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 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-98-2 January 7, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC PROPOSES TO FINE DUQUENSE LIGHT COMPANY $55,000

FOR VIOLATION AT BEAVER VALLEY INVOLVING EMERGENCY COOLING SYSTEM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$55,000 fine against Duquense Light Company for a violation of

agency regulations at the utility’s Beaver Valley nuclear power

plant. The infraction at Beaver Valley, which is located in

Shippingport, Pa., stems from a failure to adequately address a

potentially significant problem involving one of the facility’s

emergency core cooling systems.

NRC staff and Duquense Light discussed the violation at a

predecisional enforcement conference on Dec. 10 at the NRC Region

1 office in King of Prussia, Pa.

Specifically, the problem centers on gas accumulation in

the High Head Safety Injection (HHSI) System, one of the plant’s

lines of defense in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. The

system could be used to pump water into the reactor core to keep

it covered and cooled if a small- to intermediate-size rupture

were to occur in the Reactor Coolant System. However, if too

much gas built up in the system, and was not properly vented, it

could cause the binding of the system’s pumps and render them

inoperable.

Such a condition was identified at Beaver Valley’s Unit 2

on September 12, when operators observed that one of the High

Head Safety Injection pumps was not working properly and was

below its required differential pressure limits. It was

subsequently determined by the NRC that even though plant staff

had encountered instances of gas binding between 1988 and last

September, adequate corrective actions had not been implemented.

For instance, a gas accumulation occurred in March 1988

in one of the pumps that was large enough to prohibit its

operation. Another pump experienced gas binding in June 1993, in

November 1996 and again last August. The last event occurred

even after the lines had been vented for over three hours -- much

longer than the normal venting period of less than 10 minutes.

“This finding is significant because the gas binding of
2

the pump created the potential for interruption of HHSI flow to

the reactor during design basis accident conditions,” NRC Region

1 Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote to Duquense Light in a

letter notifying the utility of the enforcement action. “The

violation is particularly risk significant because the issue

affected both units over a long duration and affected the only

safety-related high pressure source of injection to the reactor

vessel for several accident scenarios. ...

“This finding is also significant because the prior

indications of gas binding of this pump provided clear

opportunities to correct this condition sooner,” Mr. Miller

stated.

Duquense Light has 30 days to pay the fine or request in

writing that all or part be withdrawn.

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

§ 10.33 Theatrical effects. For purposes of the entry of theatrical scenery, properties and apparel under subheading 9817.00.98, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States: ( a ) Animals imported for use or exhibition in theaters or menageries may be classified as theatrical properties; and
( b ) The term “theatrical scenery, properties and apparel” shall not be construed to include motion-picture films.
For provisions relating to the return without formal entry of theatrical effects taken from the United States, see § 10.68 of this part. [T.D. 92-85, 57 FR 40605, Sept. 4, 1992, as amended by CBP Dec. 04-28, 69 FR 52599, Aug. 27, 2004]
### Part B—Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind
NO. 07-05-0333-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 28, 2006

	______________________________

	LOUIS DELL BUTLER, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 49,970-E; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Louis Dell Butler, appeals his conviction for possession of marihuana and sentence of fifteen years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and $7,000 fine.  Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).  We affirm.

	Appellant’s counsel, in compliance with Anders and Gainous, states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated.  Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

	Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been forwarded to appellant and that counsel has provided appellant a copy of the record for his review and has advised him of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s motion and brief.  The clerk of this court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  We have found no such grounds.

	Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, writ ref’d).  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.  Having considered the merits and finding no reversible error, appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

						Mackey K. Hancock

							Justice

Do not publish.
### §9a. Credit of receipts

All moneys hereinafter 1 received by the Department of Labor in payment of the cost of such work shall be deposited to the credit of the appropriation of that bureau, service, office, division, or other agency of the Department of Labor which supervised such work, and may be used, in the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the ordinary expenses of such agency and/or to secure the special services of persons who are neither officers nor employees of the United States.

(Apr. 13, 1934, ch. 118, §2, 48 Stat. 582; Apr. 11, 1935, ch. 59, 49 Stat. 154; June 15, 1937, ch. 349, 50 Stat. 259; Apr. 15, 1939, ch. 71, 53 Stat. 581.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section and sections 9 and 9b of this title comprised sections 1 to 3 of act Apr. 13, 1934, which were to terminate one year after Apr. 13, 1934, pursuant to section 4 of act Apr. 13, 1934, set out as a Codification note under section 9 of this title. Such sections were temporarily extended by acts Apr. 11, 1935, and June 15, 1937, and were made permanent by act Apr. 15, 1939.

