alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 209.7 Priorities for project selection. ( a ) It is the State's responsibility to identify and select eligible buyout projects for funding under the supplemental grant program. All funded projects must be consistent with the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. The mitigation planning process or any other appropriate means may identify buyout and elevation projects.
( b ) States will set priorities in their State mitigation plan to use as the basis for selecting projects for funding. The State's priorities will address, at a minimum, substantially damaged properties, repetitive loss target properties, and such other criteria that the State deems necessary to comply with the law. States and subgrantees are to give priority consideration to projects for acquisition or elevations of repetitive loss properties, and must include all eligible repetitive loss properties in the projects submitted to us for funding.
[66 FR 32669, June 15, 2001; 66 FR 49554, Sept. 28, 2001, as amended at 74 FR 15353, Apr. 3, 2009]
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. 98-233 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, December 29, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) has scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on planning and procedures on January

27 - 29 in Bethesda, Maryland.

The subcommittee will meet from 8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business on January

27 and 28 and from 8:30 a.m. until noon on January 29. The meetings will be held in the

Executive Board Room, One Bethesda Metro Center.

The subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters, including

emerging technical issues and an ACRS report to the Commission on the NRC safety research

program.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for public comment, will be

described in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

#
### §1608. Severability

If any provision of this chapter, or the application thereof, is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this chapter and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 104–65, §13, Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 701.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act" meaning Pub. L. 104–65, Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 691, known as the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 24 of Pub. L. 104–65, set out as a note under section 1601 of this title.
#### John Kopp, Appellant, v. Adler Monument and Granite Works, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00268- CV
Vincent Williams, A ppellan t

v. Chere se Wheeloc k, CRNA; D avid Harris, M.D.; and Capitol Anesthesiology Association, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 98TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 1-0 0346 1, H ONO RAB LE AMY CLARK MEACH UM, J UDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R P ER CURIAM

On J une 25, 2014, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appellant Vincent Wil liams that the repor

ter’s rec ord was due on J une 4, 2014, and that it wa s overdue
. The Clerk reque sted a response by J uly 7, 2014, and n o t i fi ed ap p ellant that the appea l would be considere d without the repor ter’s rec ord if he d i d n ot respond to this Court by that date. On J uly 23, 2014, this Court
rec eived a document from appellant that stated that he was in the proce ss of “ac quiring court rec ords, aff idavit of indige nce, a

nd secur ing a

lawy er.” On J uly 29, 2014, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appe llant that his brief was due on J uly 25, 2014, and that it was overdue
. The Clerk reque sted a response by Aug ust 8, 2014, and notified appellant that this Court may dismiss the appea l for want of p ro s ec u t i o n i f appellant failed to f ile a brief by that date unless appellant rea sonably explained the failure and appellee wasnot signific antly injured by the failure
. On Aug ust 13, 2014, the Clerk of this Court re ceived a

document from a

p p e ll a n t r e q uesting “motion of extension to secur e rec ords and attorney time neede d 120 day s.” The document does not addr es s injury to appellee by appellant’ s failure to comply
. Fur ther, motions for extension must be accompa nied by a cer

tificate of service and a c ertifica te of confe renc e. See Tex. R. App. P . 5, 9.5, 10.1. The doc ument there fore is rejec ted.

I f this Court does not rec eive a satisfac tory response to this Court’s notices and this order by Aug ust 29, 2014, this Court will dismis s t h e appea l for want of prosec ution. No further extensions wil l be g rante d.

I t is ordere d Aug ust 19, 2014.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in

2
### [§6076. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–418, title I, §1941(b)(1), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1323]

Section, added Pub. L. 96–223, title I, §101(c)(1)(A), Apr. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 250, related to time for filing return of windfall profit tax.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to crude oil removed from the premises on or after Aug. 23, 1988, see section 1941(c) of Pub. L. 100–418, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 164 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Frank F. Hodges, Deceased. Comptroller of the State of New York, Appellant; Emma F. Hodges, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Fowler, S. (reported in 86 Misc. Rep. 367). Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.; Clarke, J., dissented.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 215

**Question 215:** An individual works concurrently at Licensees W, X, Y, and Z. All four licensees make a prospective determination that external doses will not exceed 10% of the limits at their own facility. Must any of the licensees monitor for external dose?

