alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

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

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

I-97-131 October 1, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC ASSIGNS NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR

TO PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia,

Pa., have selected Russell J. Arrighi as the new resident

inspector at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Ma. He

joins Senior Resident Inspector Richard Laura at Pilgrim.

Mr. Arrighi joined the NRC staff as a reactor engineer in

the Region I Division of Reactor Projects. He recently completed

an assignment as a resident inspector at Millstone Station in

Waterford, Ct. In January 1996, Mr. Arrighi was recognized as

the NRC “Region I Employee of the Month” for in-depth inspection

and safety significant findings at Millstone 1.

Prior to joining the agency, Mr. Arrighi worked as a shift

test engineer at the Norfolk (Va.) Shipyard.

Mr. Arrighi earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in chemical

engineering from the University of RHode Island in Kingston, R.I.

Mr. Arrighi, his wife and their three children reside in

Plymouth.

The resident inspctors at Pilgrim can be reached at 508/747-

0565.

#
Editorial Note on Part 121
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 121.704 When does SBA determine the size and eligibility status of a business concern? ( a ) The size and eligibility status of a concern for the purpose of a funding agreement award under the SBIR and STTR programs is determined at the time of award for both Phase I and Phase II SBIR and STTR awards, or on the date of the request for a size determination, if an award is pending.
( b ) A concern that qualified as a small business at the time it receives an SBIR or STTR funding agreement is considered a small business throughout the life of that specific funding agreement. Where a concern grows to be other than small, the funding agreement agency may exercise the options on the award that is a contract, grant or cooperative agreement or issue a continuation on a grant or cooperative agreement and still count the award as an award to a small business under the SBIR or STTR program. However, the following exceptions apply: ( 1 ) In the case of a merger or acquisition, the awardee must, within 30 days of the transaction becoming final (or the approved funding agreement novation if a novation is required), recertify its small business size status to the funding agreement agency or inform the funding agreement agency that it is other than small. If the awardee is other than small, the agency can no longer fund the options or issue a continuation pursuant to the funding agreement, from that point forward, with SBIR or STTR funds. Funding agreement novations for reasons other than a merger or acquisition do not necessarily require re-certification. The funding agreement agency and the awardee must immediately revise all applicable Federal contract and grant databases to reflect the new size status from that point forward.
( 2 ) For the purposes of SBIR and STTR funding agreements with durations of more than five years, a funding agreement officer must request that a business concern re-certify its small business size status no more than 120 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the funding agreement, and no more than 120 days prior to exercising any option or issuing any continuation. If the awardee certifies that it is other than small, the funding agreement agency can no longer fund the options or issue a continuation pursuant to the funding agreement with SBIR or STTR funds. The funding agreement agency and the awardee must immediately revise all applicable Federal contract and grant databases to reflect the new size status from that point forward.
( c ) Re-certification does not change the terms and conditions of the funding agreement. The requirements in effect at the time of award remain in effect throughout the life of the funding agreement.
( d ) A request for a size re-certification shall include the size standard in effect at the time of re-certification.
[77 FR 76226, Dec. 27, 2012]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-245

November 16, 1999

NRC TO HOLD CHICAGO MEETING ON CONTROL

OF SOLID MATERIALS FROM LICENSED FACILITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a meeting December 7-8 in Chicago to

obtain public comment on issues associated with the control of solid materials having very small

amounts of residual radioactivity originating at licensed facilities.

The agency is considering whether to revise its regulations in Part 20 of Title 10, Code

of Federal Regulations, to establish overall standards for control of these materials. The NRC

currently evaluates licensee requests for release of solid materials on a case-by-case basis.

A document entitled “Issues Related to Release of Solid Materials from Licensed

Facilities” was issued June 30 to encourage public discussion of the alternatives involved

before deciding whether to start a formal rulemaking process.

The NRC is also seeking comment on a draft report that provides a technical basis for

any potential rulemaking involving control of solid material. The document is entitled

“Radiological Assessment for Clearance of Equipment and Material from Nuclear Facilities,”

(NUREG-1640).

Both the issues paper and NUREG-1640 are available on the internet at

http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/IMNS/controlsolids.html

These documents may also be obtained via e-mail, to Distribution@nrc.gov , by fax to:

301-415-2289, or by writing to the Reproduction and Distribution Services Section, OCIO, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001.

The meeting will be held at the Palmer House Hilton, at 17 East Monroe Street, from

8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. each day.

The meeting in Chicago is the fourth of a series of meetings planned on this subject -

others were held in San Francisco, Atlanta, and in Rockville, Maryland.

Interested persons are invited to attend the meeting or to submit written comments on

the issues paper by December 22 to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Comments may also

be submitted electronically through the internet, at the aforementioned web page address.

