alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOx Analyzer Zero Drift Behavior 

in EPAct/V2/E-89
NOx Zero Drift by Date & Bag

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Mar-10 Jun-10

ppm

Phase 3 EPAct - NOx zero drift check by date & bag B1 B2 B3

Oct ‘09 Mar ‘10

Zoom in on two periods

2

Since 8/1/09 Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3

MEDIAN -0.040 -0.010 -0.010

MEAN -0.048 -0.009 -0.003

10TH PERCENTILE -0.100 -0.040 -0.030

90TH PERCENTILE 0.000 0.020 0.030
NOx Zero Drift by Date & Bag

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

3/1/10 3/8/10 3/15/10 3/22/10 3/29/10

ppm

Phase 3 EPAct - NOx zero drift check by date & bag B1 B2 B3

Mar ‘10

Test days in a week

3
NOx Zero Drift by Date & Bag

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

1 2 3 4 5 6

ppm

Day of Month

Phase 3 EPAct - NOx zero drift check first week of Mar 2010 B1 B2 B3

Mar ‘10

1

2

3

4

Tests during a day

Test bags

4
NOx Zero Drift by Date & Bag

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

10/1/09 10/8/09 10/15/09 10/22/09 10/29/09

ppm

Phase 3 EPAct - NOx zero drift check by date & bag B1 B2 B3

Oct ‘09

5
-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

5 6 7 8 9 10

ppm

Day of Month

Phase 3 EPAct - NOx zero drift check first week of Oct 2009 B1 B2 B3

NOx Zero Drift by Date & Bag

Oct ‘09

6
CIMP, F150, FFOC, SOUT and TCOR have >50% ambient zeros (presumably defined as a reading <0.0005)

0.0010

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

10.0000

ppm NOx Bag 1 (blue=sample, red=ambient)

0.084 0.118

TSIE

TCOR

TCAM

SOUT

NALT

JLIB

HODY

HCIV

FFOC

FEXP

F150

CSIL DCAL

CIMP CCOB

Examination of Sample and Ambient NOx

7
CIMP, F150 and TCOR have >25% ambient zeros (presumably defined as a reading <0.0005)

0.0010

0.0100

0.1000

1.0000

10.0000

ppm NOx Bag 2 (blue=sample, red=ambient)

TSIE

TCOR

TCAM SOUT

NALT

JLIB

HODY

HCIV

FFOC

FEXP

F150 DCAL

CSIL

CIMP

CCOB

0.038 0.072

Examination of Sample and Ambient NOx

8
Conclusions on NOx Zero Drift Behavior

• Zero drift does not appear to follow a predictable pattern 

between bags or over the course of a day

– Most likely explanation is increased noise in analyzer electronics, 

suggestive of component malfunction or failure (as opposed to true 

systematic “drift” in signal)

• Analyzer has been rebuilt since program data was taken, including replacement of 

optics and circuit boards associated with measurement reliability

• No information is available on whether the analyzer continues to exhibit drift 

behavior

• It’s unclear whether the drift measurement taken at the end 

of each phase (shown in the plots) is representative of the 

measurement process during the preceding bag reads

– Trying to correct the data may not improve precision of measurements 

significantly

9
HomeCyber Issues...Cyber Issues

# Cyber Issues

86 items

        -    Media Note  		G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Addressing Global Challenges, Fostering Partnerships	  April 19, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Fourth U.S. – Slovenia Strategic Dialogue	  April 19, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Hamas Cyber and UAV-Unit Operatives	  Matthew MillerApril 12, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Ambassador Fick’s Travel to Costa Rica	  April 9, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Senior Official for the DPRK Pak’s Travel to Romania, Poland, and Sweden	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Second United States-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Diplomatic Working Group Meeting on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Cyber Activities	  March 29, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Designating Sources of Illicit DPRK Revenue	  Matthew MillerMarch 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Rewards for Justice – Reward Offer for Information on ALPHV BlackCat-linked Cyber Actors Targeting U.S. Critical Infrastructure	  March 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Takes Action to Further Disrupt PRC Cyber Activities	  March 25, 2024 
        -    Fact Sheet  		United Nations General Assembly Adopts by Consensus U.S.-Led Resolution on Seizing the Opportunities of Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Systems for Sustainable Development	  March 21, 2024 

previous page1234…9next page

Back to Top
Home2000 Treaties and Agreements...Qatar (00-927) – Agreement concerning Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program

