alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No.: II-97-20 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

WITH VIRGINIA POWER TO DISCUSS CONCERNS AT SURRY NUCLEAR PLANT

Conference Will Be Open To Observation By The Public

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement

conference with Virginia Power on March 11 in Atlanta to discuss agency concerns about the company's

implementation of the NRC's Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.65 - "Requirements for Monitoring the

Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants") at the Surry plant in southeastern Virginia.

The purpose of the conference is to discuss seven apparent violations related to the plant's

Maintenance Rule program. An NRC inspection conducted in mid-January concluded that Virginia

Power is not adequately implementing the program based on inadequate monitoring of systems and

equipment, inadequate system performance criteria, inappropriate evaluation of equipment failures, and

inadequate historical reviews of many systems. In addition, the inspectors identified a deficiency in

assessing the risk of performing maintenance of some equipment while the plant was operating.

The Maintenance Rule, which all plants were required to implement by July 10, 1996, requires

plants to monitor the performance or condition of plant structures, systems or components against

established goals to provide assurance they are capable of performing their intended function, or to

perform preventive maintenance to keep them capable of performing their function.

The Maintenance Rule includes not only safety-related structures, systems or components but

nonsafety-related parts of the plant that may be needed in an accident or emergency situation, or whose

failure may affect safety equipment, or whose failure may cause the plant to automatically shut down

or to activate a safety-related system.

The enforcement conference will be held from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon in the NRC offices at

101 Marietta Street NW, Suite 2900. The conference is open to observation by the public and the

media, and NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions from interested

observers.

NRC officials said the decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean that a

determination has been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. 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 decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a civil

penalty, will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later

time.

#
i 1.1,

Ibaftrr <Df= e/ZzM-ztJArL- apfg&cjl

AttaJi >4/3£Z- /koS-^r, OU8Z~l<^

f.Otfboy: ./2.3QJ

JAu-^Tg^,-7K. 7X7/7

J?o MA/ <^o/s~

-e9ORT-0F-eRIMINAt-APPE«LT

^——MAY-26-1015

Ab©!Aeosia,Cterk

Re: Reax^einrzduc^ tccKg-r sheet f=p/^ p-zuzUtsTyX1£& /WQ D<Ehi-zAt- OATe^ Or fe»0.

Nfo, /2-/3rvr; &>A~ Mo, 09-/3-40240- Qg>

g£r^ A?£, /46€u AC66t/^^

X /H CuRfi^Jnty PtlUzU&~ m/ ARzr. t(.o7

t&?&?. Or t*iy. fk-Ttrrzehl PbR. T>isoze-ri*^/^Y

U)AhiKA4&' Ycuu Tb&~. Vcuu^ Itxap. /Wo Attt&T-
#### § 111.65 Extension of time for hearing.

If the broker or his attorney requests in writing a delay in the hearing for good cause, the hearing officer designated pursuant to § 111.67(a) may reschedule the hearing and in that case will notify the broker or his attorney in writing of the extension and the new time for the hearing.
RIV: 96-31 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson May 13, 1996

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

SOUTH TEXAS RATED 'SUPERIOR' IN TWO AREAS

'GOOD' IN TWO IN LATEST NRC SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station has received

an evaluation of "superior" in two functional areas and "good" in

two others in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's latest

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report.

The report was sent May 1 to Houston Lighting & Power

Co.(HL&P), which operates the plant near Bay City, Texas. It

evaluates the plant's performance between Sept. 25, 1994 and

March 23 of this year.

NRC and HL&P officials will discuss the report during a

meeting set for 2 p.m., May 16, in the Nuclear Support Center

Auditorium at the South Texas Project. The meeting will be open

for public observation. NRC officials will be available

afterward to speak with reporters, state and local officials, and

members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four

functional areas--plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and

plant support--and assign ratings of Category 1, 2, or 3 which

characterize performance as superior, good or adequate. The

report on South Texas Project assigns ratings of "Category 1" in

maintenance and plant support. "Category 2" ratings were

assigned to operations and engineering.

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional

Administrator L. Joe Callan said, "Overall, safety performance

improvements were noted in all four functional areas." In the

maintenance area, safety performance improved from a good level

to a superior level based on the improved material condition of

the plant, facility upgrades, and the resolution of many longstanding equipment problems. In plant support, the areas of

emergency preparedness and security were significantly improved,

while the radiological controls program remained strong.

Engineering safety performance improved; however, weaknesses

were noted with plant modifications and other engineering work
activities. South Texas Project improved its operations safety

performance by reducing significant operator errors and enhancing

procedures and programs. However, a number of operator

performance weaknesses, of which several involved supervisors,

occurred during the latter part of the SALP period.
Mr. Callan noted that, ". . . a key element of your overall

improved safety performance was the implementation of selfcritical, integrated, and continual line and independent selfassessment activities in all four functional areas. Initiatives

to further enhance human and hardware performance must continue

to be effective in order to sustain the overall improving safety

performance trend that was noted during this SALP period."

