alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 23-025 March 17, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC to Begin Reviewing Portions of NuScale’s

Small Modular Reactor Standard Design Approval Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will begin reviewing most of NuScale Power 

LLC’s application for standard design approval of the company’s 77 MWe/module Small 

Modular Reactor design. The remainder of NRC staff’s review of the design will begin once the 

company provides additional details on a key safety topic. 

The company submitted its application on Jan. 1 for the design, in which the reactor 

building holds up to six co-located pressurized-water reactor modules. The modules use natural, 

“passive” processes such as convection and gravity in operating systems and safety features. The 

modules, providing a total output of approximately 460 MWe, are submerged in a pool built 

below ground level. NRC staff has concluded the majority of NuScale’s application supports the 

start of review activities. 

The staff has determined portions of the application, discussing steam generator safety 

performance under certain conditions, require additional information. Once NuScale provides 

that information, the staff will develop a full review schedule. 

A standard design approval is a determination by the NRC staff that a reactor design 

meets applicable NRC design requirements. Companies can reference a standard design approval 

when applying for a license to build and operate a reactor in the United States.
#### Edward A. Joyner, Appellant, v. Ella L. Pulsifer and Another, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23107]



[[Page 61026]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Availability of Funds Announced in the HRSA Preview

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces 
the availability of funds in the fiscal year (FY) 2005 HRSA Preview. 
The HRSA Preview is a comprehensive review of HRSA's fiscal year 2005 
competitive programs. The purpose of the HRSA Preview is to provide the 
general public with a single source of program and application 
information related to the Agency's competitive grant offerings. The 
HRSA Preview is designed to replace the multiple Federal Register 
notices that traditionally advertised the availability of HRSA's 
discretionary funds for its various programs. A printer-friendly copy 
of the Preview can be downloaded at http://www.hrsa.gov/grants/preview/default.htm. A hard copy can be requested by contacting the HRSA 
Information Center at: HRSA Information Center, 2710 Prosperity Avenue, 
Fairfax, VA 22031, Telephone: 1-800-ASK-HRSA, http://www.hrsa.gov.
    It should be noted that additional program initiatives responsive 
to new or emerging issues in the health care area and unanticipated at 
the time of publication of the HRSA Preview may be announced through 
the Federal Register and the HRSA Web site http://www.hrsa.gov/grants.htm. A list of these programs can also be found at the 
Grants.gov Web site: http://www.grants.gov.
    HRSA continues to accept grant applications online. Please refer to 
the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/grants/preview/default.htm for 
more information.

    Dated: October 6, 2004.
Elizabeth M. Duke,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-23107 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 120.450 What is the Preferred Lenders Program?

Under the Preferred Lenders Program (PLP), designated Lenders process, close, service, and liquidate SBA guaranteed loans with reduced requirements for documentation to and prior approval by SBA.
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 Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


World War I Memorial
District of Columbia


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  History & Culture
 A pool of water in the foreground with a banner of life size depictions of soldiers in the bacgroundFeatures of the Memorial
Learn how statues, water features and quotations honor the those who served in the Great War.
A sculptor shapes the clay model of one of the statues of A Soldier's JourneyThe Design Team
Meet the architects, sculptors, artists and engravers who brought the World War I Memorial from vision to reality.

Articles about World War I
Sort By:RelevanceRecently UpdatedDate ReleasedTitle
Show1040 per page
Loading results...
Tags:
wwi world war i
 Last updated: April 16, 2021
 Park footer Contact Info Phone: (202) 426-6841
Visitor Information Phone Number Contact Us
 Tools Site Index
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
### SUBCHAPTER V—ELECTIONS
No: II-99-51

October 22, 1999

NRC Region II Issues Mid-Cycle Plant Performance Review Results

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is making its mid-cycle Plant Performance

Reviews (PPRs) for nuclear power plants available on the NRC web site. PPRs are an

interim measure the NRC is using to assess nuclear power plant safety. The agency began

using it for this purpose after suspending the Systematic Assessment of Licensee

Performance (SALP) in 1998 while it developed a revised reactor oversight process. The

text of each letter is available from the NRC Region II Office of Public Affairs and on the

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

Full scale PPRs, which consisted of an in-depth, integrated assessment of overall

plant performance, were conducted approximately six months ago. The results of those

PPRs were communicated to each power reactor licensee and provided performance

information similar to that previously contained in SALP reports. The recently conducted

mid-cycle PPRs did not entail the same level of assessment effort. The primary purpose

of these reviews was to evaluate safety performance information from the past six months

and to identify any changes in performance from that described in the last PPRs in order

to allocate inspection resources appropriately.