# 									Qatar (00-927) – Agreement concerning Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

September 27, 2000

Environment and Conservation: Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program

Agreement signed at Doha September 27, 2000; entered into force September 27, 2000. With appendices.
Download Agreement						 [6 MB]

Tags

AgreementsClimate and EnvironmentEnvironmentQatarSchoolsScienceTreatiesTreaties and International Agreements

Back to Top
§ 493.57 Requirements for a registration certificate. A registration certificate is required for all laboratories seeking a certificate of accreditation, unless the laboratory holds a valid certificate of compliance issued by HHS. ( a ) HHS will issue a registration certificate if the laboratory— ( 1 ) Complies with the requirements of § 493.55;
( 2 ) Agrees to notify HHS within 30 days of any changes in ownership, name, location, director, or supervisor (laboratories performing high complexity testing only);
( 3 ) Agrees to treat proficiency testing samples in the same manner as it treats patient specimens; and
( 4 ) Remits the fee for the registration certificate specified in subpart F of this part.
( b ) ( 1 ) The laboratory must provide HHS with proof of accreditation by an approved accreditation program— ( i ) Within 11 months of issuance of the registration certificate; or
( ii ) Prior to the expiration of the certificate of compliance.
( 2 ) If such proof of accreditation is not supplied within this timeframe, the laboratory must meet, or continue to meet, the requirements of § 493.49.
( c ) In accordance with subpart R of this part, HHS will initiate suspension, revocation, or limitation of a laboratory's registration certificate and will deny the laboratory's application for a certificate of accreditation for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in this subpart. In addition, failure to meet the requirements of this subpart will result in suspension or denial of payments under Medicare and Medicaid as specified in subpart R of this part.
( d ) A registration certificate is valid for a period of no more than 2 years. However, it may be reissued if the laboratory is subject to subpart C of this part, as specified in § 493.57(b)(2) and compliance has not been determined by HHS before the expiration date of the registration certificate.
( e ) In the event that the laboratory does not meet the requirements of this subpart, HHS will— ( 1 ) Deny a laboratory's request for certificate of accreditation;
( 2 ) Notify the laboratory if it must meet the requirements for a certificate as defined in subpart C of this part;
( 3 ) Provide the laboratory with a statement of grounds on which the application denial is based;
( 4 ) Offer an opportunity for appeal on the application denial as provided in subpart R of this part. If the laboratory requests a hearing within the time specified by HHS, the laboratory will retain its registration certificate or reissued registration certificate until a decision is made by an administrative law judge as provided in subpart R, unless HHS finds that conditions at the laboratory pose an imminent and serious risk to human health; and
( 5 ) For those laboratories receiving payment from the Medicare or Medicaid program, such payments will be suspended on the effective date specified in the notice to the laboratory of denial of the request even if there has been no appeals decision issued.
[57 FR 7144, Feb. 28, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 20046, Apr. 24, 1995]
§ 510.510 Enforcement authority. ( a ) *OIG authority.* OIG authority is not limited or restricted by the provisions of the CJR model, including the authority to audit, evaluate, investigate, or inspect the participant hospital, CJR collaborators, or any other person or entity or their records, data, or information, without limitation.
( b ) *Other authorities.* None of the provisions of the CJR model limits or restricts the authority of any other government agency permitted by law to audit, evaluate, investigate, or inspect the participant hospital, CJR collaborators, or any other person or entity or their records, data, or information, without limitation.
§ 71.45 Food, potable water, and waste: U.S. seaports and airports. ( a ) Every seaport and airport shall be provided with a supply of potable water from a watering point approved by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, in accordance with standards established in title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1240 and 1250.
( b ) All food and potable water taken on board a ship or aircraft at any seaport or airport intended for human consumption thereon shall be obtained from sources approved in accordance with regulations cited in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Aircraft inbound or outbound on an international voyage shall not discharge over the United States any excrement, or waste water or other polluting materials. Arriving aircraft shall discharge such matter only at servicing areas approved under regulations cited in paragraph (a) of this section.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002), we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
February 28, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  April
8, 2010





/s/ Brian T. BeckwithBrian
      T. Beckwith,President
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Michael L. DeMarcoMichael
      L. DeMarco,Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer




23
#### § 81.25 Guidelines for claims including two or more primary cancers.