**Answer:** No. See the answer to related Question 214.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1502)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
Secretary 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 2063 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 

April 12, 2010 

717-787-2814 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 

1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

I am pleased to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to correct stationary 

point source annual emissions in the 2002 Base-Year Inventory. The public participation process 

for this SIP revision included one public hearing, which was held in Harrisburg on 

March 11, 2010. The public participation process also included a 30-day written comment 

period, which closed on March 12, 2010. 

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted a SIP revision to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 29,2007, which included the 2002 

Base-Year Inventory for Pennsylvania. The values in the 2002 Base-Year Inventory for 

stationary point sources were incorrect. A SIP revision was submitted to EPA on 

December 10, 2009, correcting the stationary point source daily emission values in the inventory. 

That submittal supersedes Appendix B3 of the August 2007 SIP. Additionally, the 

December 2009 SIP submission corrected the values in all charts in the August 2007 SIP 

containing point source daily emission values. The SIP submission referenced in this letter 

corrects the stationary point source annual emission values in the inventory. This submittal 

supersedes Appendix B2 of the August 2007 SIP. The submission of this SIP completes DEP's 

corrections to the stationary point source values in the 2002 Base-Year Inventory. 

I have enclosed two hard copies and one compact disk of the SIP revision to correct 

stationary point source annual emissions in the 2002 Base-Year Inventory. The complete 

submittal includes the following: 

(1) State Implementation Plan Revision; 

(2) a copy of Appendix B-2: Stationary Point Source Annual Emissions; and 

(3) certification of public participation activities. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer www.dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled paper@ 
Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 2 April 12, 2010 

Thank you in advance for the expeditious review and processing of this SIP submittal. 

Please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director, Bureau of Air Quality, bye-mail atjeepps@state.pa.us or 

by telephone at 717-787-9702, if you have questions or need additional information. 

