alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §151. Smithsonian Library

The library collected by the Smithsonian Institution under the provisions of the Act of August 10, 1846, chapter 25, and removed from the building of that institution, with the consent of the Regents thereof, to the Library of Congress, shall, while there deposited, be subject to the same regulations as the Library of Congress, except as hereinafter provided.

(R.S. §99.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of August 10, 1846, chapter 25, referred to in text, probably should be act Aug. 10, 1846, ch. 178, 9 Stat. 102, which was entitled "An Act to establish the 'Smithsonian Institution', for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men".

#### Codification

R.S. §99 derived from act Apr. 5, 1866, ch. 25, §1, 14 Stat. 13.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpace Shuttle 2 advanced space transportation system, volume 2To determine the best configuration from all candidate configurations, it was necessary first to calculate minimum system weights and performance. To optimize the design, it is necessary to vary configuration-specific variables such as total system weight, thrust-to-weight ratios, burn durations, total thrust available, and mass fraction for the system. Optimizing each of these variables at the same time is technically unfeasible and not necessarily mathematically possible. However, discrete sets of data can be generated which will eliminate many candidate configurations. From the most promising remaining designs, a final configuration can be selected. Included are the three most important designs considered: one which closely approximates the design criteria set forth in a Marshall Space Flight Center study of the Shuttle 2; the configuration used in the initial proposal; and the final configuration. A listing by cell of the formulas used to generate the aforementioned data is included for reference.Document ID19900017538Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsAdinaro, James N.*(Auburn Univ. AL, United States)*Benefield, Philip A.*(Auburn Univ. AL, United States)*Johnson, Shelby D.*(Auburn Univ. AL, United States)*Knight, Lisa K.*(Auburn Univ. AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 27, 1989Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-185953NAS 1.26:185953Accession Number90N26854Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017538.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-08 February 2, 2000

CONTACT: Kenneth M. Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC Staff to Discuss Harris Spent Fuel Pool License Amendment

Review at Public Meeting in Raleigh February 28

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting for February 28 at

North Carolina State University’s McKimmon Conference Center in Raleigh to discuss Carolina

Power & Light’s request to amend the license for the Harris nuclear power plant, located 21 miles

southwest of Raleigh.

CP&L has requested NRC approval of an amendment that would allow the company to use two

currently unused spent nuclear fuel pools at the Harris plant. The NRC staff is carefully reviewing the

company’s application, including analyses of changes to the cooling systems for the additional pools.

The meeting is scheduled from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. and will include a discussion by the NRC staff

of its license amendment review process and the scope and status of its review of the CP&L request.

Members of the public are also encouraged to ask questions or provide relevant information to the

staff.

The Harris plant was originally designed for four units, but only one was completed. However,

the plant’s fuel handling building has four spent fuel pools, as originally planned. The current Harris

license authorizes CP&L to use two of those pools for spent fuel from the Harris plant and from the

company’s other two nuclear plants, Brunswick, near Southport, N.C., and H.B. Robinson, near

Hartsville, S.C.

The Board of Commissioners of Orange County has intervened in the license amendment

process and an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is reviewing the Orange County contentions, but

that ASLB process is separate from the NRC staff’s review of the technical aspects of the CP&L

request.

#####
#### Leo C. Dessar v. Charles S. Hirsch.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.616 Verification and justification of claim for preferential tariff treatment. ( a ) *Verification.* A claim for preferential tariff treatment made under § 10.583(b) or § 10.591 of this subpart, including any statements or other information submitted to CBP in support of the claim, will be subject to such verification as the Center director deems necessary. In the event that the Center director is provided with insufficient information to verify or substantiate the claim, or the exporter or producer fails to consent to a verification visit, the Center director may deny the claim for preferential treatment. A verification of a claim for preferential tariff treatment under CAFTA-DR for goods imported into the United States may be conducted by means of one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Written requests for information from the importer, exporter, or producer;
( 2 ) Written questionnaires to the importer, exporter, or producer;
( 3 ) Visits to the premises of the exporter or producer in the territory of the Party in which the good is produced, to review the records of the type referred to in § 10.589(c)(1) of this subpart or to observe the facilities used in the production of the good, in accordance with the framework that the Parties develop for conducting verifications; and
( 4 ) Such other procedures to which the United States and the exporting Party may agree.
( b ) *Applicable accounting principles.* When conducting a verification of origin to which Generally Accepted Accounting Principles may be relevant, CBP will apply and accept the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles applicable in the country of production.
[CBP Dec. 08-22, 73 FR 33678, June 13, 2008, as amended by CBP Dec. 10-26, 75 FR 50700, Aug. 17, 2010]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23419]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Confederated Salish and 
Kootenai Tribes; Draft Annual Funding Agreement

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published in the 
Federal Register on July 14, 2004, a notice concerning requests for 
comments on a Draft Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) between the FWS and 
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The AFA covers activities 
at the National Bison Range Complex in Montana.

