alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>  U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                        2,703,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                14,029,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  4,483,000
<INVENTORY>                                   9,086,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             24,297,000
<PP&E>                                       16,946,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               13,400,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               32,960,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        10,502,000
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         88,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   22,279,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 32,960,000
<SALES>                                      10,701,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             10,701,000
<CGS>                                         8,603,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 8,603,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              6,045,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 25,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               13,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3,806,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (3,806,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3,806,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.43)

        


</TABLE>
### **CHAPTER 15—OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT**

Sec.
471.
Congressional findings and declaration of purpose.
472.
Office of Technology Assessment.
473.
Technology Assessment Board.
474.
Director of Office of Technology Assessment.
475.
Powers of Office of Technology Assessment.
476.
Technology Assessment Advisory Council.
477.
Utilization of services of Library of Congress.
478.
Utilization of the Government Accountability Office.
479.
Coordination of activities with National Science Foundation.
480.
Omitted.
481.
Authorization of appropriations; availability of appropriations.
### §562. Vacancies

(a) In the case of a vacancy in the office of a United States marshal, the Attorney General may designate a person to perform the functions of and act as marshal, except that the Attorney General may not designate to act as marshal any person who was appointed by the President to that office but with respect to such appointment the Senate has refused to give its advice and consent.

(b) A person designated by the Attorney General under subsection (a) may serve until the earliest of the following events:

(1) The entry into office of a United States marshal appointed by the President, pursuant to section 561(c).

(2) The expiration of the thirtieth day following the end of the next session of the Senate.

(3) If such designee of the Attorney General is appointed by the President pursuant to section 561(c), but the Senate refuses to give its advice and consent to the appointment, the expiration of the thirtieth day following such refusal.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7608(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4513.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 562, added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 619, related to appointment of deputy marshals and clerical assistants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, §7608(a)(1). See section 561(f) of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.587 Maintenance of records. ( a ) *General.* An importer claiming preferential tariff treatment for a good imported into the United States under § 10.583(b) of this subpart must maintain, for a minimum of five years after the date of importation of the good, all records and documents that the importer has demonstrating that the good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under the CAFTA-DR. These records are in addition to any other records that the importer is required to prepare, maintain, or make available to CBP under part 163 of this chapter.
( b ) *Method of maintenance.* The records and documents referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must be maintained by importers as provided in § 163.5 of this chapter.
No: II-24-003 March 26, 2024 

Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417 

NRC Schedules Hybrid Public Meeting to Discuss 

Safety Performance of Honeywell Facility

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a hybrid public meeting for April 4 to 

discuss its two-year safety performance review of the Honeywell uranium conversion facility in 

Metropolis, Illinois. 

The event will run from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Metropolis Community Center, 900 W. 10th St. in 

Metropolis. Members of the public and media can attend in person or view the meeting and 

presentation on Teams. The telephone conference number for those without access to Teams is 

301-576-2978, passcode 16089661#. 

The meeting will begin with a short presentation from the NRC staff responsible for 

inspections at the facility, followed by a question-and-answer session. The NRC staff will be 

available to answer questions about the agency’s two-year review of the facility. 

The NRC assessed performance at the Honeywell facility from Jan. 1, 2022, through 

Dec. 31, 2023, in safety operations, safeguards, radiological controls, facility support, and other 

areas. The NRC staff found that Honeywell continued to conduct its activities safely and met NRC 

requirements for protecting workers, nearby residents, and the environment. 

The NRC does not have resident inspectors at the Metropolis facility, but fuel facility 

inspectors from its Atlanta regional office conduct periodic inspections of various aspects of the 

operation. These inspections occur multiple times a year. 

A copy of the NRC letter to the company about the performance is available on the NRC 

website.
#### BRAKE MASTERS SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. BRAKE FAST DEALS, INC., et al., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants.

No. 02-15247.

D.C. No. CV-01-01711-JAT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002*

Decided May 15, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Brake Fast’s motion to appear and argue is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief only to limited review. *Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc.,*198 *F.3d*725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.” *Id.*A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. *Id.*

We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion here. We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. *Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International,*686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982). The motion to stay district court order and the motion to strike exhibits are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateStandards Development

# NRC Standards Forum

The NRC Standards Forum aims to identify standards needs for the nuclear industry that are not currently being addressed by standards development organizations (SDOs) such as ASTM, ASME, ACI, ANS, IEEE, etc. The Forum is an interactive meeting, sponsored by the NRC, that engages stakeholders, such as SDOs, utilities, research organizations, and NRC staff to identify and develop standards used in regulatory applications; for example, for use in advanced reactor licensing reviews.

