alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 108.130 Identified Low Income Geographic Areas.

A NMVC Company must identify the specific LI Areas in which it intends to make Developmental Venture Capital investments and provide Operational Assistance under the NMVC program.
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateAdjudications (Hearings)10 CFR Part 2: Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders

# Related Documents for 10 CFR Part 2 Revisions

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

## Proposed Rule

## Final Rule

## Press Releases

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Notice and Timing
          - Computation of Times for Service and Filing
          - Hearing Track Selection
          - Deadline for Hearing Activities, Subpart G
          - Deadline for Hearing Activities, Subpart L
          - Deadline for Hearing Activities, Subpart M
          - Deadline for Hearing Activities, Subpart N
          - Cross-Reference from New to Former
          - Cross-Reference from Former to New

#### 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, November 9, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5346 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5346

 To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to exclude affiliates and 
subsidiaries of insured depository institutions from the definition of 
                deposit broker, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 21, 2022

   Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to exclude affiliates and 
subsidiaries of insured depository institutions from the definition of 
                deposit broker, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Brokered Deposit Affiliate-
Subsidiary Modernization Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. BROKERED DEPOSITS.

    Section 29(g) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1831f(g)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or any 
                affiliate or subsidiary of that insured depository 
                institution,'' after ``an insured depository 
                institution,''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or any 
                affiliate or subsidiary of the insured depository 
                institution,'' after ``an insured depository 
                institution,''; and
            (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
            ``(4) Employee.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        `employee'--
                    ``(A) means an individual who receives compensation 
                in any form from--
                            ``(i) an insured depository institution; or
                            ``(ii) any affiliate or subsidiary of an 
                        insured depository institution; and
                    ``(B) includes a registered representative of a 
                broker or dealer that is an affiliate or subsidiary of 
                an insured depository institution.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §2042. Withdrawal

No money deposited under section 2041 of this title shall be withdrawn except by order of court.

In every case in which the right to withdraw money deposited in court under section 2041 has been adjudicated or is not in dispute and such money has remained so deposited for at least five years unclaimed by the person entitled thereto, such court shall cause such money to be deposited in the Treasury in the name and to the credit of the United States. Any claimant entitled to any such money may, on petition to the court and upon notice to the United States attorney and full proof of the right thereto, obtain an order directing payment to him.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 960; Pub. L. 97–258, §2(g)(4)(D), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1061.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §852 (R.S. §996; Feb. 19, 1897, ch. 265, §3, 29 Stat. 578; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 224, 36 Stat. 1083).

Words "and the money deposited as aforesaid shall constitute and be a permanent appropriation for payments in obedience to such orders" were omitted, in view of section 725p(b)(14), of title 31, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which repealed permanent appropriations of unclaimed money accounts and substituted authorization for annual appropriations effective July 1, 1935.

Changes were made in phraseology.

In U. S. Law Week, Nov. 7, 1939, Rep. Walter Chandler (Author of Chandler Act, Bankruptcy) observed as to the Judicial Code:

"Among the major subjects needing study and revision are—Numerous procedural changes which have been brought about through adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be codified." * * *

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–258 inserted references to section 2041 in two places.
0-cr-06216-LSS Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2000 Pa
0-cr-06216-LSS Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2000 Pa
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


Yorktown Battlefield
Part of Colonial National Historical Park
Virginia


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Basic Information
 Physical Address
Directions
Operating Hours & Seasons
Weather
Fees & Passes
Visitor Centers
Internet & Cellular Access
Internet & Cellular Access Details

Entrance Seal at Yorktown Battlefield Visitor CenterSeal over entrance of Yorktown Battlefield Visitor Center. NPS Photo

Pets  
Information about your pet in the park.
Information about Historic Jamestowne
 Last updated: November 15, 2019
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: Colonial National Historical Park - Yorktown Battlefield
P.O. Box 210
Yorktown,
VA
23690
 Phone: 757 898-2410 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 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
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Technical Assistance Request Dated September 11, 1992, Regarding the University of Pittsburgh Incinerator Ash Disposal Request and New Information Applicable to August 6, 1991 TAR

## HPPOS-285 PDR-9306180040

See the memorandum from J. E. Glenn to R. E. Bellamy dated March 19, 1993.

This memo responds to a technical assistance request (TAR) from Region I, dated September 11, 1992, regarding the University of Pittsburgh incinerator ash disposal request and new information applicable to a TAR dated August 6, 1991. The latter TAR was written in the context of 10 CFR 20.105, but it also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.1302.

Regarding the incinerator ash disposal request, the University of Pittsburgh proposes to use concentration limits applicable only to water effluents, in its procedures for disposing of the incinerator ash as "ordinary ash." Although previously allowed by license condition, the concentration limits are not necessarily appropriate for disposal of incinerator ash. The Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning estimated that its generic dose assessment for incinerator ash disposal would be done by April 1993. Therefore, reply to this portion of the TAR was withheld until completion of the assessment.