DATES: As announced on July 14, 2004, the public comment period for the 
Draft AFA ended on October 12, 2004. The FWS is reopening the public 
comment period for the Draft AFA until November 4, 2004. To be 
considered, your comments must be received by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, National Bison Range, 132 Bison Range Road, Moiese, 
Montana 59824, or by facsimile to (406) 644-2661. You also may hand-
deliver written comments to the National Bison Range at the address 
given above, or e-mail comments to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#086c7a696e7c696e69787d6a64616b6b6765656d667c7b486e7f7b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3b7a1b2b5a7b2b5b2a3a6b1bfbab0b0bcbebeb6bda7a093b5a4a0fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Kallin, Refuge Manager, National 
Bison Range, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (406) 644-2211, extension 
204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original notice published in the Federal 
Register on July 14, 2004, at 69 FR 42199.

    Dated: October 13, 2004.
Matt Hogan,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 04-23419 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 419.2 What are the definitions used in this part?

*Act* means the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, title II, Public Law 101-618 (104 Stat. 3289, 3294).

*Administrator* means the individual appointed in accordance with Sections 2.A.2 through 2.A.3 of the Truckee River Operating Agreement (incorporated by reference at § 419.1).

*Preliminary Settlement Agreement* means that Agreement between the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and Sierra Pacific Power Company of May 23, 1989, as subsequently modified and ratified by the United States.

*TROA* means the Truckee River Operating Agreement.

*Truckee River basin* means the area which naturally drains into the Truckee River and its tributaries and into Pyramid Lake, including Pyramid Lake, but excluding the Lake Tahoe basin.

*Truckee River Reservoirs* means Boca Reservoir, Prosser Creek Reservoir, Martis Creek Reservoir, Stampede Reservoir, and the storage provided by the dam at the outlet of Lake Tahoe.
469 P.2d 727

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 480.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

April 24, 1970.

*579Jack L. Love, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Frank N. Chavez, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plainti f f-appellee.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of rape on January 29, 1970. Defendant was sentenced on February 16, 1970. Defendant gave notice of appeal and on March 11, 1970 an Order Fixing Appeal Bond was entered fixing the sum at $10,000.00. The order further stated:

> “ * * * that said bond shall be made and executed by a corporate surety company authorized to do business in the State of New Mexico, as surety; and that personal sureties and individual sureties on a property bond will not be acceptable.”

Defendant filed a motion pursuant to §21-2-1(9) (1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969) in the Supreme Court, asking that the Order Fixing Appeal Bond be modified by striking the requirement that only a corporate surety bond be acceptable. On March 26, 1970 the Supreme Court transferred “the entire file to the Court of Appeals.”

We consider only defendant’s motion.

*Jurisdiction.*

This court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to § 16-7-8(C), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969). Although defendant’s motion for review of the surety question was originally docketed in the Supreme Court, being No. 9025, it was transferred to this court by the Supreme Court Order. Since the original appeal was rightly in this court, (§ 16-7-8(C), supra) the transfer of a motion closely related to that appeal is a final determination of jurisdiction. Section 16-7-10, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969); compare State v. Weddle, 77 N.M. 420, 423 P.2d 611 (1967); cf. § 21-2-1(9) (1), N.M. S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969).

*Appeal Bond.*

Under the circumstances, defendant is entitled to bond pending final determination of his conviction. Const, of N.M. Art. II, § 13; §§ 41-15-2(B), N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp. 1969) and 21-2-1(9) (4), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969). However, the determination of what bail is proper to grant is particularly within the trial court’s discretion. Kaufman v. United States, 325 F.2d 305 (9th Cir. 1963).

In his motion defendant does not claim that the bond set was excessive per se. Nor does he assert that the trial court may not exercise its discretion in passing on the adequacy of the sureties. He does claim that a demand of a commercial surety, to the exclusion of a property surety, is an abuse of discretion. With this we agree.

We do not address ourselves to the question of what is meant by the phrase “amount and conditions” of a bond. We merely hold that a demand for a corporate surety with a predetermined exclusion of all other collateral as surety is an abuse of discretion. See Montoya v. McManus, 68 N.M. 381, 362 P.2d 771 (1961). Normally the trial court can only exercise its discretion as to the adequacy of the sureties and not as to the type of sureties.

*580We reverse the Order Fixing Appeal Bond and remand for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

It is sfo ordered.

SPIESS C. J., and OMAN J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1999 CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,185
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                       357
<INVENTORY>                                      9,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,588
<PP&E>                                          12,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,445
<SALES>                                         68,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,420
<CGS>                                           42,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    98
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,870
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,685
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,185
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07


</TABLE>
State of California California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response for the Technical Status and

Revisions to On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Heavy

- Duty Engines, Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks, Medium

- Duty Vehicles and Engines

Public Hearing Date: August 23, 2012 Agenda Item No.: 12

- 5

- 2

I. B ackground

On June 27, 2013 , the Air Resources Board (ARB) submitted a Final R ulemaking Package , amending sections 1968.2, 1968.5, 1971.1, and 1971.5 , title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), to California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for its review and approval , OAL Regulatory Action No. 201 3

- 06 27

- 02S. In the course of its review, OAL requested additional information and clarification of some points.