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*
        - 2023 Standards Forum
        - 2022 Standards Forum
        - 2021 Standards Forum
        - 2020 Standards Forum
        - 2018 Standards Forum
        - 2017 Standards Forum

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, July 20, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Standards Development Organizations
          - SDO Coordinator List
          - Consensus, Industry, and International Standards Used by NRC
          - Reference Documents
          - Contact Us
          - NRC Standards Forum

#### 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 Thursday, July 20, 2023
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 5

**Question 5:** Who is responsible for regulating radium - the State or NRC?

**Answer:** The NRC regulates radium when it is in NRC-licensed uranium or thorium ores (source material, as defined in Part 20) or in tailings or wastes from processing these ores (byproduct material, as defined in Part 20). The control of radium that may be incidental to NRC-licensed operations is evaluated by NRC as required by NEPA. Releases of radium from a site, other than from NRC-licensed material (ores or tailings), may be required to meet State release limits. Also, an NRC licensee may be required to get a State license for the radium in naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM) if the State requires a license for the use and possession of this material.

(References: 10 CFR 20.1001, 10 CFR 20.1002, 10 CFR 20.1003)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
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. 98-168 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, September 16, 1998)

NRC SUSPENDS SALP PROGRAM UNTIL REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT PROCESS IS COMPLETED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has suspended its Systematic Assessment

of Licensee Performance (SALP) program for an interim period until the NRC staff

completes a review of its nuclear power plant performance assessment process. At the

end of the process, the Commission will decide whether to resume the SALP program

or substitute something regarded as more effective.

The decision to suspend SALP is part of a larger plan to improve NRC’s

regulatory effectiveness. The plan represents a consolidation, refinement and

acceleration of a set of ongoing initiatives in the following areas: reactor licensee

performance assessment; risk-informed, performance-based regulations; reactor

inspection and enforcement; licensing activities; NRC’s organizational structure; and a

number of specific issues requiring prompt and sound decisions.

L. Joseph Callan, NRC’s Executive Director of Operations, outlined the plan in a

recent memorandum to NRC Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson. It responds to issues

raised in a recent congressional hearing and by other stakeholders.

Resources saved by suspending the SALP program will be used to accelerate

the staff’s effort to redesign its regulatory practices to reflect in a more timely and

efficient manner the performance of a mature nuclear industry. The NRC staff will

make recommendations to the Commission at the conclusion of the review early next

year.

SALP evaluations were conducted by regional and headquarters NRC staff every

12 to 24 months to assess performance of each licensed nuclear power plant. The

SALP program has been in existence for almost 20 years.

During the interim period that the SALP program is suspended, the NRC will

utilize the results of its plant performance reviews to provide nuclear power plant

performance information to licensees, state and local officials, and the public. These

reviews are intended to identify performance trends since the previous assessment and

make any appropriate changes to the NRC’s inspection plans. Since beginning the
Plant Performance Review process in 1988, the NRC has continuously improved it to

the point that these reviews now use similar information and address many of the

objectives of the SALP program. As a result, licensee performance will be assessed in

much the same way as in the SALP process, and on a more frequent basis.

NRC staff plans to inform nuclear power licensees of further details about the

suspension of its SALP program in the near future.

###
### Part C—Uniform and Arms
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. 97-110 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, August 1, 1997)

NRC SEEKS EARLY PUBLIC INPUT TO HELP DEVELOP CHANGES

TO REGULATIONS ON MEDICAL USES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is developing revisions to

its regulations on medical uses of licensed radioactive material

and seeks public comments on staff-level draft documents associated

with the revisions.

The draft documents will be available, beginning this month,

at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20555, telephone: 202/634-3273. They also will be posted on

the Internet at the following address:

http://techconf.llnl.gov/noframe.html.

In addition, the NRC will conduct two public meetings this

fall to solicit comments on specific rule text proposals. Times

and locations will be announced later.

The Commission has examined its medical use program in great

detail over the last four years. It conducted an internal

management review, commissioned an independent external review by

the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, and

included medical use as one of the issues examined during its

recent strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative.

Notwithstanding the Institute of Medicine's recommendation

that the NRC should not be the federal agency involved in the

regulation of ionizing radiation in medicine, the Commission

believes the report's conclusions were not substantiated and

therefore should not be pursued.

The Commission has directed the NRC staff to revise its

regulations, associated guidance documents, and, if necessary, its

1979 Medical Policy Statement. In developing revisions to the

medical use regulations, the NRC intends to focus primary attention

on procedures that pose the highest risk.

