alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 265/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 265 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6313 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 265

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6313 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 265/01 | Euro exchange rates — 12 August 2020 | 1 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2020/C 265/02 | State aid – Decision to raise no objections | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 265/01

Euro exchange rates — 12 August 2020

1

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2020/C 265/02

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 265/03 | Notice of initiation Union examination procedure following a complaint on obstacles to trade within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2015/1843 applied by the United Mexican States consisting of measures affecting the import of ‘Tequila’ | 3 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 265/04 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 265/03

Notice of initiation Union examination procedure following a complaint on obstacles to trade within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2015/1843 applied by the United Mexican States consisting of measures affecting the import of ‘Tequila’

3

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 265/04

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

5

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### §1403. Miscellaneous provisions

#### (a) Title of chapter

This chapter may be cited as the "Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954".

#### (b) Cross references

**(1) For provisions relating to returns, see section 6017.**

**(2) For provisions relating to collection of taxes in Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico, see section 7651.**

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 355; Pub. L. 86–778, title I, §103(m), Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 938; Pub. L. 89–368, title I, §102(b)(6), Mar. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 64; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §412(b)(2), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 792.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 98–369 struck out par. (3) referring to section 6015 for provisions relating to declarations of estimated tax on self-employment income.

1966—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 89–368 added par. (3).

1960—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 86–778 included Guam and American Samoa.

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–369 applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1984, see section 414(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 6654 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1966 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–368 applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1966, see section 102(d) of Pub. L. 89–368, set out as a note under section 6654 of this title.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-23 March 3, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.

ON APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF NRC REQUIREMENTS AT MONTICELLO STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet March 5

with representatives of Northern States Power for a predecisional

enforcement conference on apparent violations at the Monticello

Nuclear Power Station. The facility is in Monticello, Minnesota.

The meeting will be at 1 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference

Room of the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle,

Illinois. The meeting is open to public observation.

An NRC inspection late last year found that in November 1995

utility staff approved a reduction in the number of safetyrelated pumps used for containment cooling which would be needed

in certain accident conditions. The company's evaluation did

not, as required, address new safety questions which would result

from such a change in the plant design. Specifically, the

evaluation did not consider how the changes in containment

temperature and pressure and heat removal capacity would affect

the containment cooling system.

NRC requires that new safety questions arising from changes

to a facility to be submitted to the NRC for evaluation and

possible amendments to the plant's license.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean

the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that

enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to point out

any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report;

and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective

actions.

No decisions on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a fine, will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later date.

####
#### Samuel Weingreen v. Solomon Michaelbacher and Others.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### In re Rivard.

June 5, 1945.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, for complainant.

Chat Chancellor, Warning Order Attorney.

Per Curiam

—Disbarring respondent.

The Board of Commissioners of the Bar Association recommended that the respondent, Emil Rivard, be disbarred from the further practice of law in this state on the charge of forging checks on the account of a client, Florence Rivard, executrix of the estate of Harry F. Rivard, and obtaining money on them. The respondent has been indicted for forgery in Kenton County and the indictments are now pending, because he has not been brought to trial. A member of the Kenton County Bar, who was appointed warning order attorney, reported *209that he wrote the respondent, but that the letter was not returned and he had received no reply thereto. A second warning order attorney, appointed by the Clerk of this Court, reported that two letters addressed to the respondent were returned to him. He reported further that he examined the record and could not make any affirmative defense in behalf of the respondent.

The method of bringing the respondent before the Court by means of constructive service was proper. See Annotation to the case of In re Craven, 178 La. 372, 151 So. 625, 90 A. L. R. 973; 5 Am. Jur., Attorneys at Law, section 289; 7 C. J. S., Attorney and Client, sec. 27.

Under the circumstances, we think the report of the Bar Commissioners should be and it is confirmed, and the license of the respondent to practice law in this Commonwealth is cancelled and set aside.
CODE OF ETHICS
      
    
    Until the material information has been publicly released by the company, an
employee must not disclose it to anyone except those within the company whose positions
require use of the information.
 -1-




---



##### 




    
    Employees must not buy or sell the companys securities when they have knowledge
of material information concerning the company until it has been disclosed to the public
and the public has had sufficient time to absorb the information.
    
    Employees shall not buy or sell securities of another corporation, the value of
which is likely to be affected by an action by the company of which the employee is
aware and which has not been publicly disclosed.
          -2-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfonso CASTRO-GAYTAN, aka Rafael Gomez, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-10516.

D.C. No. CR-00-00626-ROS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 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).

