alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 124

**Question 124:** Do the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1703 (a) apply to respiratory protection equipment that is to be used only in emergencies?

**Answer:** Yes, if that equipment is to be used to limit intakes of radioactive material. 

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1703)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          68,945
<SECURITIES>                                   135,599
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,155
<INVENTORY>                                     40,823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               328,133
<PP&E>                                          56,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,178
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     322,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,223
<SALES>                                         76,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,108
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,770
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,839
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57


</TABLE>
Order entered August 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00220-CR

VERNON M. GRAVES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-19018-P

ORDER

Appellant has filed an August 1, 2013 objection to the record on appeal in which 

appellant contends the record does not contain the trial court’s sentencing. A review of the 

reporter’s record shows volume three contains the complete sentencing hearing with the oral 

pronouncement of sentence on pages 26–27. Accordingly, appellant’s objection to the record is 

DENIED.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Labeling of Radioactive Materials  Stored Under Water

## HPPOS-333

See the memorandum with enclosure from C. L. Miller to J. H. Joyner (and others) dated January 30, 1995. 

This NRR memo was written by the Radiation Protection Branch in response to several regional questions identified during a counterpart meeting concerning the labeling of radioactive materials stored under water at nuclear power plants. RES and regional comments were considered in the development of this health physics position. 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Editorial Note on Part 121
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 121.506 What definitions are important for sales or leases of Government-owned timber? ( a ) *Computation of Market Share* means the small business share, expressed as a percentage for a market area, based on the purchase by small business over the preceding 5-year period. The computation is done every five years.
( b ) *Forest product industry* means logging, wood preserving, and the manufacture of lumber and wood related products such as veneer, plywood, hardboard, particle board, or wood pulp, and of products of which lumber or wood related products are the principal raw materials.
( c ) *Integrated Resource Timber Contracts* means contracts that combine product removal and service work when the value of included timber exceeds the value of services.
( d ) *Logging of timber* means felling and bucking, yarding, and/or loading. It does not mean hauling.
( e ) *Manufacture of logs* means, at a minimum, breaking down logs into rough cuts of the finished product.
( f ) *Sell* means, in addition to its usual and customary meaning, the exchange of sawlogs for sawlogs on a product-for-product basis with or without monetary adjustment, and an indirect transfer, such as the sale of the assets of a concern after it has been awarded one or more set-aside sales of timber.
( g ) *Significant logging of timber* means that a concern uses its own employees to perform at least two of the following: felling and bucking, yarding, and loading.
[61 FR 3286, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 88 FR 26201, Apr. 27, 2023]
(No. 1120

Claimant awarded $1,150.00.)

#### Thomas Bouchier, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 10, 1927.*

Fees & *salaries*— when *award will he made.*This case is controlled by the decision of the court in *Blast*v. *State, supra.*

Harry Smitz, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

Thomas Bouchier presents a claim against the State on account of a deficiency in salary, allotted to the chief inspector in the Division of Private Employment Agencies, in the Department of Labor, for deputy hire, said claimant being a deputy in said service. It appears that the General Assembly in making the appropriation for the salaries in question, did not take into consideration that the law enacted contains a provision as follows: “If the deputy inspector has served or hereafter serves more than one year, $100 shall be added to his salary for each year of service until a maximum salary of $3,000 is reached, ’ ’ and that no allowance for such increase in salary is made in the law.

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

George B. Arnold, Director of Labor of the State of Illinois, has recommended that this deficiency be awarded to the employee.

We accordingly award to the claimant the sum of $1,150.00.
### §2346. Certification of record on review

Unless the proceeding has been terminated on a motion to dismiss the petition, the agency shall file in the office of the clerk the record on review as provided by section 2112 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(e), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 623.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 1036. | Dec. 29, 1950, ch. 1189, §6, 64 Stat. 1130. |
| | | Aug. 28, 1958, Pub. L. 85–791, §31(a), 72 Stat. 951. |

Statutes at Large

The words "of the court of appeals in which the proceeding is pending" are omitted as unnecessary in view of the definition of "clerk" in section 2341 of this title, and by reason of the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of appeals set forth in section 2342 of this title.
#### Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, Appellant, *v.*Beauvais Realty Corporation, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We hold that the Statute of Limitations was not tolled, because the Legislature, by section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act, limited and prescribed the recovery of unpaid principal indebtedness, for the period of the emergency (which expired on July 1,1947), to the difference between such unpaid indebtedness and the market value of the mortgaged property.

