alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# General Pulaski Memorial Day, 2004

The story of Revolutionary War hero Brigadier General Casimir Pulaski is one of bravery and sacrifice that helped to secure America's blessings of liberty. We remember General Pulaski for his skill in battle, his commitment to freedom, and his willingness to give his life for America's independence.

Born in Poland in 1745, Casimir Pulaski first gained distinction as a military hero while fighting to defend his native Poland. His reputation as a bold warrior and his dedication to the cause of liberty became known throughout Europe.

Pulaski met with Benjamin Franklin in Paris in 1777 and agreed to join the Americans in their fight for freedom. He quickly proved to be a gifted military leader and was commissioned as a Brigadier General. He became known as “the Father of the American Cavalry,” recruiting and training a special corps of American, Polish, Irish, French, and German troops who fought with great skill and success. During the siege of Savannah in 1779, General Pulaski was mortally wounded, leaving a legacy of heroism that continues to inspire people around the world.

On General Pulaski Memorial Day, we honor a noble patriot committed to the cause of freedom, and we recognize the countless contributions Polish Americans have made to our Nation and our culture. We also celebrate the strong friendship between the United States and Poland, remembering our shared history and common values and honoring the sacrifices of Polish troops who have served bravely alongside American and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 11, 2004, as General Pulaski Memorial Day. I encourage all Americans to commemorate this occasion with appropriate programs and activities paying tribute to Casimir Pulaski and honoring all those who defend freedom.                          ( print page 61138)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 04-23207

Billing code 3195-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-16-00047-CV

Style: In re MarOpCo, Inc.

Date motion filed: March 1, 2016

Type of motion: Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Relator

Party filing motion: Barry Abrams, Susan L. Bickley, and Josh A. Huber, with the firm of Blank Rome LLP

Document to be filed:

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

The motion to withdraw as relator’s counsel of Barry Abrams, Susan L. Bickley, and Josh A. Huber, with the 

firm of Blank Rome LLP, is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(d). The Clerk of this Court is directed to note on the 

docket counsel’s withdrawal from representing relator.

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennnings

 

Date: _March 8, 2016
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-96-81 December 13, 1996

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE RG&E $100,000 FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

AT GINNA NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $100,000 fine against

the operator of the Robert E. Ginna nuclear power plant for two alleged

violations involving safety valves at the Ontario, N.Y., facility.

The first alleged violation facing Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E)

Corporation stems from a failure to adequately verify the ability of the

plant's two residual heat removal system core deluge valves to open when

necessary. Located in the plant's containment structure in two parallel lines

that discharge into the reactor vessel, the valves, upon receipt of a safety

signal, would need to open and allow the injection of water from the residual

heat removal system into the vessel. They also serve a pressure isolation

function for the vessel. Failure of these valves to operate properly would

significantly degrade the ability of the emergency core cooling system to

perform as required during an accident.

RG&E's failure to adequately correct the condition despite past

opportunities to do so constituted the second alleged violation.

Since the discovery of the alleged violations, during special NRC

inspections conducted last July and August, the utility has modified the

valves to assure they perform as intended. Also, RG&E conducted significant

additional testing and re-analyses of the valves and concluded they were, in

fact, operable prior to modifications in August 1996.

NRC Region 1 Administrator Hubert J. Miller expressed concern that RG&E

had not performed adequate analysis and verification of the valves'

capabilities prior to August 1996, despite indications that further analysis

was warranted. Mr. Miller also said that given the regulatory significance

and duration of the infractions, as well as the impact on plant safety if the

valves had not functioned as needed, they have been catergorized as a Severity

Level III problem that warrants a civil penalty.

"These findings demonstrate the importance of management taking

appropriate action to assure that 1.) design inputs for safety-related

components are adequately analyzed, and appropriately verified; and 2.)

indications of adverse conditions, including inadequate analysis, are promptly

identified and corrected," Mr. Miller wrote in a letter to RG&E.

The utility has 30 days to pay the proposed fine or to request in

writing that part or all of the penalty be withdrawn.

#
(March 25, 1948.)

#### In the Matter of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Petitioner, and General Public Utilities Corporation, Intervener, Petitioner, against Milo R. Maltbie et al., Constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and to certify questions of law denied, with $50 costs. Hill, P. J., Heffeman, Russell and Deyo, JJ.,.concur; Foster, J., dissents. [See *ante,*p. 114.]
### **CHAPTER 20A—STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO**