Sincerely, 

~~~ Secretary 

Enclosures
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

DOUGLAS M A X BOLDT , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 23

- 0 368 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR20010395 The Honorable Debra R. Phelan , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Yavapai County Attorney ’ s Office
, Prescott By Jason Nunez Counsel for Respondent
Douglas Max Boldt
, Florence Petitioner FILED 2-6-2024STATE v. BOLDT Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs , Judge Jennifer M. Perkins
, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Douglas Boldt seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is Boldt’s tenth petition.
¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- con viction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ari z. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).
¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find t he petitioner has no t established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
#### § 3862.5-1 Allowance of entry; transfers subsequent to application not recognized.

No entry will be allowed until the authorized officer has satisfied himself, by careful examination, that proper proofs have been filed upon the points indicated in the law and official regulations. Transfers made subsequent to the filing of the application for patent will not be considered, but entry will be allowed and patent issued in all cases in the name of the applicant for patent, the title conveyed by the patent, of course, in each instance inuring to the transferee of such applicant where a transfer has been made pending the application for patent.
Fourth Department,

March, 1949.

(March 2, 1949.)

#### In the Matter of the Second Intermediate Accounting of James H. Slocum et al., as Trustees under the Will of Daniel M. Edwards, Deceased, Respondents. Dorothy L. Edwards, as Ancillary Committee of Walker E. Edwards, an Incompetent, and as General Guardian of Flora B. Edwards and Others, Infants, Appellant.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Piper, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2
CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory N. Bakeman, certify that:

(1)     I have reviewed the report;

(2)     based on my knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading;

(3)     based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of the issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in the report;

(4)     I and the Principal Executive Officer (the "Signing Officers"):

(A)     are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls;

(B)     have designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the issuer and its consolidated subsidiaries is made known to such
officers by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which the periodic reports are being prepared;

(C)     have evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's internal controls as of
a date within 90 days prior to the report; and

(D)      have presented in the report their conclusions about the effectiveness
of their internal controls based on their evaluation as of that date;

(5)     the Signing Officers have disclosed to the issuer's auditors and the
audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

(A)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the issuer's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(B)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and

(6)     the Signing Officers have indicated in the report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of their
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 16, 2004
/s/ Gregory N. Bakeman
Principal Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Hardecker et al., Appellants, against Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

No opinion. Present—Close, P. J.', Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ. [180 Misc. 1008.]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-18 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, April 2 1999)

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT BROWNS FERRY IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remained

acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant,

operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority near Athens, Alabama.

In a letter to TVA, NRC official Paul E. Fredrickson said “overall performance at Browns

Ferry was acceptable “ for the period of evaluation from April 1998 through January 1999. He said

that, with the exception of one automatic shutdown of Unit 2 last October 1, “Units 2

and 3 operated at or near full power.” He said that “effective performance in operations was

demonstrated by both units operating well during the period,.

Fredrickson said that, in addition to normal inspections at Browns Ferry, additional

inspections will be conducted to evaluate engineering performance during the next period of

evaluation.

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region II Office

of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in the

nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance and

provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are being used as an interim measure to monitor nuclear power

plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the Systematic

Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment program is

developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide quarterly

performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection findings.

This program will be tested at eight sites , including TVA’s Sequoyah nuclear power plant near

Chattanooga, beginning in June and will be extended to all plants next January. A full description

of the new program is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

#
#### In the Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Charles E. Lewis, Deceased. Addie L. Lewis, Appellant; Harry Robitzek, Special *944Guardian for Eleanor Clay Lewis, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
No: 23-056 September 5, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC to Hold Mandatory Hearing on Kairos Construction Permit Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a mandatory hearing Oct. 19 on 

Kairos Power LLC’s application for a construction permit to build a Hermes non-power test 

reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This hearing marks the final step in the agency’s review of the 

application. 

The Commission’s hearing will include testimony and exhibits from the applicant, as 

well as NRC staff, on the question of whether the staff’s review adequately supports the findings 

necessary to issue the permit. The hearing will begin at 9 a.m. Eastern time in the Commission 

Hearing Room at NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The hearing 

will be open to public observation and will be webcast. A detailed agenda and presentation slides 

will be available in advance on the NRC’s website. 

Kairos submitted its application to build the Hermes reactor in two parts in September 

and October 2021. Kairos is seeking a permit to build a 35-megawatt thermal reactor that would 

use molten salt to cool the reactor core. The test reactor, which will not generate electricity, is 

intended to provide operational data to support the development of a larger version for 

commercial power. The NRC would need to review and approve a future application from 

Kairos before an operating license for Hermes could be issued. The NRC issued its final 

environmental impact statement for the site on Aug. 17, 2023, and the final safety evaluation 

report for the permit on June 14, 2023. 

Media Notes: Members of the media are asked to contact the NRC Office of Public 

Affairs (301-415-8200 or OPA.Resource@nrc.gov) in advance to provide the names of those 

attending the meeting to assure sufficient seating. Seats on one side of the Commission hearing 

room will be reserved for accredited members of the news media. Photographers will have 

limited space at the meeting in which to take photos. Plan to arrive in advance of the meeting at 

the NRC’s One White Flint North entrance, at the corner of Rockville Pike and Marinelli Road, 

with proper media credentials. The NRC is located across the street from the North Bethesda 

Metro station. Parking is available at the North Bethesda Metro parking garage on Marinelli 

Road.
#### 308 West 82nd Street Corporation et al., v. Sumray, Inc., et al.

Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 690.] '
HomeAbout NRCState & Tribal ProgramsTribal Liaison Team

# Tribal Liaison Map

The NRC acknowledges the sovereign rights of Federally-recognized Native American Tribal governments. NRC maintains government-to-government communications with those Tribes, as well as with their national organizations, who are potentially affected by, or otherwise interested in, NRC regulatory activities. The NRC initiates contact or responds to requests for information on specific issues relevant to NRC's policy and regulatory authority, primarily in the areas of high and low-level radioactive waste storage, transportation, disposal, and reclamation.

The Tribal Liaison Team represents NRC to members of the Federally-recognized Tribes.

## Map of State Tribal Activities

### Native American Reservations and Trust Lands withinApproximately 50 miles of an Operating Nuclear Power Plant

#### (A disc represents a nuclear power plant with afederally recognized tribe or tribes within 50 miles)

 

Click on a given State (or state code listed below) for information on Tribes near Reactors, Uranium Mining and Licensing, Reactor Licensing, Tribal Notification Contacts, etc.

AK * AL * AR * AZ * CA * CO * CT * DE * DC * FL * GA * GU * HI * IA * ID * IL * IN * KS * KY * LA * MA * MD * ME * MI * MN * MO * MS * MT * NC * ND * NE * NH * NJ * NM * NV * NY * OH * OK * OR * PA * RI * SC * SD * TN * TX * UT * VA * VT * WA * WI * WV * WY *

 

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

*Return to the top*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, November 08, 2023
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 25, 2011 

h0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142597 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142597 

 COA: 300374 

Oscoda CC: 06-000945-FH 

STUART DUANE AURICH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 5, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).