alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.706 Declaration not required. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an importer will not be required to submit a declaration under § 10.704 of this subpart for: ( 1 ) A non-commercial importation of a good; or
( 2 ) A commercial importation for which the value of the goods does not exceed U.S. $2,500.
( b ) *Exception.* If the Center director determines that an importation described in paragraph (a) of this section may reasonably be considered to have been carried out or planned for the purpose of evading compliance with the rules and procedures governing claims for preference under the US-JFTA, the Center director will notify the importer that for that importation the importer must submit to CBP a declaration. The importer must submit such a declaration within 30 days from the date of the notice. Failure to timely submit the declaration will result in denial of the claim for preferential tariff treatment.
### §§2401 to 2405. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–332, §6(b)(3), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3128

Section 2401, Pub. L. 102–325, title XV, §1511, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 831, stated purpose of chapter.

Section 2402, Pub. L. 102–325, title XV, §1512, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 831, authorized establishment of National Center for the Workplace.

Section 2403, Pub. L. 102–325, title XV, §1513, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 832, related to use of funds.

Section 2404, Pub. L. 102–325, title XV, §1514, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 833, related to gifts and donations.

Section 2405, Pub. L. 102–325, title XV, §1515, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 833, authorized appropriations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.151 Importations not over $800.

Subject to the conditions in § 10.153 of this part, the port director shall pass free of duty and tax any shipment of merchandise, as defined in § 101.1 of this chapter, imported by one person on one day having a fair retail value, as evidenced by an oral declaration or the bill of lading (or other document filed as the entry) or manifest listing each bill of lading, in the country of shipment not exceeding $800, unless he has reason to believe that the shipment is one of several lots covered by a single order or contract and that it was sent separately for the express purpose of securing free entry therefor or of avoiding compliance with any pertinent law or regulation. Merchandise subject to this exemption shall be entered under the informal entry procedures (see subpart C, part 143, and §§ 128.24, 145.31, 148.12, and 148.62, of this chapter).

[T.D. 94-51, 59 FR 30293, June 13, 1994, as amended by T.D. 95-31, 60 FR 18990, Apr. 14, 1995; T.D. 95-31, 60 FR 37875, July 24, 1995; T.D. 97-82, 62 FR 51769, Oct. 3, 1997; CBP Dec. No. 16-13, 81 FR 58833, Aug. 26, 2016]
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. 00-008 January 12, 2000

NRC ISSUES MID-CYCLE REVIEWS FOR 13 NUCLEAR PLANTS PARTICIPATING IN

PILOT TEST OF REVISED REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its mid-cycle reviews for 13 nuclear

power plants participating in a pilot evaluation of the new revised reactor oversight process.

Results of these reviews and copies of letters sent to each licensee are available from the NRC

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

No significant performance problems were identified at any of the 13 plants.

Since the elimination of its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)

program in 1998, NRC has used Plant Performance Reviews (PPRs) as its primary means of

assessing nuclear power plant performance while revising its reactor oversight process. PPRs

have continued to be conducted at those sites not participating in the pilot evaluation. The final

PPRs are scheduled to be conducted in February and March.

The NRC began testing the revised reactor oversight process at 13 nuclear power plants

last summer, and the program is expected to be extended to all 103 operating reactors this spring.

The revised reactor oversight process is designed to be more objective, understandable, and

predictable and focus agency resources on areas that have the greatest impact on safe plant

operation.

Under the revised reactor oversight process, the PPR’s will be replaced with a new

assessment tool -- a mid-cycle and an end-of-cycle review. Both reviews contain an analysis of

plant performance as well as a 12-month inspection plan that will be periodically updated to

reflect changes in nuclear power plant performance and resource allocations.

All reviews will be made public and posted to the NRC web page, along with letters sent

to licensees. This is the first time a mid-cycle review has been conducted. The first end-of-cycle

review will be conducted this spring.

An important element of the previous SALP process was the public meeting where the

NRC and the licensee met to discuss assessment results. Under the revised reactor oversight

process public meetings will continue to be held annually. Because most plants have had public
meetings recently, no meetings for the 13 pilot plants are currently scheduled. Any future

meetings will be announced and open to the public.