Sec.
931.
Purpose.
932.
Definitions and applications.
933.
PAYGO estimates and PAYGO scorecards.
934.
Annual report and sequestration order.
935.
Calculating a sequestration.
936.
Adjustment for current policies.
937.
Application of BBEDCA.
938.
Determinations and points of order.
939.
Limitation on changes to the Social Security Act.
Exhibit 15.2  JAMESSTAFFORDJames Stafford
Chartered Accountants
Suite 350  1111 Melville Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6E 3V6
Telephone +1 604 669 0711
Facsimile +1 604 669 0754
* Incorporated professional, James Stafford, Inc.   Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm    The Board of Directors Alberta Star Development Corp.  We consent to the incorporation of our report dated 2 March 2009, with respect to the balance sheets of Alberta Star Development Corp. as at 30 November 2008 and 2007, and the related statements of loss, comprehensive loss and deficit, cash flows and changes in shareholders equity for the period from 6 September 1996 (Date of Inception) to 30 November 2008 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended 30 November 2008 in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Alberta Star Development Corp. dated 9 March 2009.  Our report dated 2 March 2009, included additional comments for U.S. readers on Canada  U.S. Reporting Differences. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.   /s/ James Stafford Vancouver, Canada Chartered Accountants  9 March 2009
§ 147.500 How are violations of this part determined for recipients other than individuals? A recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of this part if the SBA Administrator or designee determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart B of this part; or
( b ) The number of convictions of the recipient's employees for violating criminal drug statutes in the workplace is large enough to indicate that the recipient has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61674-61675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23421]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the

[[Page 61675]]

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y 
(12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting 
securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed 
below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other 
company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order 
to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding 
companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted 
throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than November 3, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts; 
to acquire KLS Professional Advisors, LLC, New York, New York, and 
thereby engage in financial and investment advisory activities, 
pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6) and (b)(6)(vi) of Regulation Y.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Cindy C. West, Banking 
Supervisor) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
    1. Wesbanco, Inc., Wheeling, West Virginia; to acquire Winton 
Financial Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, and thereby indirectly acquire 
The Winton Savings and Loan Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, and thereby 
engage in owning and operating a savings and loan association, pursuant 
to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.
    Comments regarding this application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank or the office of the Board of Governors not later than November 
15, 2004.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 14, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-23421 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Contaminated Soil at Big Rock Point

## HPPOS-042 PDR-9111210190

See the memorandum from F. J. Congel to C. J. Paperiello dated April 11, 1985. Contaminated soil cannot be left in place without NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302. 10 CFR 30.14 on "Exempt Concentrations" is not applicable.

The health physics position was written in the context of 10 CFR 20.105, 20.106, and 20.302, but it also applies to the "new" 10 CFR Part 20, Sections 20.1301, 20.1302, and 20.2002.

NRR reviewed the matter of contaminated soil with regard to the need for the licensee to request permission under 10 CFR 20.302 [or 10 CFR 20.2002] to dispose of the material by leaving it in place. NRC considered the information provided and made the following conclusions:
        - The licensee has licensed byproduct material in a location and form where it is not secure (e.g., against the weather). Even though the NRC might find, after review of the circumstances, that leaving the material in place is satisfactory with regard to the public health and safety and with regard to environmental impacts, the licensee cannot unilaterally make such a determination. The licensee must do something about the disposition of the material; the choices are either to excavate the material, package it and ship it to a licensed burial ground or to request, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 [or 10 CFR 20.2002], approval of a procedure to dispose of it in some other manner (e.g., by leaving it in place).
        - Including the estimated total quantity of radioactivity as released effluent in their second half 1984 effluent report does not relieve the licensee of the responsibility for the proper disposition of the licensed material, the majority of which remains in place in the soil. Even though weathering and leaching may deliver some of the radioactivity to Lake Michigan within seven years, some will remain in the soil at the location of the leak; it continues to be licensed byproduct material for which the licensee is responsible.
        - For purposes of determining compliance with 10 CFR 20.105 and 20.106 [or 10 CFR 20.1302 and 20.1301, respectively], the licensee is responsible for accounting for release of radionuclides to the environment (e.g., to Lake Michigan, in the time periods in which they actually occur).
        - 10 CFR 30.14, "Exempt Concentrations," is not applicable to these circumstances; the licensee was not given specific authorization to introduce the byproduct into the soil. Applicable regulations, 10 CFR Part 20, do not provide lower limits to concentrations and quantities for which licensees are responsible.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30.14, 10 CFR 20.105, 10 CFR 20.106, 10 CFR 20.302, 10 CFR 20.1301, 10 CFR 20.1302, 10 CFR 20.2002

**Subject codes:** 9.0, 9.3, 9.7

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, October 13, 2017
§ 123.16 How are loans administered and serviced? ( a ) If you obtained your disaster loan from a participating lender, that lender is responsible for closing and servicing your loan. If you obtained your loan directly from SBA, your loan will be closed and serviced by SBA. The SBA rules on servicing are found in Subpart H of this part and part 120 of this chapter.
( b ) If you are unable to pay your SBA loan installments in a timely manner for reasons substantially beyond your control, you may request that SBA suspend your loan payments, extend your maturity, or both.
[61 FR 3304, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 75 FR 60598, Oct. 1, 2010]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 11

**Question 11:** Should the Radiation Protection Program be a stand-alone document or can it be the sum of many documents or manuals (e.g., a requirement for HP audits included as part of a QA audit program document)?

**Answer:** Section 20.1101 requires a documented radiation protection program. This documentation does not have to be a stand-alone document but it must be reviewed annually.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1101)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2013

d1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147319

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147319

COA: 315500

Wayne CC: 12-006087-FC

ANDREW RICARDO KNOTT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2013 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### Part B—Office of Congressional Accessibility Services
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

SEP 0 8 2014 

Mr. David M. McDonald 

VP, General Counsel 

Aeronautical Engineers, Inc. 