Region II will continue to execute inspection plans consisting of basic and regional

initiative inspections based on the level of performance described in the PPRs issued last

spring. During the recent evaluation of licensee performance, the staff did not identify any

new areas that warranted more inspection at any Region II nuclear plant.

An important element of the previous SALP process was the public meeting the

NRC would have with the licensee to discuss the assessment results. During the interim

process, the staff has continued its practice of meeting with licensees periodically to

discuss its performance assessment. Most plants have had public meetings in the recent

past and no meetings at Region II plants are scheduled as a result of the mid-cycle PPRs.

Any future meetings will be announced and open to the public.

The revised reactor oversight process is currently undergoing a pilot evaluation at

13 plants at nine sites and is scheduled for full implementation next spring. Under the

revised process, the staff will conduct quarterly performance reviews based on a number

of performance indicators and inspection findings. A full description of the revised program

is available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm or

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

###
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional Ecological Knowledge





Contact Us
  Resources
 Guides
  Literature
  Orders and Policies
  Organizations Concerned with TEK  Potential Funding Sources  Tribal Policies, Processes and Protocols
 Websites
 Last updated: July 9, 2018
 Tools Site Index
Contact Us


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
§ 127.701 What must a concern do in order to be identified as an EDWOSB or WOSB in any Federal procurement databases? ( a ) In order to be identified as an EDWOSB or WOSB in the System for Award Management (SAM) database (or any successor thereto), a concern must certify its EDWOSB or WOSB status in connection with specific eligibility requirements at least annually.
( b ) If a firm identified as an EDWOSB or WOSB in SAM fails to certify its status within one year of a status certification, the firm will not be listed as an EDWOSB or WOSB in SAM, unless and until the firm recertifies its EDWOSB or WOSB status.
[78 FR 38821, June 28, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          36,723
<SECURITIES>                                     3,269
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,633
<PP&E>                                         760,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 696,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,219
<BONDS>                                        389,722
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   696,486
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,783
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,532
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (73,509)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,977)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Agnes K. Donlan, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41630.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Hernandez-Hernandez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States, without permission, following deportation. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). Although Hernandez-Hernandez signed a waiver provision as part of his plea agreement, we need not determine the effect of that waiver because Hernandez-Hernandez cannot prevail on the merits of his appellate arguments.

For the first time on appeal, Hernandez-Hernandez argues that the sentencing provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Hernandez-Hernandez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Hernandez-Hernandez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *AlmendarezTorres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Hernandez-Hernandez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Also for the first time on appeal, Hernandez-Hernandez argues that the district court erred when it sentenced him pursuant to the mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 *252S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Application of the Sentencing Guidelines in their mandatory form constitutes error that is plain. *United, States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), *cert, denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005). However, nothing in the record indicates that the district court would have imposed a different sentence if it had known that it was not bound by the sentencing guidelines. Accordingly, district court’s error did not affect Hernandez-Hernandez’s substantial rights. *See id.*at 733-34. Hernandez-Hernandez has not established reversible plain error.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, James S. Burns, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of EntreMed, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report. Date: May 24, 2005 /s/ James S. Burns
James S. Burns
President and Chief Executive Officer
### §1902. Continued operation of Center

#### (a) Administration by Secretary of Education

The Secretary of Education shall continue to administer and support the Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults who are Deaf-Blind in the same manner as such Center was administered prior to February 22, 1984, to the extent such manner of administration is not inconsistent with any purpose described in subsection (b) or any other requirement of this chapter.

#### (b) Purposes of Center

The purposes of the Center are to—

(1) provide specialized intensive services, or any other services, at the Center or anywhere else in the United States, which are necessary to encourage the maximum personal development of any individual who is deaf-blind;

(2) train family members of individuals who are deaf-blind at the Center or anywhere else in the United States, in order to assist family members in providing and obtaining appropriate services for the individual who is deaf-blind;

(3) train professionals and allied personnel at the Center or anywhere else in the United States to provide services to individuals who are deaf-blind; and

(4) conduct applied research, development programs, and demonstrations with respect to communication techniques, teaching methods, aids and devices, and delivery of services.