1 So in original. Probably should be "hereafter".
### Part F—National Commission for Employment Policy
### §§1671 to 1673. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section 1671, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §401, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1368; Pub. L. 97–404, §4(a), Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2026; Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §401(a)–(d), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1074–1076, related to Native American employment and training programs.

Section 1672, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §402, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1369; Pub. L. 97–404, §4(b), Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2026; Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §401(e), (f), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1076, related to migrant and seasonal farmworker employment and training programs.

Section 1673, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §403, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §401(g), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1076, related to grant procedures.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 2000, see section 199(c)(2)(B) of Pub. L. 105–220, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
#### § 107.885 Disposition of assets to Licensee's Associates or to competitors of Portfolio Concern.

*Sale of assets to Associate.* Except with SBA's prior written approval, you are not permitted to dispose of assets (including assets acquired in liquidation) to any Associate if you have outstanding Leverage or Earmarked Assets. As a prerequisite to such approval, you must demonstrate that the proposed terms of disposal are at least as favorable to you as the terms obtainable elsewhere.

[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 64791, Oct. 22, 2002]
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.1205 How is a list of previously granted class waivers obtained?

A list of classes of products for which waivers for the Nonmanufacturer Rule have been granted is maintained in SBA Web site at: *https://www.sba.gov/document/support-non-manufacturer-rule-class-waiver-list* A list of such waivers may also be obtained by contacting the Office of Government Contracting, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, or the nearest SBA Government Contracting Area Office.

[69 FR 29208, May 21, 2004, as amended at 74 FR 46313, Sept. 9, 2009; 88 FR 26204, Apr. 27, 2023]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Annual report FY...**
 
2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc: ID1.27:EC 9/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637961
 
November 1, 2017
[No. 7098.

Decided February 13, 1908.]

#### O. S. Brown, *Respondent,*v. James F. Kinney, *Appellant.*
      *1*

Appeal — Record—Bill of Exceptions — Time for Service. A bill of exceptions not served, within 90 days from the date of rendition of judgment will be struck out where no extension of time was given, and the judgment affirmed when no questions are presented except such as are embodied in the bill.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Benton county, Zent, J., entered April 24, 1907, upon default of the defendant, in an action on' contract.

Affirmed.

*G. A. Lane,*for appellant.

*J. W. Callicotte,*for respondent.

Reported in 93 Pac. 909.

Per Curiam.

Motion is made to strike appellant’s bill of exceptions or statement of facts, on the following grounds: (1) that said bill of exceptions or statement of facts was not filed or served as required by law; (2) that said bill of exceptions or statement of facts was not certified to by the judge in the court where the cause was tried; (3) that no notice was given by the appellant to the respondent as to the time or place when appellant’s bill of exceptions or statement of facts would be settled by the court; (4) that no copy of appellant’s certified copy of his bill of exceptions or statement of facts was returned to respondent at the time of the service of his brief. In consideration' of the conclusion we have reached on the first ground of the motion, it is unnecessary to discuss the others. The judgment was rendered on the 24th day of April, 1907, and appellant’s bill of exceptions was not filed or served until July 27, 1907. The record does not show that any extension of time was either asked for or granted by *449the court. Under the uniform rulings of this court, the statement of facts must be stricken.

The appeal does not present any questions for determination here excepting such as are embodied in the statement of facts. Therefore the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.
### [§572. Renumbered §567]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. The City of New York, Relator, v. William D. Dickey, Chairman, and Others, Respondents.

Writ dismissed and proceedings affirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 6.6 Safeguarding systems of records. ( a ) Systems managers shall ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are established to ensure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained.
( b ) Personnel information contained in both manual and automated systems of records shall be protected by implementing the following safeguards: ( 1 ) Official personnel folders, authorized personnel operating or work folders and other records of personnel actions effected during an employee's Federal service or affecting the employee's status and service, including information on experience, education, training, special qualification, and skills, performance appraisals, and conduct, shall be stored in a lockable metal filing cabinet when not in use by an authorized person. A system manager may employ an alternative storage system providing that it furnished an equivalent degree of physical security as storage in a lockable metal filing cabinet.
( 2 ) System managers, at their discretion, may designate additional records of unusual sensitivity which require safeguards similar to those described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 3 ) A system manager shall permit access to and use of automated or manual personnel records only to persons whose official duties require such access, or to a subject individual or his or her representative as provided by this part.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 1998F-0716]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive petition (FAP 8B4619) proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the expanded safe use of a polyester-polyurethane resin-acid dianhydride adhesive in retortable pouches for use in contact with fatty food.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Hepp, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD  20740-3858, 202-418-3098.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In a notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 31, 1998 (63 FR 46226), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 8B4619) had been filed by Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc., c/o Center for Regulatory Services, 2347 Paddock Lane, Reston, VA 20191.  The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations in § 177.1390                     *Laminate structures for use at temperatures of 250 °F and above*                     (21 CFR 177.1390) to provide for the expanded safe use of a polyester-polyurethane resin-acid dianhydride adhesive in retortable pouches for use in contact with fatty food.  Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Inc., has now withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7).                