7765 Northwest 54111 Street 

Miami, Florida 3 3166 

Dear Mr. McDonald: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton , Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition letter dated August 22, 2014, requesting exemption from 

§§ 25.7850), 25 .812(e), 25 .855(a), 25.857(e), 25.1447(c)(l), and 25.1449 of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations. This exemption, if granted, would allow the carriage of up to tlu·ee 

non-crewmembers (commonly referred to as supernumeraries) in an area aft of the flight 

deck and forward of the 9G bulld1ead on Bombardier CRJ200 freighters to attend to special 

cargo. 

This request was submitted to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket 

Management System (at Regulations.gov) on August 25, 2014, and has been assigned 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0636. We are in the process of reviewing your request, and will 

contact you if we need additional infonnation. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mr. Alan Sinclair at (425) 227-2195, or by e-mail at Alan.Sinclair@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Deana M. Stedman 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, James F. Verhey, Chief Financial Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC, certify that:



1. The Form 10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Form 10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the period ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.



|                     |  |  |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 23, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES F. VERHEY                 
|                     |  |  |  |                                        
|                     |  |  |  | James F. Verhey Chief Financial Officer
§ 352.23 Functions of a Regional Assistance Committee (RAC). ( a ) Under 44 CFR part 351, the role of a RAC is to assist State and local government officials to develop their radiological emergency plans, to review the plans, and to observe exercises to evaluate the plans. Under subparts A and B of this part, these technical assistance activities are extended to the licensee.
( b ) Prior to a determination under subpart A (44 CFR 352.6(d)) that Federal facilities and resources are needed, the designated RAC for the specific site will assist the licensee, as necessary, in evaluating the need for Federal facilities and resources, in addition to providing technical assistance under § 352.23(a).
( c ) In accomplishing the foregoing, the RAC will use the standards and evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and Supp. 1.[1] or approved alternative approaches, and RAC members shall render such technical assistance as appropriate to their agency mission and expertise.
( d ) Following determination under subpart A (44 CFR 352.6(d)) that Federal facilities and resources are needed, the RAC will assist FEMA in identifying agencies and specifying the Federal facilities and resources which the agencies are to provide.
Footnotes -
352.23
[1] Copy available from FEMA Distribution Center, P.O. Box 70274 Washington, DC 20024
§ 352.4 Licensee certification. ( a ) A licensee which seeks Federal assistance under this part shall submit a certification to the host FEMA Regional Administrator that a decline or fail situation exists. The certification shall be in the form of a letter from the chief executive officer of the licensee. The contents of this letter shall address the provisions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) The licensee certification shall delineate why such assistance is needed based on the criteria of decline or fail for the relevant State or local governments.
( c ) The licensee certification shall document requests to and responses from the Governor(s) or responsible local official(s) with respect to the efforts taken by the licensee to secure their participation, cooperation, commitment of resources or timely correction of planning and preparedness failures.
[54 FR 31925, Aug. 2, 1989, as amended at 74 FR 15357, Apr. 3, 2008]
#### The People of the State of New York v. Serago.

Motion granted. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
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. 99-222 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, October 20, 1999)

NRC POSTS INSPECTION REPORTS ON INTERNET WEBSITE

FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN PILOT ASSESSMENT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now posting to its Internet website inspection

findings at 13 nuclear power plants at nine sites participating in a pilot evaluation of the new

reactor oversight process.

This supplements information on the performance of 13 nuclear power plants at nine

sites already being posted to the NRC website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html

For each of the nuclear plants, the website contains a brief summary of each NRC

inspection finding, an assessment of its significance and an Internet link to the NRC inspection

report which provides additional details.

In August, the NRC began posting data supplied by nuclear power plant licensees on

the performance of the plants participating in the pilot assessment. Information explaining the

revised oversight process, a list of scheduled public meetings and a glossary of terms also will

be posted.

The information is being released as part of an NRC initiative to provide more timely,

detailed and understandable information on nuclear power plant performance assessments.

Experience from the pilot will be used to evaluate and, if needed, modify the new oversight

process before it is extended to all plants next year.

The pilot plant sites are (1) Salem 1 and 2, near Wilmington, Delaware,

operated by Public Service Electric & Gas; (2) Hope Creek near Wilmington, Delaware,

operated by Public Service Electric & Gas; (3) Fitzpatrick, near Oswego, New York, operated

by the Power Authority of the State of New York; (4) Shearon Harris, near Raleigh, North

Carolina, operated by Carolina Power & Light Co. (5) Sequoyah 1 and 2, near Chattanooga,

Tennessee, operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority; (6) Prairie Island 1 and 2, near

Minneapolis, Minnesota, operated by Northern States Power Co.; (7) Quad Cities 1 and 2, near

Moline, Illinois, operated by Commonwealth Edison Co.; (8) Ft. Calhoun, near Omaha,

Nebraska, operated by the Omaha Public Power District; and (9) Cooper, near Nebraska City,

Nebraska, operated by the Nebraska Public Power District.
##