However, summary judgment dismissing the complaint should not have been granted. There should be a full adducement of the facts upon a trial, including the facts with respect to the status of the defendant as a real, bona fide surety, the facts surrounding the failure to remove the specified violations, and the facts with respect to the alleged default in the payment of interest and whether, under the circumstances, the agreement reducing interest to 4% did not relate back to the time of the receipt of the lower rate.

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed; order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the judgment dismissing the complaint are reversed and the motion denied.

Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order, insofar as it denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed; order, insofar as it granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the judgment entered thereon dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed and the motion denied.
#### § 431.5 Cost data and fund requirements.

Reclamation shall submit annually on or before April 15 to Western and Contractors, cost data, including one year of actual costs for the last completed fiscal year and estimated costs for the next 5 fiscal years, for operation, maintenance, replacements, additions and betterments, non-Federal funds advanced for the uprating program by non-Federal purchasers, and interest on and amortization of the Federal investment. Such cost data shall identify major items. Upon 5 days prior written notice to Reclamation, any Contractor shall have the right, subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations, to review records used to prepare such cost data at Reclamation offices during regular business hours. Contractors shall have an opportunity to present written views within 30 days of the transmittal of the cost data. Reclamation responses to written views shall be provided within 60 days of transmittal of the cost data or 30 days after a meeting with Contractors convened pursuant to § 431.4(d), whichever is later.
1

Sutton, Tia

From: Whiteman, Chad <Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 5:29 PM

To: Sutton, Tia

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin

Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments on EPA Aircraft Endangerment Finding NOPR/GHG Standards 

ANPR (2060-AS31)

Attachments: EO 12866 Review of EPA Aircraft EF NPRM and GHG ANPRM 2060-AS31 - 5_7_2015 - 

section G.docx

Tia, 

 Attached are the suggested EO 12866 interagency comments pertaining to just Section G of the draft rule. The 

attached document does not contain the comments that I sent over on 5/8 in the email below. When EPA responds, 

please use the document from 5/8 and substitute Section G from the document attached to this email. The suggested 

changes in Section G can be identified by green highlighted text in the body of the email. 

 Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks, 

Chad 

From: Whiteman, Chad 

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 12:18 AM 

To: 'Sutton, Tia' 

Cc: Hengst, Benjamin 

Subject: EO 12866 Comments on EPA Aircraft Endangerment Finding NOPR/GHG Standards ANPR (2060-AS31) 

Tia, 

 Attached are additional comments on the aircraft emissions rule and endangerment finding. We’re still working 

through language Section G and how to have something early next week. In the meantime, would you please respond 

to the attached comments. The new comments can be identified by searching for EO12866 in the comment bubbles. 

Thanks, 

Chad
#### Moritz Walter v. Katherine G. Farrell.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 5—LABOR DISPUTES; MEDIATION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF**

Sec.
51.
Repealed.
52.
Statutory restriction of injunctive relief.
53.
"Person" or "persons" defined.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of TE Products Pipeline Company, LimitedPartnership (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2005 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof, I, Lee W. Marshall, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ LEE W. MARSHALL, SR.          |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Lee W. Marshall, Sr.              |
| Chief Executive Officer                |
| TEPPCO GP, Inc., General  Partner |
|                                   |
| March 1, 2006                     |

 

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to TE ProductsPipeline Company, Limited Partnership and will be retained by TE ProductsPipeline Company, Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
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. 99-129 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, June 23, 1999)

NRC REVIEWS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

VIABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA, DISPOSAL SITE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has informed the Department of Energy

(DOE) that it is making significant progress in a number of technical areas in its exploration of

the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site for a potential high-level radioactive waste repository.

But the agency underscored that further work remains for DOE to prepare a complete

and high-quality license application if a decision is made to go forward with the Yucca Mountain

project.

NRC also agrees with DOE’s proposal to proceed with site characterization, calling for

further exploration and technical evaluation to determine the acceptability of the Yucca

Mountain site.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission discussed its views in a written summary report

recently sent to DOE.

DOE performed the viability assessment to help decide on the feasibility of proceeding

with work at Yucca Mountain that could potentially result in seeking a license for a repository

there. NRC reviewed it as part of its pre-licensing consultation with DOE, as provided by the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Both the NRC staff and the agency’s Advisory Committee

on Nuclear Waste commented on the assessment in public briefings of the Commission in

March.

Elements of the viability assessment which the NRC staff reviewed include the

preliminary design of the repository, the performance of the repository system, and the license

application plan, which discusses areas in which DOE believes further work is necessary and

the department’s priorities in technical areas.

NRC’s review of the viability assessment indicates that more information needs to be

provided in the following more significant areas.