Dated: January 9, 2004.

Laura M.  Tarantino,

Acting Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 04-2313 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### § 206.227 Snow assistance.

Emergency or major disaster declarations based on snow or blizzard conditions will be made only for cases of record or near record snowstorms, as established by official government records. Federal assistance will be provided for all costs eligible under 44 CFR 206.225 for a specified period of time which will be determined by the circumstances of the event.

[62 FR 45330, Aug. 27, 1997]
<PAGE>
                                                         EXHIBIT 11

                         WILLBROS GROUP, INC.
     COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
          (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
                             (Unaudited)
                                 
                                 
                                               Three Months Ended
                                                   March 31,
                                               ------------------
                                                 1997       1996
                                               -------    -------

[S]                                            [C]        [C]
PRIMARY

Net income                                     $   2,454  $   2,044
Preferred dividends                                    -       (724)
                                               ---------  ---------

Net income applicable to common shares         $   2,454  $   1,320
                                               =========  =========



Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares outstanding        14,385,980 13,747,000

Adjustment to reflect common shares issued
  during the twelve months prior to May 31,
  1996, as outstanding for all periods
  presented using the "treasury stock"
  method                                               -    409,062
                                               ---------   --------


Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares outstanding        14,385,980 14,156,062
                                              ========== ==========



Income per common and common equivalent share:

Net income                                     $     .17  $     .14
                                               =========  =========

Net income applicable to common shares         $     .17  $     .09
                                               =========  =========


There is no significant difference between primary and fully diluted
income per share.
#### § 206.65 Cost sharing.

The Federal share for assistance provided under this title shall not be less than 75 percent of the eligible costs.
Case 1:20-cv-22942-KMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:20-cv-22942-KMM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
"COUNCIL MEMBER FUKUNAGA: Good evening

and Aloha. I'm Carole Fukunaga, city council

member representing the Aiea and Moanalua area, and

I also chair the city council's Public Works

Infrastructure and Sustainability Committee.

I wanted to advise the EPA and Department

of Health that the Honolulu City Council is in

strong support of Board of Water Supply's position,

and that we have adopted a resolution calling for

-- calling for the U.S. Navy to immediately

fortify containment of the 20 tanks at Red Hill and

clean up the existing groundwater contamination

under the facility to protect Oahu's groundwater.

We also urge the Navy to consider

additional protective measures and tank integrity

improvements to reinforce the Red Hill Fuel Storage

Facility as needed . We also urge Board of Water

Supply, Department of Health, EPA and the U.S. Navy

to install additional groundwater monitoring wells

and to increase the frequency of all monitoring and

sampling activities in the Red Hill Fuel Storage

Facility to enhance pe troleum detection in the monitoring wells.

We very much appreciate all of the

participants who have come here tonight, and thank

you for this opportunity to provide comment.

(Applause.)

"
### SERVED February 8, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEAIUNGS

# f~l~~~~~~Rr'N

In The Matter Of: BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. Respondent 

### WASHINGTON, DC
) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

## Zlfl f£8 -8 P lJ: 

## 53 

## DOCKET OPERATIONS DocketNo. FAA-2014-0867
Case No. 2012S0090053



### ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING
On December22, 2016, the FAA Administrator issued an Order Partially Granting Complainant's Interlocutory Appeal ofRight. Among otherthings, this Order remandedthe caseto the undersigned Judge for further proceedings. On February 6, 2017, the FAA tiled a Notice ofSettlement/Withdrawal of Complaint, statingthat FAA was withdrawing its Complaint because the.parties had reached a settlement. After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised;


### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY lJ.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson Mr. Ryan M. Landers Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Division, Southern Team 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. Paul R. Borth Re.\pondent's Counsel Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025-4387 TEL: 847-724-5520 FAX: 815-356-7042 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY Docket No. FAA-2014-0867 (Civil Penalty Action)

1Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite :ZWIOOO, Washington. DC :20591: Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.