similarly not designed to apply to “a situation where the employee works an irregular number of hours according to a predetermined schedule.” Id. The section 207(k) exemption applies where the employer has adopted a qualifying “work period.” See Barefield v. Village of Winnetka, 81 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir.1996). The petitioners’ reliance upon language regarding employee consent and the preferability of reducing the agreement to writing in a section 207(f) employment situation is wholly unfounded. In fact, precedent addressing the section 207(k) scenario, as exists in the present ease, specifically holds that a municipality is not “required to obtain the consent of its [employees] before instituting a § 207(k) program.” Lamon, 972 F.2d at 1153 n. 10; see also Barefield, 81 F.3d at 710 (<HOLDING>); Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, 970 F.2d 802,
holding that employees approval is not required under section 207k system holding that state law claims involving fdca section 510k medical devices which are subjected to a relatively cursory approval process were not preempted because the fda had taken the position that its regulations only preempted claims involving section 360ec devises which go through a rigorous premarket approval process holding employees not entitled to dismissal pursuant to section 101106f where employees failed to present the trial court with a sufficient record to satisfy their burden holding that probation department employees are not county employees holding that employees could be required under mandatory securities registration form to arbitrate claims brought under adea