A full description of the revised reactor oversight process is available on the NRC web

site at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm or

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html .

##
# Paraquat Dichloride: One Sip Can Kill !

# Deaths from Accidental Ingestion of Paraquat

 Several accidental paraquat ingestion deaths have occurred in recent years.  EPA looked into these deaths and found that such cases often occur as a result of the pesticide being transferred into a beverage container.  This is a major concern to EPA because paraquat is a Restricted Use Pesticide and, like all pesticides, should never be placed into a beverage container.  Paraquat is highly toxic to humans; one small accidental sip is often fatal and there is no antidote.

# Deaths from Accidental Ingestion of Paraquat

 The product labels clearly prohibit pouring paraquat into food or beverage containers with the prominently

placed statements:

“ NEVER PUT INTO FOOD, DRINK OR OTHER CONTAINERS .”

“ DO NOT REMOVE CONTENTS EXCEPT FOR IMMEDIATE USE .”

# True Stories

 In 2008, an 8

-year old boy drank paraquat that had been put in a Dr. Pepper bottle , which he found on a window sill in the garage. He died in the hospital 16 days later . His older brother had used the product on weeds around the house and put it in the bottle in the garage. The older brother obtained the product from a family friend who is a certified Restricted Use Pesticide applicator.

# True Stories

In 2003, a 49

-year old male took a sip from his coffee cup in which he had poured paraquat herbicide because the product’s bottle was deteriorating. He realized his mistake and went to the Emergency Department. At that time, he was vomiting, cold and sweating profusely. Doses of activated charcoal were administered and his stomach was pumped; morphine was provided for esophageal pain; and he was intubated to support breathing function on the fourth day. Aggressive supportive care continued until he died on the tenth day

.

# True Stories

 In 2000, a 15

- month old boy ingested paraquat product that had been transferred into a Gatorade container and stored inappropriately. The boy survived in the hospital for 13 days after the ingestion and received aggressive treatment, but died after suffering acute kidney and liver failure.  In 2000, an 18

- month old boy ingested an unknown amount of paraquat solution from a bottle found in his father’s landscaping truck. He received multiple

- dose activated charcoal treatment two hours after the ingestion. He suffered from lack of oxygen during the first 24 hours followed by progressive liver, kidney, and cardio

- pulmonary dysfunction. The boy died 11 days after the ingestion

.

# Applicators: The Solution is You!
To prevent the severe injury and/or death from paraquat ingestion, a paraquat product must:  Be used only by a certified applicator or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.  Never be transferred to a food or drink container

.  Always be kept secured to prevent access to children and/or other unauthorized persons.  Never be stored in or around residential dwellings.  Never be used around home gardens, schools, recreational parks, golf courses or playgrounds.
#### § 62.1 Purpose of part.

The purpose of this part is to set forth the manner in which flood insurance under the Program is made available to the general public in those communities designated as eligible for the sale of insurance under part 64 of this subchapter, and to prescribe the general method by which the Federal Insurance Administrator exercises his/her responsibility regarding the manner in which claims for losses are paid.
1 Attachment 

Ray -

 

Attached is a transmittal letter for the Biological Assessment for the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project. Rather than 

mailing the BA to you, I am wondering if you will be in your office tomorrow (Wednesday, April 8) that I could drop 

it off for you? Just after lunch (around 1 or 1:30) would be good for me. Please consider this an "Advance" copy, 

until EPA officially initiates consultation on this project. 