For claims including two or more primary cancers, DOL will use NIOSH-IREP to calculate the estimated probability of causation for each cancer individually. Then DOL will perform the following calculation using the probability of causation estimates produced by NIOSH-IREP:

Equation 1

Calculate: 1−[{1−PC1} × {1−PC2} × . . . × {1−PCn}] = PCtotal,

where PC1 is the probability of causation for one of the primary cancers identified in the claim, PC2 is the probability of causation for a second primary cancer identified in the claim, and PCn is the probability of causation for the nth primary cancer identified in the claim. PCtotal is the probability that at least one of the primary cancers (cancers 1 through “n”) was caused by the radiation dose estimated for the claim when Equation 1 is evaluated based on the joint distribution of PC1, . . ., PCn.3 DOL will use the probability of causation value calculated for PCtotal to adjudicate the claim.

[67 FR 22309, May 2, 2002; 67 FR 62096, Oct. 3, 2002; 84 FR 37591, Aug. 1, 2019]

###### Footnotes -
  81.25

[3] Evaluating Equation 1 based on the individual upper 99th percentiles of PC1, . . ., PCn approximates the upper 99th percentile of PCtotal whenever PC1, . . ., PCn are highly related, e.g., when a common dose-reconstruction is the only non-negligible source of uncertainty in the individual PCi's. However, this approximation can overestimate it if other sources of uncertainty contribute independently to the PC1, . . ., PCn, whereas treating the joint distribution as fully independent could substantially underestimate the upper 99th percentile of PCtotal whenever the individual PCi's are positively correlated.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Henry SOTO et al.

No. 65180.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 31, 1979.

In re State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Harry F. Connick, applying for writ of certiorari. Orleans Parish. No. 270-634.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
#### Charles S. Smith, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry A. Swenson, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

January, 1899.)

Attachment — Vacated because, under a wrong measure of damages, the creditor claimed too much.

An attachment granted in an action on contract cannot be sustained unless the specific sum due is established by proof, and where the plaintiff, by adopting an improper measure of damages, claims too much in his moving papers, the attachment must be vacated.

Motion to vacate a warrant of attachment.

C. H. Knox, for motion.

E. K. Van Beuren, opposed.

*152Gildersleeve, J.

This is a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment, granted under the provisions of sections 635 and 636 of the Gode, in an action for breach of contract, on the ground of the nonresidence of the defendant. In the order to show cause why the attachment should not be vacated several reasons are assigned, only one of which, however, is valid. The attachment was granted on the affidavit of the plaintiff, which bases the cause of action upon the fact that the defendant agreed to sell to plaintiff some granite at certain prices, and that, relying upon said agreement, plaintiff contracted to sell the granite to a third party, for a larger sum; that defendant failed to carry out his contract, and plaintiff thereby lost the expected profit; and plaintiff claims to be “ damaged in the sum of $663.52, with interest from June 15, 1898, that being the amount of my profit on all of the said orders, less the proper deduction for the granite posts which were delivered; no part of which sum of $663.52 has been paid.” This was not the proper measure of damage, as plaintiff was only entitled to recover in the action the difference between the contract price of the goods, as agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant, and the market value at the time and place of delivery of the granite. If plaintiff could have bought the goods at the same price as, or a less price than, that agreed upon with defendant, and thus filled his contract with the third party, it is'clear that he was not damaged in the amount claimed. In the case of Golden Gate Co. v. Jackson, 14 Abb. N. C. 323, Mr. Justice Barrett, sitting at Special Term, held, that to-sustain an attachment in an action on contract, the specific sum due must be established by proof, not merely averred, and hence, if plaintiff, by adopting the wrong measure of damages, claims too much, the attachment must be set aside. The motion must be granted, 'and the attachment vacated, with leave to plaintiff to make another application on different papers. No costs.

