alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Jasmine’s Garden on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, Yao Miao Chief Financial Officer of Jasmine’s Garden, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Tomy knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
| April 9,  2004 | /s/ Yao Miao             |   |
|----------------|--------------------------|--------|
|           | Yao Miao                 |
|           | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
§ 4.450-7 Action by manager. ( a ) If an answer is not filed as required, the allegations of the complaint will be taken as admitted by the contestee and the manager will decide the case without a hearing.
( b ) If an answer is filed and unless all parties waive a hearing, the manager will refer the case to an administrative law judge upon determining that the elements of a private contest appear to have been established.
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. 99-251 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, November 29, 1999)

NRC APPROVES TRANSFER OF CLINTON POWER PLANT

OPERATING LICENSE TO AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the transfer of the operating license

for the Clinton Power Plant from the Illinois Power Company (IP) to AmerGen Energy

Company.

AmerGen, jointly owned by PECO Energy Co. and British Energy Inc., has reached

agreement to acquire the plant from IP. The agency also has amended the license for

administrative purposes to reflect the transfer.

Clinton Power Station is the second U.S. nuclear power plant directly purchased, in part,

by foreign interests. Three Mile Island Unit 1 was purchased by AmerGen in April. NRC

approval of the sale and license transfer includes conditions relating to the foreign ownership:

-- At least half of the members of AmerGen’s Management Committee shall be

U.S. citizens, to be named by the non-foreign member group of AmerGen

(currently PECO).

-- The chief executive officer, the chief nuclear officer and the AmerGen

management committee chairman must all be U.S. citizens. These officials

shall ensure that the plant is operated in accordance with NRC requirements

to protect public health and safety, as well as common defense and security

of the United States.

-- AmerGen must also inform the NRC of any filings with the Securities and

Exchange Commission that disclose “beneficial ownership” of PECO stock.

AmerGen also will be required to meet the NRC’s requirements for insurance or other

financial means to cover on-site property damage and public liability claims in the event of of a

major nuclear accident. It must further provide decommissioning funding assurance of no less

than $210 million. Based on the information which the company has filed, the NRC has

concluded that AmerGen has the financial and technical qualifications to safely operate the

facility and ultimately to decommission it.

The NRC received no requests for a hearing on the license transfer after it published a

notice in the Federal Register concerning the application. Comments by the The Environmental
Law & Policy Center of The Midwest were considered by the NRC staff in its review of the

AmerGen application.

###
#### § 5511.5 Penalties.

Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a), any individual who knowingly and willfully commits the prohibited acts under § 5511.4(b) is subject to arrest and trial by the United States Magistrate and, if convicted, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $100,000, or not more than $250,000 if commission of the prohibited acts results in death, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 3551 *et. seq.*), or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both, for each offense, and any organization that commits these prohibited acts is subject to arrest and trial by the United States Magistrate and, if convicted, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $200,000, or not more than $500,000 if commission of the prohibited acts results in death.

[60 FR 50451, Sept. 29, 1995]
#### § 147.110 Are any of my Federal assistance awards exempt from this part?

This part does not apply to any award that the SBA Administrator or designee determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Technical Assistance Request, Angell Memorial Animal Hospital, Boston, MA; Release to Unrestricted Area of Animals Containing Iodine-131

## HPPOS-286 PDR-9306180040

See memorandum from J. E. Glenn to R. E. Bellamy dated March 11, 1993.

This memo responds to a technical request from Region I, dated November 25, 1992, regarding Angell Memorial Hospital's request to release animals treated with iodine-131 (I-131) when the dose rate is less than 1 mR/hr at 6 inches.

The licensee was previously authorized to perform radionuclide therapy on animals with iodine-131 (I-131) and phosphorus-32 (P-32). In a previous application for a material license, the licensee provided an "Instruction to Owners" sheet, which appears to have provided adequate care and handling instructions to the owners. Authorization was granted, with the reasoning that human patients are allowed to be released at a level twenty times greater than the limit requested. If the animal had to be held until it reached background levels, the procedure would become prohibitively expensive, and the stress on the animal would also be increased. The dose that the owner would receive should be minimal if they are given instruction and the animal is handled as little as possible.