MEMORANDUM **

Alfonso Castro-Gaytan appeals from his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), with a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Castro-Gatan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) stating there are no arguable issues for review and seeking to *639withdraw as counsel of record. CastroGaytan has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

As part of the plea agreement, CastroGaytan waived the right to appeal his sentence and conviction. Having independently reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the plea agreement, including the waiver of the right to appeal, was entered knowingly and voluntarily. *United States v. Aguilar-Muniz,*156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1998). We therefore enforce the waiver, grant the motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

 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.
### SUBCHAPTER V—RIGHTS AND ADVOCACY
§ 206.252 Insurance requirements for facilities damaged by flood. ( a ) Where an insurable building damaged by flooding is located in a special flood hazard area identified for more than one year by the Administrator, assistance pursuant to section 406 of the Stafford Act shall be reduced. The amount of the reduction shall be the maximum amount of the insurance proceeds which would have been received had the building and its contents been fully covered by a standard flood insurance policy.
( b ) The reduction stated above shall not apply to a PNP facility which could not be insured because it was located in a community not participating in the NFIP. However, the provisions of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 prohibit approval of assistance for the PNP unless the community agrees to participate in the NFIP within six months after the major disaster declaration date, and the required flood insurance is purchased.
( c ) Prior to approval of a Federal grant for the restoration of a facility and its contents which were damaged by a flood, the recipient shall notify the Regional Administrator of any entitlement to an insurance settlement or recovery. The Regional Administrator shall reduce the eligible costs by the amount of insurance proceeds which the recipient receives.
( d ) The recipient or subrecipient is required to obtain and maintain flood insurance in the amount of eligible disaster assistance, as a condition of receiving Federal assistance that may be available. This requirement also applies to insurable flood damaged facilities located outside a special flood hazard area when it is reasonably available, adequate, and necessary. However, the Regional Administrator shall not require greater types and amounts of insurance than are certified as reasonable by the State Insurance Commissioner. The requirement to purchase flood insurance is waived when eligible costs for an insurable facility do not exceed $5,000.
[56 FR 64560, Dec. 11, 1991, as amended at 82 FR 44, Jan. 3, 2017]
§ 11.15 Authority to adjust, determine, compromise and settle. ( a ) The Chief Counsel of FEMA, or a designee of the Chief Counsel, is delegated authority to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle claims under the provisions of section 2672 of title 28, United States Code, and this part.
( b ) Notwithstanding the delegation of authority in paragraph (a) of this section, a Regional Administrator is delegated authority to be exercised in his or her discretion, to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle under the provisions of section 2672 of title 28, United States Code, and this part, any claim for $200 or less which is based on alleged negligence or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the appropriate Region, except when: ( 1 ) There are personal injuries to either Government personnel or individuals not employed by the Government; or
( 2 ) All damage to Government property or to property being used by FEMA, or both, is more than $200, or all damage to non-Government property being used by individuals not employed by the Government is more than $200.
[45 FR 15930, Mar. 12, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 6711, Feb. 15, 1983]
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateRisk AssessmentHistory of Risk-Informed Regulation Programs

# PRA Implementation Plan (1994 to 1999)

In a memorandum to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations, dated November 2, 1993, the directors from the agency's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), and Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) concurred on the need to systematically expand the use of PRA within the agency. On that basis, the NRC subsequently developed the PRA Implementation Plan to ensure the increased use of PRA in regulatory activities. In particular, the PRA Implementation Plan was intended to provide an overview of each office's activities in the field of PRA. Toward that end, the PRA Implementation Plan was updated periodically until it was replaced by the RIRIP.

To request additional information, Contact Us About Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 1994-1999
          - 2000-2007
          - 2007-present

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 7, 2020
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-98-54 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, August 14, 1998)

NRC STAFF ISSUES REPORT ASSESSING PERFORMANCE

AT ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN FLORIDA

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a Systematic Assessment of

Licensee Performance (SALP) report for Florida Power & Light Company’s St. Lucie

nuclear power plant near Ft. Pierce, Florida which rates performance as superior in

two areas and good with improving trends in two others.

The NRC SALP process assesses performance at commercial nuclear power plants

on a periodic basis in four functional areas. The latest report raises the agency’s

assessment of performance at St. Lucie in the areas of Maintenance and Engineering

from a previous assessment of good to a current evaluation of superior. Performance

in two other areas assessed, Plant Operations and Plant Support, remained good with

comment from the NRC staff that an improving trend in performance continued in both

areas.

In a letter to FP&L attached to the report, the NRC’s Region II administrator in

Atlanta, Luis A. Reyes, said the “mainstays” of St. Lucie’s continuing performance

improvement involved “safety conscious and conservative plant operations” with a

strong focus on implementation of corrective actions and emphasis on problem

identification and resolution.

NRC officials evaluated performance at St. Lucie during a period from March 30,

1997 through June 27, 1998. Results of the evaluation are contained in a report

available to the public and will be discussed with FP&L officials during a public meeting

scheduled to be held at the St. Lucie site at 10:00 a.m. on August 27.

