improvements to the shutdown procedures and

systems. On May 22 the NRC staff determined that the utility had

made sufficient changes for units to return safely to operation.

Unit 2 has resumed operation, and the utility is preparing to

restart Unit 1.

The purpose of the predecisional enforcement conference is

to discuss the apparent violations and provide the company an

opportunity to respond and to provide details of its corrective

actions and other additional information.
The information presented in the predecisional enforcement

conference will be considered in determining the appropriate

enforcement action. The enforcement action will not be

determined at the meeting; a decision on the enforcement action,

if any, is usually issued several weeks after the conference.

#####

Note: This meeting was previously announced in News Release NRCIII-98-35, issued May 28.
###### Editorial Note on Part 141

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.35 Revocation of power of attorney.

Any power of attorney shall be subject to revocation at any time by written notice given to and received by CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically.
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-44 July 3, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING NEAR McGUIRE PLANT

ON CHANGES IN REACTOR OVERSIGHT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting for Tuesday, July 18 to

discuss the new reactor oversight process which began at Duke Energy’s McGuire nuclear power plant,

near Huntersville, North Carolina, in April.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. EDT in the North County Regional Library, 16500 Holy Crest

Lane in Huntersville, and members of the public will have the opportunity to ask questions during the

meeting.

The new oversight process uses more objective, timely, and safety-significant criteria in

assessing performance, while seeking to more effectively and efficiently regulate the industry. Under

the new process, inspections by NRC resident inspectors and regional office-based personnel are

supplemented by statistical measures of plant activities called performance indicators. These

performance indicators measure important safety aspects of plant operations, including the viability of

redundant safety systems, emergency planning, radiation protection, and security measures.

Inspection findings and performance indicators for each nuclear power plant are posted on the

NRC's web site every three months. The safety significance of each inspection finding or performance

indicator is characterized by a color -- green, white, yellow, or red.

The NRC response to the inspection findings and performance indicators will be based on the

assessment. A green finding receives normal NRC oversight, while white, yellow, or red assessments

receive increasing NRC involvement. Multiple red findings could result in a plant shutdown.

A plain language summary of the reactor oversight process is available from the NRC Office of

Public Affairs or on the web site at: www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

###
Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 1 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 2 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 3 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 4 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 5 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 6 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 7 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 8 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 9 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 10 of 11

Case 1:20-cv-23394-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020   Page 11 of 11
#### § 122.30 Other Customs laws and regulations.

Sections 122.2 and 122.161 apply to private aircraft.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of OMNI Energy Services Corp. onForms S-8 (No. 333-126679, No. 333-110198, No. 333-49409, No. 333-80973 and No. 333-35816), pertaining to the incentive plans of OMNI Energy Services Corp., and Form S-3 (No. 333-131696) pertaining to a shelf registration, of our report datedMarch 13, 2009, except for Note 11, for which the date is March 31, 2010, with respect to the consolidated Balance Sheet of OMNI Energy Services Corp. as of December 31, 2008 and the Consolidated Statements of Operations,Stockholders’ Equity and Cash Flows for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2008 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ PANNELL KERR FORSTER OF TEXAS, P.C. 

Houston, Texas 

March 31, 2010
§ 146.52 Manipulation, manufacture, exhibition or destruction; Customs Form 216. ( a ) *Application.* Prior to any action, the operator shall file with the port director an application (or blanket application) on Customs Form 216 for permission to manipulate, manufacture, exhibit, or destroy merchandise in a zone. After Customs approves the application (or blanket application), the operator will retain in his recordkeeping system the approved application.
( b ) *Approval.* ( 1 ) The port director shall approve the application unless ( i ) the proposed operation would be in violation of law or regulation;
( ii ) the place designated for its performance is not suitable for preventing confusion of the identity or status of the merchandise, or for safeguarding the revenue;
( iii ) the port director is not satisfied that the destruction will be effective; or
( iv ) the Executive Secretary of the Board has not granted approval of a new manufacturing operation.
( 2 ) The port director is authorized to approve a blanket application for a period of up to one year for a continuous or repetitive operation. The port director may disapprove or revoke approval of any application, or may require the operator to file an individual application.
( c ) *Appeal of adverse ruling.* If an approved application is subsequently rescinded by the port director for any reason, the applicant or grantee may appeal the adverse ruling pursuant to the hearing provisions of § 146.82(b)(2). The rescission shall remain in effect pending the decision on the appeal.
( d ) *Report results* — ( 1 ) *Separate application.* The operator shall report on Customs Form 216 the results of an approved manipulation, manufacture, exhibition, or certification of destruction (other than by a blanket application), unless the port director chooses physically to supervise the operation.
( 2 ) *Blanket application.* The operator shall maintain a record of an approved manipulation, manufacture, exhibition, or certification of destruction, in its inventory control and recordkeeping system so as to provide an accounting and audit trail of the merchandise through the approved operation.
( e ) *Destruction.* The port director may permit destruction to be done outside the zone, in whole or in part and at the risk and expense of the applicant, and under such conditions as are necessary to protect the revenue, if proper destruction cannot be accomplished within the zone. Any residue from the destruction within a zone, which is determined to be without commercial value, may be removed to Customs territory for disposal.
Issue Date: 03/27/01 - 1 - 01-010

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL IIPB

Change Notice 01-010

DELETED: TRANSMITTED:

Number Date Number Date

1. IMC 2815 07/07/86 IMC 2815 03/27/01

TRAINING: No special training requirements have been identified for any documents issued

with this change notice.

REMARKS: IMC 2815 (Construction and Preopertional Inspection of Panoramic, Wet-SourceStorage Gamma Irradiators) has been revised to reflect 10 CFR 36, “Licenses and

Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators,” which was first published in 1993

after the last revision of this manual chapter. Before the rule, Part 30 and Part 20

were the primary regulatory references. In addition, organization changes required

revision to 2815-04, “Responsibilities and Authorities.”

DISTRIBUTION: Standard

END