Therefore, provided that the licensee provides and commits to distribute a similar "Instructions to Owners" sheet to owners of animals undergoing radioiodine therapy, and provides a demonstration that the limits in 10 CFR 20.1301 will not be exceeded for any member of the public, licensee's request was approved.

**Regulatory References:** 10 CFR 20.1301, 10 CFR 35, License Conditions

**Subject codes:** 3.6, 11.2, 11.5

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2017
EXHIBIT A 

Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:20-cv-22382-CMA Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2020 Page 20 of 20
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 120.195 Disclosure of fees.

An Applicant for a business loan must identify to SBA the name of each Agent as defined in part 103 of this chapter that helped the applicant obtain the loan, describing the services performed, and disclosing the amount of each fee paid or to be paid by the applicant to the Agent in conjunction with the performance of those services.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06750**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 06750\06750_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06750\06750_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 06750\06750_Followup Questions.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up



### 06750\06750_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06750\06750_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06750\06750_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06750\06750_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06750\06750_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06750\06750_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06750\06750_telecon1.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 

### 06750\06750_telecon2.pdf Technical Review Correspondence



### 06750\Certification Statement_06750.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06750\Supporting Documentation\06750_POWER PLANT AERIAL-Model.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06750\Supporting Documentation\06750_Water Balance Drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Lightboro Realty Corporation, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [192 Misc. 947.] [See *post,*p. 822.]
----

----

I Mededelingen

Commissie

----

Wisselkoersen van de euro (1)

6 januari 2006

(2006/C 4/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Bron: door de Europese Centrale Bank gepubliceerde referentiekoers.

----

----

Voorafgaande aanmelding van een concentratie

(Zaak nr. COMP/M.4069 — Cognis BV/Golden Hope Plantations BHD/JV)

Voor een vereenvoudigde procedure in aanmerking komende zaak

(2006/C 4/02)

(Voor de EER relevante tekst)

----

(1)PB L 24 van 29.1.2004, blz. 1.

(2)PB C 56 van 5.3.2005, blz. 32.

----
#### FIRST NAT. BANK OF LOVELOCK *v.*ROGERS

No. 2766

(See 50 Nev. 325)

June 5, 1928.

On Petition for Rehearing

*Per Curiam:*

Rehearing denied.

Ducker, J.: I dissent.
# Den Europæiske Unions C 297A/29.

| | ISSN 1725-2393 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 297A |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 48. årgang29. november 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2393

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 297A

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

48. årgang29. november 2005

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oplysninger |
| | Kommissionen |
| 2005/C 297A/1 | Stillingsopslag — Præsident for EF-Sortsmyndigheden (lønklasse A*14) (personalevedtægtens artikel 29, stk. 2) — KOM/2005/10015 | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

III   Oplysninger

Kommissionen

2005/C 297A/1

Stillingsopslag — Præsident for EF-Sortsmyndigheden (lønklasse A*14) (personalevedtægtens artikel 29, stk. 2) — KOM/2005/10015

1

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

III Oplysninger

Kommissionen

| 29.11.2005 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 297/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2005

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 297/1

---

STILLINGSOPSLAG — PRÆSIDENT FOR EF-SORTSMYNDIGHEDEN

(lønklasse A*14)

(personalevedtægtens artikel 29, stk. 2)

KOM/2005/10015

(2005/C 297 A/01)

EF-Sortsmyndigheden søger en præsident.

Ansøgerne skal være statsborgere i en af Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater.

Præsidenten udnævnes af Rådet på grundlag af en liste over ansøgere, som Kommissionen opstiller efter at have indhentet udtalelse fra Sortsmyndighedens administrationsråd. Løn- og ansættelsesvilkår er fastsat i vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber. Ansættelse sker i lønklasse A*14. EF-Sortsmyndigheden og Kommissionen fører en aktiv ligestillingspolitik.