#

EDITORS: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this office or from the NRC

internet web site at www.nrc.gov/OPA or by automatic e-mail subscription as they are

issued. For e-mail subscription, go to: listproc@nrc.gov with the following message:

subscribe salp yourfirstname yourlastname.
### §49c–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 88–136, title I, Oct. 11, 1963, 77 Stat. 226, which related to personnel standards, was transferred to section 49n of this title and subsequently omitted from the Code.
### §7202. Willful failure to collect or pay over tax

Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax imposed by this title who willfully fails to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 851.)
§ 113.32 Partnerships as principals. A partnership, including a limited partnership, means any business association recognized as such under the laws of the State where the association is organized. ( a ) *Execution.* Partnership bonds must be executed in the firm name, with the name of the member or attorney of the firm executing it appearing immediately below the firm signature.
( b ) *Action of one principal binding on all principals of the partnership.* Pursuant to section 495, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1495), when a bond is executed by any member of the partnership, the bond will be binding on the other partners in like manner and to the same extent as if such other partners had personally joined in the execution.
[T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41171, Oct. 19, 1984, as amended by T.D. 86-204, 51 FR 42998, Nov. 28, 1986; CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70164, Nov. 13, 2015]
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-83 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Box 2815

Sacrarnentq, CalJifornia 95812

Dear

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

APR 192016

On March 11, 2016, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We

have reviewed the materials submitted with the following documents and found that they fulfill the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

APCD/AQMD Rule # Title

Butte County 300 Open Burning. Prohibitions and Exemptions

Placer County 250 Stationary Gas Turbines

Sacramento. 442 Architectural Coatings Metropolitan

Ventura County 26.13 New Source Review-Prevention of Significant Deterioration

This addresses all the revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the complete

revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k).

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Arnold Lazarus at (415) 972-3024.

cc: Mr. James Wagoner,

Air Pollution Control Officer

Butte County Air Quality Management District

Mr. Erik White

Air Pollution Control Officer

Placer County Air Pollution Control District

S74.

.4 pRo’

Sincerely,

Director, Air Division

P,,i,ted on 100’ Posteo,zsigi,,er RL’vchd Pr,p’,: Pn,ces ChIo,j,,’ F,-e’.
Mr. Larry Green

Air Pollution Control Officer

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Mr. Michael Villegas

Air Pollution Control Officer

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Ms. Karen Magiano, Chief

Air Quality Planning and Science Division

California Air Resources Board
#### § 113.15 Retention of approved bonds.

Except for bonds containing an agreement to pay court costs (condemned goods) (*see* § 113.72), and except as may otherwise be deemed appropriate by CBP, bonds that are approved by the port director will be retained at the port office and bonds that are approved by the Revenue Division (including bonds relating to repayment of erroneous drawback payments containing the conditions set forth in § 113.65) will be retained at the Revenue Division. The bond containing the agreement to pay court costs (condemned goods), will be transmitted to the United States attorney, as required by section 608, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1608).

[CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70164, Nov. 13, 2015]
#### William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, etc., Appellant, v. John Monsees and Others, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.214 What conditions apply for variable interest rates? A Lender may use a variable rate of interest for guaranteed loans under the following conditions: ( a ) *Frequency.* The first change may occur on the first calendar day of the month following initial disbursement, using the base rate (see paragraph (c) of this section) in effect on the first business day of the month. After that, changes may occur no more often than monthly.
( b ) *Range of fluctuation.* The amount of fluctuation shall be equal to the movement in the base rate. The difference between the initial rate and the ceiling rate may be no greater than the difference between the initial rate and the floor rate.
( c ) *Base rate.* The base rate will be one of the following: the prime rate or the Optional Peg Rate. The prime rate will be that which is in effect on the first business day of the month, as printed in a national financial newspaper published each business day. SBA may from time to time permit the use of alternative base rate options that are widely adopted for small business commercial lending and will publish notice of such alternative options in the Federal Register. SBA publishes the Optional Peg Rate quarterly in the Federal Register.
( d ) *Maximum Allowable Variable Interest Rates.* The maximum allowable variable interest rates are set forth below, with the initial maximum allowable rate for the loan determined as of the date SBA receives the loan application: ( 1 ) For all 7(a) loans of $50,000 and less, the interest rate shall not exceed six and a half (6.5) percentage points over the base rate;
( 2 ) For all 7(a) loans of more than $50,000 and up to and including $250,000, the maximum interest rate shall not exceed six (6.0) percentage points over the base rate;
( 3 ) For all 7(a) loans of more than $250,000 and up to and including $350,000, the maximum interest rate shall not exceed four and a half (4.5) percentage points over the base rate; and
( 4 ) For all 7(a) loans of more than $350,000, the maximum interest rate shall not exceed three (3.0) percentage points over the base rate.
( e ) *Amortization.* Initial amortization of principal and interest may be recomputed and reassessed as interest rates fluctuate, as directed by SBA. With prior approval of SBA, the Lender may use certain other amortization methods, except that SBA does not allow balloon payments.
[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 67101, Nov. 13, 2008; 87 FR 38908, June 30, 2022]