Regarding review of new information applicable to a TAR dated August 6, 1991, the following decisions apply. First, the request for exemption from the posting requirements of 10 CFR 35.205 (d) may be granted for emergencies in patient units and critical care situations where movement of the patient would compromise the health of the patient. Second, the request for approval of the higher limits of 10 CFR 20.105 (b) (1) and 20.105 (b) (2) [or, at present, 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (ii)] in unrestricted areas surrounding the rooms of patients receiving brachytherapy or radiopharmaceutical therapy with iodine-131 does not provide sufficient information about the tracking of patients in adjacent rooms, a system to monitor radiation levels in those rooms, and patient occupancy times, etc. Therefore, the region was advised to request clarification of the tracking system and survey procedures.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.105, 10 CFR 20.1302, 10 CFR 35.205, License Conditions

**Subject codes:** 3.6, 9.0, 9.3

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2017
### SUBCHAPTER III—ALTERNATIVE FINANCING MECHANISMS
#### § 151.22 Audits.

At the discretion of the Administrator, all claims submitted under section 11 of the Act and all records of the claimant will be subject to audit by the Administrator or his/her designee. In addition, the Comptroller General of the United States or his/her designee shall have access to all books and records of all claimants making claims under section 11.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Licensee's Responsibility for Shipment of Waste and Radioactive Materials

## HPPOS-194 PDR-9111210320

See the letter from V. L. Miller to J. Mangusi (Transnuclear, Inc.) dated August 1, 1986.

NRC's general policy is that the generator of radioactive contamination and waste should be responsible for all onsite processing and any shipments offsite. Therefore, NMSS has not normally licensed service companies to possess waste at power reactors.

In a letter dated June 26, 1986, it was asked whether Transnuclear could obtain a license to possess contaminated equipment at reactor sites for the purpose of turning the radioactive material over to a carrier for shipment.

NRC general policy is that the generators of radioactive contamination and waste should be responsible for all onsite processing and any shipments offsite. NRC believes that it is not in the interest of public health and safety to divide this responsibility between generators and service companies because the consequences of any accidents or problems associated with contamination and waste could be aggravated by questions of responsibility.

Therefore, NRC has not normally licensed service companies to possess radioactive contamination or waste at power reactor sites. Rather, any onsite service companies operate under the reactor license, and the reactor licensee is responsible for all onsite service activities and offsite shipments.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30

**Subject codes:** 9.0, 11.3

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-14222-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

PERCY KEPFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, INC., a 

Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a Lawnwood 

Regional Medical Center,

Defendant.

/

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND DISMISSING COUNT I WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of 

Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice of Count I (the “Joint Motion”) [ECF No. 32], filed on 

January 25, 2021. Upon review of the record and the parties’ documented basis for a settlement 

of Count I—which was asserted against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) and includes an award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff’s counsel as the prevailing party—

the Court finds that the proposed settlement of this claim is a fair and reasonable resolution of a 

bona fide dispute over the FLSA’s provisions, and that the requested fees are fair, reasonable and 

not grossly excessive. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Joint Motion [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED.

2. The Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Claim with Prejudice [ECF No. 32-1] 

between Plaintiff, Percy Kepfer, and Defendant, Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., which has been 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-AMC Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 1 of 2
20-14222-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

2

duly filed with the Court, is APPROVED in its entirety. 

3. Count I of the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, and all pending motions, 

to the extent they apply to Count I, are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Pierce, Florida this 1st day of February 2021.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 2:20-cv-14222-AMC Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 2 of 2
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Violations of 10 CFR 20.207 (a) or (b), "Security of Stored Material in Unrestricted Areas"

## HPPOS-056 PDR-9111210233

See the memorandum from J. Lieberman to R. Carlson (and others) dated June 1, 1982. Violations of 10 CFR 20.207 should be considered as Severity Level IV when the likelihood of unauthorized removal is small and the threat to public health and safety is minimal. A sample paragraph is provided for the Notice of Violation.

This health physics position also applies to the "new" 10 CFR Part 20, Sections 20.1801 and 20.1802.

Region I forwarded two cases at hospitals involving violations of 20.207 (a) and (b) [or 10 CFR 20.1801 and 20.1802]. These violations involved the storage of licensed material in unrestricted areas where access was possible and/or constant surveillance was not maintained.

In both cases, the likelihood of unauthorized removal of the material was small and the threat to the health and safety of the public was minimal and remote, since (1) the material was in an area of the hospital where assess by unauthorized personnel was unlikely, (2) the radiation levels near the material were low, (3) the half-life of most of the material was short, and (4) the material was clearly labeled and not in an "attractive" form for theft.

Because of the above, both Region I and the IE Enforcement Staff agreed that Severity Level IV was the appropriate classification for these violations.

