alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 98-23 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, February 4, 1998)

NRC INVITES PUBLIC TO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS FOR

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering qualified candidates for

appointment to its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).

Congress established the ACRS to provide the NRC with independent expert advice on

matters related to the safety of operating or proposed nuclear power plants. The committee

evaluates a variety of matters related to the siting, design features (conceptual and details),

and operations of large nuclear power plants located throughout the United States. It currently

emphasizes safety issues associated with the operation of more than 100 nuclear units in the

United States, as well as design features for evolutionary, passive, and advanced reactors.

ACRS membership is drawn from the variety of engineering and scientific disciplines

needed to conduct the broadly based review for these facilities, as well as proposed standards

and criteria and related research activities. At this time, the Commission is specifically seeking

individuals with experience in nuclear plant operations and probabilistic risk assessment.

Candidates are selected to provide a balanced technical base consistent with the requirements

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

In order to expand the pool of candidates available for consideration as nominees, the

Commission will also consider individuals actively engaged in technological fields applicable to

the design and operation of advanced nuclear power plants. There are no absolute prohibitions

that would preclude persons who are involved in regulated aspects of the nuclear industry.

Such applicants will be judged in terms of the extent to which such involvement might limit their

ability to participate in ACRS activities. In each case, specific individual financial interests will

need to be reconciled with applicable rules and regulations before final appointment can be

completed.

A resume describing the educational and professional background of the nominee,

including any special accomplishments, should be provided. Nominees must be citizens of the

United States. An indication of the candidate’s ability and willingness to devote the time

required (50-100 days per year) should also be provided. Applications will be accepted until

March 13.

Copies of resumes of nominees should be sent to the Office of Human Resources,

ATTN: Jude Himmelberg, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555.
2
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.745 General.

Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, all criminal, civil or administrative penalties which may be imposed on U.S. importers for violations of the customs and related laws and regulations will also apply to U.S. importers for violations of the laws and regulations relating to the AFTA.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-16 February 13, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

*************************************************************

NOTE: This meeting has been rescheduled from February 19 to

February 27. This announcement repeats information containing in

the original meeting notice (RIII-97-12, issued February 10.)

*************************************************************

NRC PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ON APPARENT

VIOLATIONS OF NRC REQUIREMENTS AT QUAD CITIES STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has rescheduled a

previously announced meeting with representatives of Commonwealth

Edison Company. The predecisional enforcement conference on

apparent violations at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station

(Cordova, Illinois) will be held on Thursday, February 27.

The meeting will be at 11 a.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.

This meeting was previously announced as being on February

19. The meeting was postponed at the request of Commonwealth

Edison Co. to allow additional time for its staff to prepare for

the meeting.

Apparent violations involving the safety-related control

room ventilation system and reactor building siding will be

discussed at the meeting. The control room emergency ventilation

system would be needed during certain accident conditions. An

NRC inspection in November and December determined that the

system was inoperable longer than permitted and that the utility

failed to adequately test the system and perform a required

safety evaluation.

NRC inspections last year also found that Commonwealth

Edison failed to maintain and perform an adequate safety

evaluation of the reactor building siding. Blow-out panels on

the reactor building are designed to protect the reactor

building's steel structure from excessive pressure. When

inspecting the blow-out panels, NRC inspectors noted damaged

bolts and two pipe supports attached to the panels. The utility
failed to conduct an evaluation as to how the pipe supports would

affect the safety function of the panels.

The utility has made repairs to both the control room

ventilation system and the reactor building blow-out panel bolts.

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.

####
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-169   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 1 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-169   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 2 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-169   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 3 of 3
### §3009. United States marshals' authority to designate keeper

Whenever a United States marshal is authorized to seize property pursuant to this chapter, the United States marshal may designate another person or Federal agency to hold for safekeeping such property seized.