###
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOD-2010-OS-0090]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, 
the following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
26, 2011.
    Title and OMB Number: Customer Satisfaction Surveys--Generic 
Clearance; OMB Number 0730-0003.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 230,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 230,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 2 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 8,000 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to determine the kind and quality of services DFAS customers want and 
expect, as well as their satisfaction with DFAS' existing services.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households, Businesses or other 
For-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government, and State, 
Local or Tribal Governments.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: November 30, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-32395 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Jerrard McGary

No. 06

- 21

- 00070

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

Stevens

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating

.

As state d in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED AUGUST 6 , 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
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. 00-027 February 22, 2000

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO DISCUSS STAFF 

RECOMMENDATION TO RENEW CALVERT CLIFFS

 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSES

On March 3, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will discuss the staff’s recommendation to

renew the operating licenses for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant for an additional 20 years. The

meeting, which is open to public observation, will be held from 9:30 to 11:00 am in Commissioners’

Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. submitted an application to the NRC in April 1998 to renew the

licenses for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2. The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is located in Lusby,

Maryland. The current licenses expire on July 31, 2014, for Unit 1 and August 31, 2016, for Unit 2. 

The NRC reviewed the license renewal application in accordance with Parts 51 and 54 of Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The NRC’s environmental review, under Part 51, is described in a

site specific supplement to the NRC’s “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

of Nuclear Power Plants,” (NUREG-1437, Supplement 1). In this Final Environmental Impact

Statement issued in October, the staff concluded there are no impacts that would preclude renewal of

the licenses for environmental reasons.

In the “Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear

Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,” (NUREG-1705) issued in November, the staff concluded that there are no

safety concerns that would preclude renewal of the licenses, because the licensee had demonstrated the

capability to manage the effects of plant aging.

Three inspections of the plant also were conducted to verify information submitted by the

licensee. On December 10, the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards -- an independent

body of technical experts that advises the Commission -- issued its recommendation to the

Commission that the operating licenses for Calvert Cliffs be renewed. That recommendation is

contained in the ACRS “Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Application for Calvert

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plants Units 1 and 2.” 

Copies of these documents and others relating to the license renewal application will be 

available at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/renewal.htm on the NRC’s Website. A copy of the
staff’s recommendation on the renewal of the Calvert Cliffs licenses also will be available in the NRC

Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555; telephone (202) 634-3273

and will be posted at the same web site.

###
§ 105.203 SBA Assistance to person employing former SBA employee. ( a ) SBA will not provide SBA Assistance to any person who has, as an employee, owner, partner, attorney, agent, owner of stock, officer, director, creditor or debtor, any individual who, within one year prior to the request for such SBA Assistance was an SBA employee, without the prior approval of the SBA Standards of Conduct Counselor. The Standards of Conduct Counselor will refer matters of a controversial nature to the Standards of Conduct Committee for final decision; otherwise, his or her decision is final.
( b ) In reviewing requests for approval, the Standards of Conduct Counselor will consider: ( 1 ) The relationship of the former employee with the applicant concern;
( 2 ) The nature of the SBA Assistance requested;
( 3 ) The position held by the former employee with SBA and its relationship to the SBA Assistance requested; and
( 4 ) Whether an apparent conflict of interest might exist if the SBA Assistance were granted.
#### Frank MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BUNCOMBE COUNTY; Kate Dreher, Assistant District Attorney, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-7611.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 3, 2006.

Frank Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Frank Moore appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action and motion for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Moore v. Buncombe County, No*CA-05-294-1 (W-D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

 
                     CHINA'S ANTI-SECESSION LAW AND 
                  DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE TAIWAN STRAIT 
______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARING 

                              BEFORE THE 

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC 

                                OF THE 

                            COMMITTEE ON 

                     INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

                    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

                    ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

                            FIRST SESSION 

                             ___________

                            APRIL 6, 2005 
                             ___________

                          Serial No. 109-30 
                             ___________

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international_relations 
                                _____

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

20-403 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC 
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250  Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 
20402-0001