(Pub. L. 98–221, title II, §203, Feb. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 33; Pub. L. 102–569, title IX, §§902, 908, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4482, 4485.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 98–221, Feb. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 32, which is classified generally to this chapter (§1901 et seq.). For complete classification of this title to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1901 of this title and Tables. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1984 Amendment note set out under section 701 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–569, §908(c)(2), amended section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–569, §§902(1)–(3), 908(c)(1), redesignated subsec. (b) as (a), substituted "Youths and Adults who are Deaf-Blind" for "Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults", "prior to February 22, 1984" for "pursuant to section 313 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973", and "subsection (b)" for "subsection (c)", and struck out former subsec. (a) which repealed section 777c of this title.

Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 102–569, §§902(2), (4), 908(a), (b), redesignated subsec. (c) as (b), substituted "individual who is deaf-blind" for "deaf-blind individual" in par. (1), added par. (2), redesignated former par. (2) as (3) and substituted "individuals who are deaf-blind" for "deaf-blind individuals", and redesignated former par. (3) as (4). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (a).
#### In the Matter of General Insurance Company, Ltd., of Trieste & Venice. Cabell & Cabell, Appellant-Respondent; Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of General Insurance Company, Ltd., of Trieste & Venice, Respondent-Appellant.

Fo opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Phyllis Fafard et al., Appellants, against Board of Education of the City of New Rochelle, Respondent.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, final order denying appellants’ application to direct respondent to pay to them certain claimed arrearages in salaries and to adjust upward appellants’ current salaries, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Ro opinion. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Cars-well, Johnston, Adel-and Sneed, JJ. [See *post,*p. 857.J
§ 130.470 Fees. ( a ) An SBDC may charge clients a reasonable fee to cover the costs of training (sponsored or cosponsored) by the SBDC, the sale of books, the rental of equipment or space, research work, hiring outside consultants for a particular client, or other specialized services.
( b ) SBDC network entities, staff, consultants, or volunteers must not solicit or accept fees or other compensation for counseling services, including, but not limited to, business or marketing plan development, loan packaging or credit application assistance, or other advisory services described in section 21 of the Small Business Act.
[88 FR 76647, Nov. 7, 2023]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-030 February 22, 2000

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON REPORT OF SPENT FUEL POOL

ACCIDENT RISKS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDERGOING DECOMMISSIONING

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a draft final report of spent

fuel pool accident risks at nuclear power plants that have permanently shut down and are undergoing

decommissioning.

After a nuclear power plant permanently shuts down and fuel is removed from the reactor, the

predominant source of potential risk involves accidents associated with irradiated fuel stored in the

water-filled spent fuel pool.

Licensees of permanently shut down and defueled plants have requested numerous exemptions

to NRC regulations. Many of these exemptions have been reviewed on a plant-specific basis because

the current body of regulations is primarily directed towards the safety of operating reactors. To

remedy this situation, NRC plans to draft a new, comprehensive rule that will take into account risk

insights with regard to spent fuel pools. This approach is intended to increase regulatory efficiency

while maintaining public health and safety as well as reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.

After briefing the Commission last March, the NRC staff formed a technical working group to

study spent fuel pool risks at nuclear power plants being decommissioned. The purpose of this study is

to assist the NRC staff in developing the new, comprehensive rule, as well as reviewing emergency

planning, safeguards and insurance exemption requests from decommissioning nuclear power plants

before rulemaking is completed. The technical working group completed a preliminary study in June.

Several public meetings and a two-day public workshop were held in conjunction with the

development of the draft final report. This report reflects comments received from the public and the

nuclear industry, as well as the results of other external technical reviews.

A copy of the “Draft Final Technical Study On Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk At

Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants,” is available for review at the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037. Copies of the study also are available by writing to

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Distribution Services, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and

through the NRC Agency Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The report also is
available at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/DECOMMISSIONING/SF/index.html on the

NRC Internet web page.

Comments should be submitted within 45 days of the publication of a notice in an upcoming

edition of the Federal Register, to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Comments may also be

submitted electronically by selecting the "comments" link on the NRC’s website address listed above.

##
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

National Communications System


Telecommunications Service Priority System Oversight Committee

AGENCY: National Communications System (NCS), Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    A meeting of the Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System 
Oversight Committee will convene Tuesday, November 9, 2004, from 9 a.m. 
to 12 noon. The meeting will be held at 701 South Courthouse Road, 
Arlington, VA in the NCS conference room on the 2nd floor.

--TSP Program Update
--TSP Revalidation Update
--PSWG Update

    Anyone interested in attending or presenting additional information 
to the Committee, please contact Susan Flint, Office of Priority 
Telecommunications, (703) 607-4932. Media or Press must contact Mr. 
Steve Barrett (703) 607-6211.

Peter M. Fonash,
Certifying Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-22631 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M