(Added Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVI, §3611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4937.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Nov. 29, 1990, and applicable with respect to certain actions for debts owed the United States pending in court on that effective date, see section 3631 of Pub. L. 101–647, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.
§ 131.200 Eligible entities. ( a ) *Eligible organizations.* By statute, only a nonprofit organization with active 501(c) certification from the United States Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service is eligible to apply for Federal funding to operate a WBC project.
( b ) *Ineligible organizations.* Organizations ineligible to receive Federal funds to manage a WBC project include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Any organization that owes an outstanding and unresolved financial obligation to the Federal Government;
( 2 ) Any organization, employee, or principal investigator of an organization that is currently suspended, debarred, or otherwise prohibited from receiving awards, contracts, or grants from the Federal Government;
( 3 ) Any organization with an outstanding and unresolved material deficiency reported under the requirements of the Single Audit Act within the past three years, consistent with 2 CFR 200.501;
( 4 ) Any organization that has had a grant or cooperative agreement involuntarily terminated or non-renewed by the SBA for cause/material non-compliance;
( 5 ) Any organization that has filed for bankruptcy within the past five years;
( 6 ) Any organization that does not propose to hire and employ a full-time WBC Program Director whose time is solely dedicated to managing the day-to-day operation of the WBC and staff;
( 7 ) Any organization that proposes to serve as a pass-through and permit another organization to manage the day-to-day operations of the project;
( 8 ) Any organization that had an officer or agent acting on its behalf convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months; or
( 9 ) Any other organization the SBA reasonably determines to be ineligible to receive Federal funds to manage a WBC project.
however, that we should adopt the approach of federal and other state 

courts and permit appeals from proposed interveners in order to challenge 

the order denying intervention, citing, for example, Hodgson v. United 

Mine Workers of Am., 473 F.2d 118, 127 n.40 (D.C. Cir. 1972), Thrasher v. 

Bartlett, 424 So. 2d 605, 607-608 (Ala. 1982); Feigin v. Alexa Group, Ltd., 

19 P.3d 23, 26 (Colo. 2001); In re Jeffrey M., 37 A.3d 156, 158 (Conn. App. 

Ct. 2012); Utah Down Syndrome Found., Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome 

Ass'n, 293 P.3d 241 (Utah 2012), and Hirshberg v. Coon, 268 P.3d 258, 260 

(Wyo. 2012). Respondents have filed a proper person response, in which 

they urge this court not to overrule our prior precedent. 

Having considered the parties' responses, we decline 

appellant's invitation to deem a proposed intervener a "party" under 

NRAP 3A(a) for purposes of appeal, as doing so would disturb well-settled 

Nevada precedent clearly defining who is entitled to appeal. Secretary of 

State v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597, 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 (2008) ("[U]nder the 

doctrine of stare decisis, [this court] will not overturn [precedent] absent 

compelling reasons for so doing. Mere disagreement does not suffice." 

(Internal citations omitted)). Instead, we have explained that a petition 

for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means of seeking this court's 

review of an order denying intervention. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 1229, 1234, 147 P.3d 1120, 1124 

(2006). Moreover, even if appellant were granted party status to appeal 

here, the order she is attempting to challenge—a post-decree order 

denying leave to intervene—is not substantively appealable under NRAP 

3A(b)(8) as a special order after final judgment, as it did not affect any 

rights growing out of the judgment. Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 918, 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) I947A 

MIDIZVIDDIDDIDIRD 
59 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2002). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal, and we therefore 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Hardesty 

c)Licir----Tr' 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Sterling Law, LLC 

Patrick M. 

Tatiana M. H.M. 

Eighth District Court Clerk
### §282a. Staff; Deputy Legislative Counsel; delegation of functions

(a) With the approval of the Speaker, or in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Speaker, the Legislative Counsel shall appoint such attorneys and other employees as may be necessary for the prompt and efficient performance of the functions of the Office. Any such appointment shall be made without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the position. Any person so appointed may be removed by the Legislative Counsel with the approval of the Speaker, or in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Speaker.

(b)(1) One of the attorneys appointed under subsection (a) shall be designated by the Legislative Counsel as Deputy Legislative Counsel. During the absence or disability of the Legislative Counsel, or when the office is vacant, the Deputy Legislative Counsel shall perform the functions of the Legislative Counsel.