II. Alternatives Analysis

ARB determined, based on supporting information in the file, that no alternative considered by the agency would be more effective in ca rrying out the purpose for which the regulation wa s proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the adopted regulation, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementi ng the statutory policy or other provision of law.

III. Summary of 45

- Day Comment ARB inadvertently failed to completely respond to Comment Number 2 1, on page 19 of the Final Statement of Reasons from EMA.

Comment: First, it based its cost estimates on manufacturers’ nationwide sales of engines and vehicles, which is misleading and improper since this is a California rule.

. Response: Staff based the cost estimates on nationwide sales of engines and vehicle because it is assumed that heavy

- duty engine m anufacturers will produce an engine that will be sold nationwide and that complies with both California and federal regulations. The U.S. EPA’s regulation directly allows acceptance of HD OBD systems that have been certified to California’s HD OBD regulat ion, and generally all heavy

- duty manufacturers have chosen this path for certification. The manufacturer will most likely not produce engines that will apply only to California and then produce other engines that will apply to the rest of the states, sin ce it is not cost effective. So staff believes it is reasonable to calculate the incremental costs per engine based on nationwide sales.
#### § 402.3 Addition of commodities to the Positive List.

Order T-1 applies to the transportation or discharge of commodities which are restricted at the time of transportation or discharge. Accordingly, if a commodity is added to the Positive List while the commodity is being transported on an American flag ship or aircraft, the restrictions of Order T-1 immediately apply and the commodity may not be transported to or discharged at any of the restricted ports or discharged in transit to one of the restricted ports, unless authorization under Order T-1 is obtained.
#### Jerry Rosen, Respondent, v. General Produce Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
### §§2831 to 2833. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–128, title V, §511(a), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1705

Section 2831, Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §116, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 951; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title VIII, §401(3)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–411, related to local workforce investment areas. See section 3121 of this title.

Section 2832, Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §117, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 954; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title VIII, §401(4)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–411, related to local workforce investment boards. See section 3122 of this title.

Section 2833, Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §118, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 961, related to local plans. See section 3123 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113–128, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3101 of this title.
### §796b. Eligibility for receipt of services

Services may be provided under this part to any individual with a significant disability, as defined in section 705(21)(B) of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §703, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §410, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1218.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 796b, Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §703, as added Pub. L. 102–569, title VII, §701(2), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4444, related to eligibility for receipt of services, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–220.

Another prior section 796b, Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §703, as added Pub. L. 95–602, title III, §301, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2996; amended Pub. L. 99–506, title X, §1001(g)(2), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1843; Pub. L. 100–630, title II, §208(b), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3314, related to State allotments for comprehensive services for independent living, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–569, §701(1).
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

61 Forsyth Street

Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-56 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Friday, July 18,

1997)

E-Mail kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

E-Mail rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

WITH DUKE POWER ON JULY 23 ON APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT OCONEE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a

predecisional enforcement conference with Duke Power Company

officials in Atlanta on Wednesday, July 23, to discuss apparent

violations associated with High Pressure Injection (HPI) system

events April 21 and May 3 of this year on Units 2 and 3 at the

Oconee nuclear power plant near Seneca, South Carolina.

The conference will be held from 10:00 a.m. (edt) until 12

noon in the NRC Region II office, located on the 24th floor of the

Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street. It is open to

observation by the public, and NRC officials will be available at

its conclusion to answer questions from observers who attend.

A crack was detected April 21 in a weld on a pipe nozzle which

is part of the Unit 2 high pressure injection system. This system

is designed to pump water into the reactor vessel during normal

operations and postulated emergencies. NRC officials are concerned

with the apparent failure of a plant program, established after

cracks occured during the 1980s in this system, to identify and

correct at an early stage conditions which indicate likelihood of

such cracks. NRC also is concerned about an apparent lack of

appropriate action to evaluate and correct measured differences in

temperature which could indicate development of conditions which

could lead to cracking in this piping.

NRC officials are also concerned with apparent violations,

identified subsequent to a May 3 event, which resulted in

degradation of the Unit 3 HPI pumps while cooling down following a

shutdown. These violations include apparent failure to meet plant

technical specification requirements for operability of the system

and multiple examples of failures by licensed operators to comply

with procedures. Additional violations include multiple examples

of inadequate corrective actions for past licensee and industryidentified vulnerabilities in the high pressue injection system,

failure to translate system design speifications into appropriate

drawings and instructions for storage tank pressure and level

instrumentation or to have adequate configuration control for
storage tank level instrumentation valves, and failure to submit a

report in a timely manner as required by federal regulations.

NRC officials said the decision to hold the conference does

not mean that a determination has been made that a violation has

occurred or that enforcement action will be taken

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss apparent violations,

their causes and safety significance, to provide the licensee with

an opportunity to point out any errors in NRC inspection reports

and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective

actions, and no decisions on possible NRC enforcement action will

be made at the conference.

#