In the future for similar cases, the following should be done.
        - The transmittal letter should contain a paragraph similar to the following: Item A described in the attached NOV involving control of licensed material, is classified as a Severity Level IV violation. As indicated in Supplement VI of the NRC Enforcement Policy significant violations of this type are normally classified as Severity Level III. However, after careful consideration of the factors involved in this specific instance, we have exercised our judgement under the NRC Enforcement Policy and have classified this violation as Severity Level IV. Similar violations of this type in the future may result in additional enforcement action.
        - An enforcement conference should be held. A telephone enforcement conference should be adequate unless there are other significant violations.
        - The Notice of Violation can be issued without prior notification of IE Enforcement, but the Director of Enforcement should be included on the distribution.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.207, 10 CFR 20.1801, 10 CFR 20.1802, EGM-82-05

**Subject codes:** 3.4, 12.7

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, October 13, 2017
Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of the 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  connection  with the  annual  report  of  MedSolutions,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  Sam
Hicks, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

                  (1) The Report 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 Report fairly  presents,
         in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of
         operations of the Company.



                                                     /s/  SAM HICKS
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Sam Hicks
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     Date:  April 14, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10740

Summary Calendar

EDNA GORHAM-BEY,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN JODY UPTON, FMC - Carswell,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-214

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edna Gorham-Bey, federal prisoner # 39381-037, is serving an aggregate 

111-month sentence following her convictions on 15 counts of fraud-related 

charges in the District of Maryland and one count of conspiracy to defraud the 

Government in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Gorham-Bey appeals 

the district court’s denial and dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 22, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10740 Document: 00512639415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2014
No. 13-10740

wherein she challenged the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) calculation of her 

sentence. Gorham-Bey’s motion to expedite this appeal is DENIED.

Gorham-Bey was convicted in Maryland and began serving a 96-month

federal sentence prior to being indicted in Pennsylvania. A writ of habeas 

corpus ad prosequendum secured her appearance in Pennsylvania, where she 

remained detained in the county jail until her conviction and sentencing by the 

Pennsylvania district court. On appeal, she argues that the BOP should have 

credited the time she spent in the Pennsylvania county jail against the 15-

month sentence she received from the Pennsylvania district court. She further 

argues that the BOP also should have credited against her sentence the time 

she spent in home detention prior to her conviction and sentencing in the 

Maryland district court.

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues 

of law de novo. Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). The period of 

time for which Gorham-Bey seeks credit against the federal sentence imposed 

by the Pennsylvania district court was credited against the federal sentence

imposed by the Maryland district court; thus, she is not entitled to any 

additional sentencing credit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Moreover, Gorham-Bey 

is not entitled to sentencing credit for any period of pre-trial home confinement 

because she was not in “official detention” for purposes of § 3585(b). See United 

States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84-85 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-10740 Document: 00512639415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2014
§ 206.36 Requests for major disaster declarations. ( a ) When a catastrophe occurs in a State, the Governor of a State, or the Acting Governor in his/her absence, may request a major disaster declaration. The Governor should submit the request to the President through the appropriate Regional Administrator to ensure prompt acknowledgment and processing. The request must be submitted within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident in order to be considered. The 30-day period may be extended by the Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate, provided that a written request for an extension is submitted by the Governor, or Acting Governor, during this 30-day period. The extension request will stipulate reasons for the delay.
( b ) The basis for the request shall be a finding that: ( 1 ) The situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments; and
( 2 ) Federal assistance under the Act is necessary to supplement the efforts and available resources of the State, local governments, disaster relief organizations, and compensation by insurance for disaster-related losses.
( c ) In addition to the above findings, the complete request shall include: ( 1 ) Confirmation that the Governor has taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State emergency plan;
( 2 ) An estimate of the amount and severity of damages and losses stating the impact of the disaster on the public and private sector;
( 3 ) Information describing the nature and amount of State and local resources which have been or will be committed to alleviate the results of the disaster;
( 4 ) Preliminary estimates of the types and amount of supplementary Federal disaster assistance needed under the Stafford Act; and
( 5 ) Certification by the Governor that State and local government obligations and expenditures for the current disaster will comply with all applicable cost sharing requirements of the Stafford Act.
( d ) For those catastrophes of unusual severity and magnitude when field damage assessments are not necessary to determine the requirement for supplemental Federal assistance, the Governor or Acting Governor may send an abbreviated written request through the Regional Administrator for a declaration of a major disaster. This may be transmitted in the most expeditious manner available. In the event the FEMA Regional Office is severely impacted by the catastrophe, the request may be addressed to the Administrator of FEMA. The request must indicate a finding in accordance with § 206.36(b), and must include as a minimum the information requested by § 206.36 (c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(5). Upon receipt of the request, FEMA shall expedite the processing of reports and recommendations to the President. Notification to the Governor of the Presidential declaration shall be in accordance with 44 CFR 206.39. The Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorateshall assure that documentation of the declaration is later assembled to comply fully with these regulations.