(2) The Legislative Counsel may delegate to the Deputy Legislative Counsel and to other employees appointed under subsection (a) such of his functions as he considers necessary or appropriate.

(Pub. L. 91–510, title V, §522, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1203; Pub. L. 92–51, §101, July 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 132.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1971—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92–51 substituted provisions for designation of one attorney as Deputy Legislative Counsel to perform functions of Legislative Counsel during his absence or disability or when office is vacant and for delegation of functions to Deputy Legislative Counsel and other employees for former provisions for appointment of full-time Office Administrator to exercise management, supervisory, and administrative functions of the Office as delegated to him by the Legislative Counsel.
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-97-79 July 11, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH NORTH JERSEY HOSPITAL OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

officials of Overlook Hospital in Summit, N.J., on Wednesday,

July 16, to discuss apparent violations of NRC requirements. The

meeting, which is open to the public for observation, begins at

1:00. It will be held in the NRC’s Regional Office in King of

Prussia, Pa.

Two apparent violations were found during an NRC inspection

at the hospital on May 7. These apparent violations, failure to

prepare a written directive prior to administration of a

radiopharmaceutical and failure to provide adequate supervision

over licensed activities, contributed to a misadministration on

May 5. A patient was administered approximately 7 millicuries of

iodine-131 rather than the intended dose of approximately 2

millicuries. (A misadministration occurs when the administered

dosage differs from the prescribed dosage by more than 20

percent.)

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that 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 licensee to outline its

proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later time.

#
§ 7.942 Mediation. ( a ) FEMA will promptly refer to a mediation agency designated by the Administrator all sufficient complaints that: ( 1 ) Fall within the jurisdiction of the Act and this regulation, unless the age distinction complained of is clearly within an exception; and,
( 2 ) Contain all information necessary for further processing.
( b ) Both the complainant and the recipient shall participate in the mediation process to the extent necessary to reach an agreement or for the mediator to make an informed judgment that an agreement is not possible.
( c ) If the complainant and the recipient reach an agreement, the mediator shall prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and the recipient sign it. The mediator shall send a copy of the agreement to FEMA. FEMA will take no further action on the complaint unless the complainant or the recipient fails to comply with the agreement.
( d ) The mediator shall protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of the mediation process. No mediator shall testify in any adjudicative proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained in the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the mediation agency.
( e ) The mediation will proceed for a maximum of 60 days after a complaint is filed with FEMA. Mediation ends if: ( 1 ) Sixty days elapse from the time the complaint is filed; or
( 2 ) Prior to the end of that 60 day period, an agreement is reached; or
( 3 ) Prior to the end of that 60 day period, the mediator determines that an agreement cannot be reached. This 60 day period may be extended by the mediator, with the concurrence of FEMA, for not more than 30 days if the mediator determines agreement will likely be reached during such extended period.
( f ) The mediator shall return unresolved complaints to FEMA.
No: III-23-013 May 31, 2023 

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663 

NRC Proposes $8,750 Civil Penalty to G2 Consulting Group

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed an $8,750 fine to G2 Consulting Group LLC for 

two violations of NRC requirements associated with the control of NRC-regulated material.

The first violation involved the loss of a portable moisture density gauge containing radioactive 

material. The gauge is used for measuring the moisture content and density of soil and aggregate. 

The second violation involved the failure of the company to implement appropriate procedures 

requiring the authorized user to log and return the gauge to a properly locked storage after use. 

The NRC identified the proposed violations during a July 2021 inspection following the company’s 

discovery that the gauge had been missing for six months. The NRC conducted its inspection at the 

company’s offices in Troy and Ann Arbor, Michigan, and at temporary job sites in Troy and Canton, 

Michigan. 

G2 Consulting responded to the violations documenting its corrective actions to prevent recurrence 

of the loss of a gauge. 