Stillingsbeskrivelse, ansøgningsformular og en ansøgningsvejledning kan hentes på følgende websted:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm

eller

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/propertyrights/index_en.htm

Ansøgninger skal være modtaget senest den 31. december 2005 (se nærmere enkeltheder i ansøgningsvejledningen).

---
No: 23-042 July 20, 2023

CONTACT: Ivonne Couret, 301-415-8200

NRC Appoints Robert P. Martin and Thomas E. Roberts to Four-Year ACRS Terms

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has appointed Robert P. Martin and Thomas E. 

Roberts to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for four-year terms.

The ACRS, a group of highly experienced technical experts, advises the Commission

independently from the NRC staff on safety issues related to the licensing and operation of 

nuclear power plants, nuclear materials and waste management, and radiation protection. 

In addition to his ACRS membership responsibilities, Martin is a professional engineer 

and nuclear industry consultant with over 30 years of experience. He previously worked at BWX 

Technologies, Inc., Framatome, Siemens Power Corp., and Idaho National Laboratory. His 

specialty area is in the development of evaluation methodologies and models for the design and 

safety analysis of advanced nuclear power plant concepts. He has authored or co-authored more 

than 70 journal publications, articles, and conference papers, including two books, “A BestEstimate Reactor Core Monitor Using State Feedback Strategies to Resolve Uncertainties” and 

“Design-Basis Accident Analysis Methods for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.” Martin holds 

a doctorate in nuclear engineering from Penn State University and earned his bachelor’s and 

master’s degrees in nuclear engineering from Texas A&M University.

Roberts brings more than 40 years of experience in the field of nuclear reactor systems 

and safety. Prior to joining ACRS, he spent 36 years as an engineer and engineering manager at 

the Naval Nuclear Propulsion (Naval Reactors) Program, headquartered in Washington, D.C. He 

worked in various roles providing overall technical direction in the development of digital 

instrumentation and control systems for nuclear-powered ships. For his last 12 years with the 

Navy, he served as the director of reactor plant safety and analysis at the Naval Sea Systems 

Command. Following his naval career, he has worked as a consultant. Roberts holds bachelor’s 

and master’s degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Virginia.

A complete list of ACRS members, with biographies, is available on the NRC website.
#### M. G. Babcock Company, Respondent, v. Henry H. Goodwin, Appellant.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### [§1034. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–34, title III, §312(b), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 839]

Section, acts Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 306; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–866, title I, §46(b), 72 Stat. 1642; Feb. 26, 1964, Pub. L. 88–272, title II, §206(b)(4), 78 Stat. 40; Jan. 2, 1975, Pub. L. 93–597, §6(a), 88 Stat. 1953; Mar. 29, 1975, Pub. L. 94–12, title II, §207, 89 Stat. 32; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §§1901(a)(129), 1906(b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1785, 1834; May 23, 1977, Pub. L. 95–30, title I, §102(b)(13), 91 Stat. 138; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95–600, title IV, §§404(c)(5), 405(a)–(c)(1), 92 Stat. 2870, 2871; Nov. 8, 1978, Pub. L. 95–615, title II, §206, 92 Stat. 3107; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–34, title I, §§112(b)(4), 122(a), (b), 95 Stat. 195, 197; July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title X, §1053(a), 98 Stat. 1045; Oct. 22, 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, §1878(g), 100 Stat. 2904; Nov. 10, 1988, Pub. L. 100–647, title VI, §6002(a), 102 Stat. 3684, related to rollover of gain on sale of principal residence.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to sales and exchanges after May 6, 1997, with certain exceptions, see section 312(d) of Pub. L. 105–34, set out as an Effective Date of 1997 Amendment note under section 121 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Elizabeth Thomas, Respondent, against Pine Auto Service et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Present — Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
§ 308.1 Use of funds in Projects constructed under projected cost. ( a ) If the Assistant Secretary determines before closeout of a construction Project funded under parts 305 or 307 of this chapter that the cost of the Project, based on the designs and specifications that were the basis of the Investment Assistance, has decreased because of a decrease in costs, EDA may in its discretion approve the use of the excess funds (or a portion of the excess funds) by the Recipient to: ( 1 ) Increase the Investment Rate of the Project to the maximum percentage allowable under § 301.4 of this chapter for which the Project was eligible at the time of the Investment award; or
( 2 ) Further improve the Project consistent with its purpose.
( b ) EDA, in its sole discretion, may use any amount of excess funds remaining after application of paragraph (a) of this section for other eligible Investments.
( c ) In the case of Projects involving funds transferred from other Federal Agencies, EDA will consult with the transferring Agency regarding the use of any excess funds.
### §2106. Determination