Motion granted, and attachment vacated, with leave to plaintiff to make another application on different papers. No costs.
§ 90.13 Recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) ATSDR shall maintain a record of all health assessments and health effects studies. The Administrator shall, at his or her discretion, determine the contents of the record. At a minimum, the record shall include: ( 1 ) The final ATSDR report of the health assessment or health effects study;
( 2 ) Nonconfidential data and other information upon which that report is based or which was considered by ATSDR;
( 3 ) Nonconfidential data or other information submitted by interested persons pertaining to the health assessment or health effects study;
( 4 ) The protocol for the health effects study;
( 5 ) A list of the individuals responsible for external peer review of the report of a health effects study, their comments, and ATSDR's response to the comments; and
( 6 ) For health effects study, the notice announcing the availability of a draft final report for public review and comment, all comments received in response to the notice, and any responses to the comments by ATSDR.
( b ) The record may contain a confidential portion which shall include all information determined to be confidential by the Administrator under this part.
( c ) The Administrator may determine other documents are appropriate for inclusion in the record for health assessments or health effects studies.
( d ) Predecisional documents, including draft documents, are not documents upon which ATSDR bases its conclusions in health assessments or health effects studies, and are not usually included in the record for health assessments or health effects studies.
( e ) The record for ATSDR health assessments and health effects studies will be available for review, upon prior request, at ATSDR headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.
( f ) Nothing in this section is intended to imply that ATSDR's decisions to conduct health assessments or health effects studies, or the reports of health assessments or health effects studies, are subject to judicial review.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,077,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    798,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,117,853
<PP&E>                                         281,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,441,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,441,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    958,085
<COMMON>                                     4,224,512
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,796,126)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,441,865
<SALES>                                      6,728,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,937,113
<CGS>                                        4,431,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,431,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             161,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                363,855
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (400,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            763,855
<DISCONTINUED>                               (567,519)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   196,336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
41296.

#### BROWN v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION.

Argued May 5, 1965

Decided June 25, 1965.

*23*Robert R. Tisdale, Thomas H. Antonion,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alston, Miller & Gaines, John R. Crenshaw, L. T. Whitaker,*contra.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

The only issue in this case is the applicability of an Act of 1957 (Ga. L. 1957, p. 405; *Code Ann.*§ 96-307; repealed by Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 427) providing for a manufacturer’s implied warranty to the ultimate consumer of personal property sold as new personal property.

Plaintiff contends that since the manufacturer’s express warranty and the dealer’s express warranty both incorporate the provision “this warranty being expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied and of all the other obligations or liabilities on its part,” the two warranties cancel out each other and that the manufacturer’s express warranty is therefore ineffective to exclude the implied warranty under the Act of 1957.

The argument is not persuasive.

A contract must be given a reasonable construction which will uphold and enforce the instrument, if possible, rather than a construction which would render it meaningless and ineffective or which would lead to an absurd result. See *Code*§ 20-704 (4); *Blanchard &c. Realty Co. v. Fogel,*207 Ga. 602, 607, 609 (63 SE2d 382); *Central Georgia &c. Corp. v. Georgia Power Co.,*217 Ga. 171, 173 (121 SE2d 644). The proviso in question here clearly refers only to such other warranties as might be made by the same party.

The Act of 1957 expressly states that the implied warranty should attach “provided there is no express covenant of warranty and no agreement to the contrary.” This statute, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed. *Revlon, Inc. v. Murdock,*103 Ga. App. 842, 845 (120 SE2d 912). *24See *Foster v. Vickery,*202 Ga. *55,*60 (42 SE2d 117) and citations. Here the manufacturer’s express warranty of the subject matter of the sale and the express disclaimer of warranty were effective to preclude an implication of warranty under the provisions of the Act of 1957. See *Diamond Alkali Co. v. Godwin,*100 Ga. App. 799, 800 (2) (112 SE2d 365).

Plaintiff’s petition stated no cause of action. The trial court did not err in dismissing the petition on general demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 84

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 84.86 Component parts exposed to oxygen pressures; minimum requirements.

Each applicant shall certify that the materials employed in the construction of component parts exposed to oxygen pressures above atmospheric pressure are safe and compatible for their intended use.
HomePeople...Carl C.  Risch

# 				Carl C.  Risch			

															Assistant Secretary						Bureau of Consular Affairs												

				August 11, 2017 -									December 21, 2020							

**Carl C.  Risch's term ended on December 21, 2020.** Carl C. Risch was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs on August 11, 2017.Mr. Risch most recently served as the Acting Chief of Staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  He was previously the USCIS Field Office Director at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea.  He also worked as an immigration officer for USCIS at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines.  He started his career with USCIS as an immigration officer in the Administrative Appeals Office.Mr. Risch is a former Foreign Service Officer with the Department of State, where he served as a consular officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Amsterdam.  He had a highly regarded legal career in Pennsylvania in addition to his government service.  Mr. Risch earned a BA from Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania and a JD from Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Tags
Bureau of Consular AffairsState Department OfficialBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future