The company has 30 days to pay the proposed penalty or contest the penalty in writing.
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. 98-32 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, February 25, 1998)

NRC MEDIA WORKSHOP SCHEDULED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is planning a two-day workshop for news reporters

April 8-9 at its headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.

NRC senior managers and staff will brief extensively on reactor operations, the

allegation and investigation process, the integrated assessment program of plant performance,

reactor and materials facilities decommissioning, deregulation, dry cask storage, license

renewal, regulation of medical facilities, and other current issues. Reporters will also tour the

NRC operations center, which is the focal point for communications during a nuclear facility

emergency. Everything will be on the record.

This workshop will be especially useful for reporters who cover news events at nuclear

facilities near their communities. Those participating will receive background materials which

may be taken home for quick reference.

There is no charge for attending the workshop, but participants must provide their own

food, transportation, and lodging. A block of moderately priced rooms is being held at a local

hotel.

Because the size of the class is limited, those interested in attending should contact the

NRC Office of Public Affairs by March 13 at (301) 415-8200, (e-mail: opa@nrc.gov) or write to

the Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555.

###
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.245 Filing of claim for preferential treatment. ( a ) *Declaration.* In connection with a claim for preferential treatment for an apparel or other textile article described in § 10.243, the importer must make a written declaration that the article qualifies for that treatment. The inclusion on the entry summary, or equivalent documentation, of the subheading within Chapter 98 of the HTSUS under which the article is classified will constitute the written declaration. Except in any of the circumstances described in § 10.246(d)(1), the declaration required under this paragraph must be based on a Certificate of Origin that has been completed and properly executed in accordance with § 10.244, that covers the article being imported, and that is in the possession of the importer.
( b ) *Corrected declaration.* If, after making the declaration required under paragraph (a) of this section, the importer has reason to believe that a Certificate of Origin on which a declaration was based contains information that is not correct, the importer must within 30 calendar days after the date of discovery of the error make a corrected declaration and pay any duties that may be due. A corrected declaration will be effected by submission of a letter or other written statement to CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.257 Verification and justification of claim for preferential treatment. ( a ) *Verification by Customs.* A claim for preferential treatment made under § 10.255, including any statements or other information contained on a Certificate of Origin submitted to Customs under § 10.256, will be subject to whatever verification the Center director deems necessary. In the event that the Center director for any reason is prevented from verifying the claim, the Center director may deny the claim for preferential treatment. A verification of a claim for preferential treatment may involve, but need not be limited to, a review of: ( 1 ) All records required to be made, kept, and made available to Customs by the importer or any other person under part 163 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Documentation and other information regarding the country of origin of an article and its constituent materials, including, but not limited to, production records, information relating to the place of production, the number and identification of the types of machinery used in production, and the number of workers employed in production; and
( 3 ) Evidence to document the use of U.S. or ATPDEA beneficiary country materials in the production of the article in question, such as purchase orders, invoices, bills of lading and other shipping documents, and customs import and clearance documents.
( b ) *Importer requirements.* In order to make a claim for preferential treatment under § 10.255, the importer: ( 1 ) Must have records that explain how the importer came to the conclusion that the article qualifies for preferential treatment. Those records must include documents that support a claim that the article in question qualifies for preferential treatment because it meets the country of origin and value content requirements set forth in § 10.253(c) and (d). A properly completed Certificate of Origin in the form prescribed in § 10.254(b) is a record that would serve this purpose;
( 2 ) Must establish and implement internal controls which provide for the periodic review of the accuracy of the Certificate of Origin or other records referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
( 3 ) Must have shipping papers that show how the article moved from the ATPDEA beneficiary country to the United States. If the imported article was shipped through a country other than an ATPDEA beneficiary country and the invoices and other documents from the ATPDEA beneficiary country do not show the United States as the final destination, the importer also must have documentation that demonstrates that the conditions set forth in § 10.253(b)(3)(i) through (iii) were met; and
( 4 ) Must be prepared to explain, upon request from Customs, how the records and internal controls referred to in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section justify the importer's claim for preferential treatment.