ˇ repository design;

ˇ waste package corrosion;

ˇ quantity and chemistry of water contacting waste packages and waste forms;

ˇ saturated zone flow and transport (of radioactive materials);

ˇ volcanic disruption of the waste package; and

ˇ quality assurance (of all safety systems);
Staff members of both agencies are continuing pre-licensing consultations to resolve

these and other more detailed issues, so that a high-quality license application can be

completed by the DOE’s target year of 2002, if the Secretary of Energy decides to recommend

the Yucca Mountain site for the proposed repository.

The review of the viability assessment and the letter transmitting it to DOE can be found

on NRC’s website, at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/va.htm

###
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

[LOGO] ERNST & YOUNG

To the Board of Directors of Newcourt Financial USA Inc.

At your request we have reviewed the Monthly Servicer Reports of Newcourt
Financial USA Inc. ("Newcourt") for the period November 1, 1997 to December
31, 1997 (the "period") (prepared in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section 9.01 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement of Newcourt Receivables
Asset Trust 1997-1 [the "Agreement"]) dated November 1, 1997 (the "Reports")
and Newcourt's compliance with the servicing of Contracts under Article V of
the Agreement for the period.  Our review was prepared in accordance with
generally accepted standards for review engagements and accordingly consisted
primarily of enquiry, analytical procedures and discussion related to
information suppled to us by the Company.

Certain matters of compliance in Article V contain terms such as: "reasonable
care," "reasonable efforts," "best efforts," and "reasonable manner."  For
purposes of this review engagement, these terms are interpreted to mean "in the
same manner in which Newcourt services comparable contracts that it services on
their own account."

A review does not constitute an audit and consequently we do not express an
audit opinion on this matter.

Based on our review, nothing has come to our attention that causes us to
believe that the Reports were not prepared in accordance with sub-section
9.01 of the Agreement and that the servicing of contracts for the period was
not in compliance with the provisions of Article V of the Agreement, except
as follows for the report issued for the month ended December 31, 1997:

     Restricting Event calculation -- page 4, Section 9(c) -- "A Notes
     Outstanding" -- Target Subordination for the months of November and
     December 1997.

     The calculation under section (c) part (B) -- "Difference between ADCB
     and Class A Notes" used the beginning period balance, not the ending
     period balance for Class A Notes.  Coverage over the Target
     Subordination was therefore understated.  The figures shown in section
     (c) part (B) for November and December 1997; respectively, should have
     been $45,607,057.20 and $45,251,066.24, and not $33,842,476.63 and
     $28,509,679.42.

                                   /s/ Ernst & Young
                                   Chartered Accountants

Toronto, Canada
March 6, 1998
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.375 Policy.

Section 7(a)(20) of the Act authorizes SBA to provide direct (unilaterally or together with Lenders) or guaranteed loans to firms participating in the 8(a) Program.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 456

**Question 456:** FSARs for Part 50 power reactor licensees typically contain multiple references to current 10 CFR Part 20 concepts and terminology, primarily with regard to describing aspects of the radiation protection program. Updating of these references would be editorial in nature, without any health and safety benefit, but would nevertheless divert resources from potentially more significant matters. Additionally, these changes would be submitted to the NRC as part of the FSAR Update process, involving NRC staff review, an additional expenditure of resources. May licensees forego such editorial changes to the FSAR, that have no health and safety significance? Note that programmatic changes required to implement the revised Part 20 will still be accomplished through new or revised procedures and training. Additional clarification of the NRC staff's expectations would be useful for Part 50 licensees to more appropriately efficiently allocate resources to their revised Part 20 implementation efforts.

**Answer:** Yes; power reactor licensees do not need to provide updates that are purely editorial and have no health and safety significance. 10 CFR 50.71 (e) requires each power reactor licensee to update the licensee's FSAR and to submit the changes to the NRC. The only FSAR changes (resulting from the revised Part 20) that need to be made are: 
> 
(a) significant changes in commitments identified in the FSAR regarding the radiation protection program; 

(b) changes in the facility described in the FSAR; and 

(c) changes that involve an unreviewed safety question or technical specification change pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. 

The NRC staff does not expect that implementation of revised Part 20 will result in significant changes to power reactor facilities or in unreviewed safety questions at these facilities. Changes in reactor technical specifications are not required by the revised Part 20; however, the staff does expect that some power reactor licensees will voluntarily request changes in technical specifications as a result of revised Part 20, such as changes in ESF-related process monitor alarm set points which may have been based on the old Part 20).

(Reference: 10 CFR Part 50, FSAR)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Wright Brothers
National MemorialNorth Carolina