 

Thanks,

 

Sara

 

Sara J. Head, QEP 

Vice President, Environmental Programs 

AECOM Environment

1220 Avenida Acaso 

Camarillo, CA 93012 

T 805-388-3775 ext 227 

C 805-320-8059 

sara.head@aecom.com 

Biological Assessment for Palmdale Hybrid Power Project

Head, Sara 

to: 

Ray_Bransfield 

04/07/2009 10:12 PM 

Cc: 

Shirley Rivera 

Hide Details 

From: "Head, Sara" <Sara.Head@aecom.com>

To: <Ray_Bransfield@fws.gov>

Cc: Shirley Rivera/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

USFWS BA Cover letter.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\SRIVER02\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web64... 8/11/2011
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Safety Significance and Discussion About Important Matters

## HPPOS-125 PDR-9111210295

See the memorandum from V. Stello, Jr. to all IE Technical Personnel dated October 1, 1980. This memo defines IE policy in two important matters. First, the consideration of safety significance always precedes noncompliance in evaluating any concern, and second, inspectors are expected to communicate promptly to their supervisors all concerns involving public safety and national security.

The first IE policy statement asserts that the consideration of safety significance always precedes noncompliance in evaluating any concern. During an inspection, an NRC inspector apparently became diverted from the safety significance of control room operators sleeping while on duty by his belief that noncompliance could not be substantiated using his word against that of the operators. The inspector should have concluded that a sleeping control room operator is a matter of safety significance and then promptly and firmly followed this through up to the plant superintendent. The inspector was mistaken about the requirement for verification by someone else of his observation. In precedent cases, it has been established that when it comes down to an inspector's word against the word of the licensee or its employee, the inspector's word will be accepted, all other things being equal.

The second IE policy statement asserts that inspectors are expected to communicate promptly to their supervision all concerns involving public safety and national security. This policy is complementary to the first and serves as a backup line of defense to minimize the chance of either under-reacting or overreacting to safety issues. Failure of inspectors to notify management is contrary to the above policies and severely hampers NRC's ability to respond to safety issues and public concerns.

**Regulatory references:** None

**Subject codes:** 12.18, 12.19

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### § 296.2 Policy.

It is our policy to provide for the expeditious resolution of damage claims through a process that is administered with sensitivity to the burdens placed upon claimants by the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire.
#### § 62.2 Definitions.

The definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter are applicable to this part.
### §1538. Annual statements to Congress on agency compliance

No later than 1 year after March 22, 1995, and annually thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to the Congress, including the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, a written report detailing compliance by each agency during the preceding reporting period with the requirements of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 104–4, title II, §208, Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 67.)

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Governmental Affairs of Senate changed to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of Senate, effective Jan. 4, 2005, by Senate Resolution No. 445, One Hundred Eighth Congress, Oct. 9, 2004.

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Government Reform of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999. Committee on Government Reform of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Jan. 5, 2007. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Oversight and Reform of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, Jan. 9, 2019. Committee on Oversight and Reform of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Oversight and Accountability of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, Jan. 9, 2023.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-54 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson September 18, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC, PG&E OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS

APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT DIABLO CANYON

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a

predecisional enforcement conference next week with officials of

the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to discuss two apparent

violations of NRC requirements at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power

plant.

The conference will begin at 1 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 22, at

the NRC Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. PG&E operates the

Diablo Canyon plant near Avila Beach, California. The meeting

will be open to the public for observation; NRC officials will be

available afterwards for questions.

The apparent violations to be discussed were discovered

during an NRC inspection of Diablo Canyon conducted from Aug. 4

to 22. The first apparent violation concerns PG&E’s failure to

properly address numerous instances in which certain valves

became clogged with debris contrary to NRC’s maintenance rules.

The valves in question are part of a floor drain system for

the auxiliary saltwater system pumps located in the intake

structure common to Units 1 and 2. They are designed to help

prevent flooding of the intake structure and the pumps, which

are important to the plant’s safe operation and shutdown

capability. Flooding could occur following a pipe break or as a

result of a tidal wave. The second apparent violation involves

PG&E’s failure to properly document the valve clogging problems.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that NRC has made a final determination that

violations did occur or that enforcement action, such as a

monetary fine, will be taken. The purpose is to discuss the

apparent violations, the cause and safety significance; to

provide PG&E an opportunity to challenge or correct portions of

the NRC inspection report; and for the licensee to outline its
corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any enforcement

action will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be

made later by senior NRC officials.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61328-CIV-SINGHAL

TIM CANOVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRENDA C. SNIPES, et al., 

Defendants.