The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 963.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§344, 876, 877 (R.S. §701; Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 517, §§10, 11, 26 Stat. 829; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§231, 236, 237, 291, 36 Stat. 1156, 1167; Dec. 23, 1914, ch. 2, 38 Stat. 790; Sept. 16, 1916, ch. 448, §2, 39 Stat. 726; Feb. 17, 1922, ch. 54, 42 Stat. 366; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, §1, 43 Stat. 937; Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, §1, 45 Stat. 54).

Section consolidates part of section 344 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with sections 876 and 877 of said title. Other provisions of said section 344 are incorporated in sections 1257 and 2103 of this title.

Words "or a court of appeals" were inserted after "Supreme Court" upon authority of United States v. Illinois Surety Co., C.C.A. 1915, 226 F. 653, affirmed 37 S.Ct. 614, 244 U.S. 376, 61 L.Ed. 1206, wherein it was held that this section also applied to the courts of appeals in view of section 11 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 517, 28 Stat. 829.

The revised section will cover instances where the Supreme Court remands a case to the highest court of a State and to the United States Tax Court. It will also cover a remand of a case to the Court of Claims or the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. For authority to remand a case to The Tax Court, see Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1944, 64 S.Ct. 722, 321 U.S. 560, 88 L.Ed. 927.

Revised section will also permit a remand by the Supreme Court to a court of appeals inasmuch as such latter court then would be a lower court. The revised section is in conformity with numerous holdings of the Supreme Court to the effect that such a remand may be made. See especially, Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 1929, 49 S.Ct. 484, 279 U.S. 792, 73 L.Ed. 960; Krauss Bros. Co. v. Mellon, 1928, 48 S.Ct. 358, 276 U.S. 386, 72 L.Ed. 620 and Buzyuski v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 1928, 48 S.Ct. 440, 277 U.S. 226, 72 L.Ed. 860.

The last sentence of section 876 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., providing that the Supreme Court should not issue execution but should send a special mandate to the inferior court to award execution, was omitted. See rule 34 of the revised rules of the Supreme Court relating to Mandates, and section 1651 of this title authorizing the Supreme Court to issue all writs necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.

Changes were made in phraseology.
HomeAbout NRCGrant OpportunitiesGrant Awards

# Funding Opportunity Announcement Awards - 2022

        - Educational Grants Executive Summaries	           - Distinguished Faculty Advancement Executive Summaries
          - Fellowship Executive Summaries
          - Scholarship Executive Summaries 
        - Research and Development Grant Executive Summaries

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, August 22, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024 FOA Awards
          - 2023 FOA Awards
          - 2022 FOA Awards
          - 2021 FOA Awards
          - 2020 FOA Awards
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2009
          - 2010
          - 2011
          - 2012
          - 2013
          - 2014
          - 2015
          - Success Stories

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, August 22, 2023
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 218

**Question 218:** 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) (1) says that the control devices must cause the radiation level to be reduced "upon entry." 
> 
(a) Must the devices preclude authorized or unauthorized entry? 

(b) At what point must the control devices activate, when a person passes the final 30 cm before, or entry itself?

**Answer:**
> 
(a) 10 CFR 20.1601 (a) requires that entrance or access points to a high radiation area have "one or more" of the listed features to preclude excessive radiation exposure to an individual. The control device in subparagraph (1) stipulates only that it cause the radiation level to be reduced so that an individual, upon entry, could not receive 100 mrem in an hour within 30 cm of an accessible area of the source. This paragraph does not distinguish between "authorized" or "unauthorized."

(b) The control device must activate "upon entry into the area" at the "entrance or access point." 

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1601)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017