[TEXT NOT AVAILABLE]


```
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. 96-75 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, May 30, 1996)

NRC WITHDRAWS PROPOSED RULE ON AGENCY AUTHORITY

OVER LOW-LEVEL WASTE AT REACTOR SITES IN AGREEMENT STATES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has withdrawn a proposed

rule that would have reasserted NRC's jurisdiction over low-level

radioactive wastes generated and disposed of at reactor sites in

what are known as agreement states.

The agency is taking this action after analyzing public

comments ˇ most of which opposed the proposal ˇ and after

considering the relatively low hazards associated with on-site

disposal of low-level radioactive waste. NRC and comparable

state regulations already require that such on-site waste

disposal be authorized on a case-by-case basis.

It was in 1988 that NRC proposed to reassert its authority

over low-level waste generated and disposed of at reactor sites

within agreement state borders. The proposed rule also would

have clarified the jurisdiction over the disposal of non-critical

waste quantities of special nuclear material at fuel cycle

facilities. (Agreement states, which now number 29, are so named

because they have agreements with NRC to regulate the uses of

radioactive byproduct and source materials, including low-level

radioactive wastes. Special nuclear material includes plutonium

and certain types of uranium which, by law, are federally

regulated.)

At the time, NRC once thought the move necessary for greater

assurance that such waste disposal did not present a health

hazard and would not unnecessarily complicate or delay

decommissioning. But the NRC staff reconsidered the proposed

action after reviewing the public comments. It also has taken

note of the fact that, since the rulemaking was first proposed

nearly eight years ago, agreement state authorities in a number

of instances have authorized on-site disposal of low-level wastes

without any problems.

####
FIGURE 1

VESSEL CLEANIN

N

SCALE

NT

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORM
FIGURE 2

FIELD INJE

N

SCALE

NT

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFO
FIGURE 3

SHIPPING CONT

N

SCALE

NT

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS IN
### §130. Wisconsin

Wisconsin is divided into two judicial districts to be known as the Eastern and Western districts of Wisconsin.

### Eastern District

(a) The Eastern District comprises the counties of Brown, Calumet, Dodge, Door, Florence, Fond du Lac, Forest, Green Lake, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Langlade, Manitowoc, Marinette, Marquette, Menominee, Milwaukee, Oconto, Outagamie, Ozaukee, Racine, Shawano, Sheboygan, Walworth, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, Waushara, and Winnebago.

Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Oshkosh.

### Western District

(b) The Western District comprises the counties of Adams, Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Buffalo, Burnett, Chippewa, Clark, Columbia, Crawford, Dane, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Green, Iowa, Iron, Jackson, Jefferson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lafayette, Lincoln, Marathon, Monroe, Oneida, Pepin, Pierce, Polk, Portage, Price, Richland, Rock, Rusk, Saint Croix, Sauk, Sawyer, Taylor, Trempealeau, Vernon, Vilas, Washburn, and Wood.

Court for the Western District shall be held at Eau Claire, La Crosse, Madison, Superior, and Wausau.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 894; Pub. L. 87–573, Aug. 6, 1962, 76 Stat. 307.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §195 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §114, 36 Stat. 1129; July 24, 1935, ch. 413, 49 Stat. 495).

Provisions for keeping the courts and their offices open at all times were omitted as covered by section 452 of this title.

Provisions for maintenance of offices by the clerk and marshal, and for the appointment and residence of a deputy marshal for Superior, were omitted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.

Words "All causes and proceedings instituted in the court at Superior shall be tried therein, unless by consent of the parties, or upon the order of the court, they are transferred to another place for trial," were omitted as unnecessary. Such provision, as to civil cases, is covered by section 1404 of this title, and, as to criminal cases, is rendered unnecessary because of inherent power of the court and Rules 18–20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Provisions for the return of process, including criminal warrants, at Superior and other places in the western district and for the keeping of records in the clerk's office at Superior, were omitted, since such matters can be regulated more appropriately by court rule or order. (See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4, and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 4(g).)

Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–573 inserted reference to Menominee county.

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

#### Designation of Judge to Hold Court, Eastern District

Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title III, §305(c)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–85, provided that: "The chief judge of the eastern district of Wisconsin shall designate 1 judge who shall hold court for such district in Green Bay, Wisconsin."
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. 98-148 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, August 19, 1998)

NRC DIRECTS EXPEDITED ACTION BY LICENSING BOARD

CONSIDERING HEARING ON CALVERT CLIFFS LICENSE RENEWAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has directed its Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel to adopt an expedited schedule for considering a request for a

hearing on the proposed license renewal of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant at

Lusby, Md.

If a hearing is granted, the Commission has ordered that the Licensing Board set

a schedule for conducting it so that a Commission decision can be issued in about two

and a half years. This is the first such case-specific order the Commision has issued

under its new policy statement on licensing proceedings.

In its order today, the Commision also has called for the Licensing Board to

decide within 90 days whether a petition for hearing now pending will be granted. It

sets milestones that provide for an abbreviated discovery schedule, and for shorter

response times for filings and for pleadings than has been the case heretofore. The

Licensing Board must notify the Commission in writing if any single milestone could be

missed by more than 30 days, explaining why, and outlining measures being taken to

get the proceeding back on schedule.

The Commission believes the schedule it has directed is achievable under

current NRC rules of practice, the provisions of its order, and the NRC staff’s schedule

for reviewing the application. At the same time, the Commission order says: “We do not

expect the Licensing Board to sacrifice fairness and sound decision-making to expedite

any hearing granted on this application.”

The milestones set out in today’s Commission order are to be followed in ruling

on the petition for a hearing already filed in the Calvert Cliffs case.
Baltimore Gas & Electric filed its application on April 10 for a 20-year extension

of the operating licenses for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2. The application is now under

review by the NRC staff.

###

EDITORS: The text of the Commission order has been posted on the NRC Internet

web page at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/renewal.htm