A proposed rule is scheduled to be released for formal public

comment next summer. However, public input is sought during the

development of the proposed and final rule and associated

documents.
Suggestions may be submitted in writing to the Secretary,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,

Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. They may also be

submitted electronically, as described in a Federal Register

notice that will be published shortly. The suggestions will be

most helpful if received by March 1, 1998.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.739 Packing materials and containers for shipment.

(a) *Effect on tariff shift rule.* Packing materials and containers for shipment, as defined in § 10.729 (n) of this subpart, are to be disregarded in determining whether the non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 28(n), HTSUS. Accordingly, such materials and containers are not required to undergo the applicable change in tariff classification even if they are non-originating.

(b) *Effect on regional value content calculation.* Packing materials and containers for shipment, as defined in § 10.729(n) of this subpart, are to be disregarded in determining the regional value content of a good imported into the United States. Accordingly, in applying the build-down, build-up, or net cost method for determining the regional value content of a good imported into the United States, the value of such packing materials and containers for shipment (whether originating or non-originating) is disregarded and not included in AV, adjusted value, VNM, value of non-originating materials, VOM, value of originating materials, or NC, net cost of a good.

# Example.

Australian Producer A produces good C. Producer A ships good C to the U.S. in a shipping container which it purchased from Company B in Australia. The shipping container is originating. The value of the shipping container determined under section § 10.735(a)(2) of this subpart is $3. Good C is subject to a regional value content requirement. The transaction value of good C is $100, which includes the $3 shipping container. The United States importer decides to use the build-up method, RVC = (VOM/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.734(c) of this subpart), in determining whether good C satisfies the regional value content requirement. In determining the AV, adjusted value, of good C imported into the U.S., paragraph (b) of this section and the definition of AV require a $3 deduction for the value of the shipping container. Therefore, the AV is $97 ($100 − $3). In addition, the value of the shipping container is disregarded and not included in the VOM, value of originating materials.
### §202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy

(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers (1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States; (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.

(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 676, §2, 52 Stat. 1060; Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 736, §2, 63 Stat. 910; Pub. L. 93–259, §7(a), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 62.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1974—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 93–259 inserted finding of Congress that employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.

1949—Subsec. (b). Act Oct. 26, 1949, inserted reference to regulation of commerce with foreign nations.

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

#### Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

Pub. L. 93–259, §29(a), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 76, provided that: "Except as otherwise specifically provided, the amendments made by this Act [see Short Title of 1974 Amendment note set out under section 201 of this title] shall take effect on May 1, 1974."

#### Effective Date of 1949 Amendment

Act Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 736, §16(a), 63 Stat. 919, provided that: "The amendments made by this Act [enacting section 216b of this title, amending this section and sections 203 to 208, 211 to 216, and 217 of this title, and repealing section 216a of this title] shall take effect upon the expiration of ninety days from the date of its enactment [Oct. 26, 1947]; except that the amendment made by section 4 [amending section 204 of this title] shall take effect on the date of its enactment [Oct. 26, 1949]."

#### Rules, Regulations, and Orders With Regard to Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974

Pub. L. 93–259, §29(b), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 76, provided that: "Notwithstanding subsection (a) [set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note above], on and after the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 8, 1974] the Secretary of Labor is authorized to prescribe necessary rules, regulations, and orders with regard to the amendments made by this Act [see Short Title of 1974 Amendment note set out under section 201 of this title]."
460 P.2d 1023

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monroe McAFEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 357.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Oct. 31, 1969.

James F. Warden, Carlsbad, for appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Oliver H. Miles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, Judge.

Defendant’s conviction and sentence was affirmed in State v. McAfee, 78 N.M. 108, 428 P.2d 647 (1967). Subsequently, he moved for post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969). The trial court held that matters raised by this motion were decided adversely to defendant in the prior appeal. Defendant now appeals from the order denying his motion.

The'trial court correctly ruled that each of the claims made in the post-conviction motion were considered and decided in defendant’s prior appeal. Issues raised and decided on a prior appeal may not be relitigated in post-conviction proceedings. Defendant is not entitled to a successive determination on the merits of the same issues. Nance v. State, 80 N.M. 123, 452 P.2d 192 (Ct.App.1969).

The order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.
#### Joseph Jacobson, Trading as Academy Pants Company, Appellant, v. Carter’s Clothes, Inc., Defendant, and Alfred L. Beck, Defendant-Respondent.

No opinion. Present ■— Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.