______________________________

CERTIFICATION FOR TRANSFER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Order of Transfer (ECF No. 15) from

United States District Judge, William P.Dimitrouleas, to United States District Judge, RaagSinghal. 

The undersigned has reviewed the file and hereby certifies that there are no pending referred motions

in this cause.

THEREFORE, theClerk of the Court shall transfer this case to Judge Singhal’s paired 

Magistrate Judge. 

DONE AND SUBMITTED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 23 day of November,

rd

2020.

Copies to:

Raag Singhal, United States District Judge

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with Spectrum Group International, Inc.'s (the “Company”) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                    
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Date:June 25, 2012/s/ Gregory N. RobertsName:Gregory N. RobertsTitle:President & Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-66 July 14, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $50,000 FINE AGAINST WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE

FOR TESTING VIOLATIONS AT KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$50,000 fine against Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for

violations of NRC requirements for equipment testing at the

Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located at

Kewaunee, Wisconsin.

The violations were identified in an NRC inspection in

January of this year.

The utility was cited for failing to have correct testing

criteria for pump flow in two safety-related systems and for

failing to meet accuracy requirements for test measurement

instruments. The systems are routinely tested to assure they are

functioning properly and meet design requirements.

The affected equipment was in the residual heat removal

system and the auxiliary feedwater system. The residual heat

removal system is part of the emergency core cooling system that

might be needed in the event of an accident and is also used for

maintaining reactor cooling during a shutdown.

The auxiliary feedwater system is a backup system for

pumping cooling water to the plant's steam generators. It, too,

is required to function under certain accident conditions.

Once the violations were identified by the NRC, the utility

performed additional tests and evaluations which demonstrated

that the systems would have adequately functioned had they been

needed in an accident situation.

The utility has also taken comprehensive corrective actions

to improve its testing program.

In notifying the utility of the proposed fine, NRC Regional

Administrator A. Bill Beach noted that the utility had missed

several earlier opportunities to identify and correct the

violations.
He said, "Contributing causes were low priority given to the

surveillance [testing] program and reliance upon preoperational

and inservice test data to determine the adequacy of equipment

performance, rather than determining what was really required to

demonstrate acceptable performance."

Wisconsin Public Service has until August 11 to pay the fine

or to protest it. If it protests the fine and it is subsequently

imposed by the NRC staff, the utility may request a hearing.

#####
§ 142.38 Can the administrative complaint be settled voluntarily? ( a ) Parties may make offers of compromise or settlement at any time. Any compromise or settlement must be in writing.
( b ) The reviewing official has the exclusive authority to compromise or settle the case from the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to issue a complaint until the ALJ issues an initial decision.
( c ) The Administrator has exclusive authority to compromise or settle the case from the date of the ALJ's initial decision until initiation of any judicial review or any action to collect the penalties and assessments.
( d ) The Attorney General has exclusive authority to compromise or settle the case while any judicial review or any action to recover penalties and assessments is pending.
( e ) The investigating official may recommend settlement terms to the reviewing official, the Administrator, or the Attorney General, as appropriate. The reviewing official may recommend settlement terms to the Administrator or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
#### John F. Conway, Respondent, v. The Farish-Stafford Company, Appellant.

Reargument ordered, and case set down for Friday, May 7, 1915. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Rich and Putnam, JJ.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-97-153 December 4, 1997

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

COMMISSION BRIEFING AND PUBLIC MEETING ON MILLSTONE SCHEDULED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and officials of

Northeast Utilities will brief the Commission on Friday, December

12, on the status of the restart process for the Millstone

nuclear power plant. Sargent and Lundy, Parsons Power Company

and Little Harbor Consultants also will make presentations.

Millstone is located in Waterford, Conn., and operated by

Northeast Utilities.

The meeting, which is open to the public for observation,

will begin at 9 a.m. in the Commissioners’ Conference Room, at

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Md.

In addition, on Wednesday evening, December 17, the NRC’s

Special Projects Office staff will meet with the public at the

Waterford Town Hall, in Waterford, Conn., to discuss the status

of the recovery efforts at Millstone. That session will begin at

7 p.m.

#