-30-

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

office on request.
§ 295.5 Overview of the claims process. ( a ) The CGFAA is intended to provide persons who suffered losses from the Cerro Grande Fire with a simple, expedited process to seek redress from the United States. This section provides a brief explanation of the claims process for claims other than subrogation claims. It is not intended to supersede the more specific regulations that follow and explain the claims process in greater detail. In order to obtain benefits under this legislation, a person must submit all Cerro Grande Fire related claims against the United States to FEMA. A person who elects to proceed under the CGFAA is barred from bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act or filing a civil action against the United States for damages resulting from the Cerro Grande Fire. Judicial review of our decisions under the CGFAA is available.
( b ) The first step in the process is to file a Notice of Loss with OCGFC. OCGFC will provide the Claimant with a written acknowledgement that the claim has been filed and the claim number.
( c ) Shortly thereafter, a Claims Reviewer will contact the Claimant to review the claim. The Claims Reviewer will help the Claimant formulate a strategy for obtaining any necessary documentation or other support. This assistance does not relieve the Claimant of his or her responsibility for establishing all elements of the Loss and the compensatory damages that are sought, including that the Cerro Grande Fire caused the Loss. After the Claimant has had an opportunity to discuss the claim with the Claims Reviewer, a Proof of Loss will be presented to the Claimant for signature. After any necessary documentation has been obtained and the claim has been fully evaluated, the Claims Reviewer will submit a report to the Authorized Official. The Claims Reviewer is responsible for providing an objective evaluation of the claim to the Authorized Official.
( d ) The Authorized Official will review the report and determine whether compensation is due to the Claimant. The Claimant will be notified in writing of the Authorized Official's Determination. If the Claimant is satisfied with the decision payment will be made after the Claimant returns a completed Release and Certification Form. If the Claimant is dissatisfied with the Authorized Official's Determination an Administrative Appeal may be filed with the Director of OCGFC. If the Claimant remains dissatisfied after the appeal is decided, the dispute may be resolved through binding arbitration or heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23611]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

OPEN MEETINGS OF: Thursday, October 21, 2004, 10 a.m.; Thursday, 
October 28, 2004, 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: These meetings will be open to the public.
    The following item scheduled for the open meeting of Thursday, 
October 21, 2004, has been rescheduled for the open meeting of 
Thursday, October 28, 2004: Explanation and Justification for Political 
Committee Rulemaking.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Robert W. Biersack, Acting Press 
Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-23611 Filed 10-18-04; 3:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A201
# THE HUBSAN X4 PRO REAL TIME FPV 

# !(@ i>~ WWW wilso n gps . com 

# y 336

- 281-3610 Ages 14+ Read the i nstruct i on manual carefully
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-97-149 November 17, 1997

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Special Projects Office

will meet with Northeast Utilities and Sargent and Lundy twice in

the upcoming weeks to discuss Millstone Station. Both meetings

will be held at the Millstone Training Center in Waterford, Conn.

The first, will be held on Thursday, November 20, at 9:00 a.m.,

to discuss the Millstone Unit 3 recirculation spray system

modifications.

At the second meeting, on at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, December 2,

Sargent and Lundy will update the NRC and NU on the status of the

Millstone Units 2 and 3 Independent Corrective Action

Verification Program.

By NRC order, NU hired Sargent and Lundy as a contractor to

review its program to implement corrective actions in the area of

design and configuration control.

#
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. 98-133 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, July 31, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) has scheduled a meeting of its Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures on

September 1 in Rockville, Maryland.

The Subcommittee will meet from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. in Room T-2B1 of the NRC’s

Two White Flint North building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Subcommittee will discuss

proposed ACRS activities and qualifications of possible candidates for appointment.

Although the entire meeting is open to the public, one portion may be closed to discuss

organizational and personnel information.

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

described in a Notice of Meeting published in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

#
§ 296.12 Election of remedies. ( a ) An Injured Person who accepts a final award under the Act waives the right to pursue all claims for injuries arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the United States or any employee, officer, or agency of the United States through the Federal Tort Claims Act or a civil action authorized by any other provision of law.
( b ) An Injured Person who accepts a final award through a Federal Tort Claims Act claim or a civil action against the United States or any employee, officer, or agency of the United States relating to the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire waives the right to pursue any claim arising out of or relating to the same subject matter under the Act.
Test Report 

Subject: Test Report 

From: KKM Precision Support <support©kkmprecision.com> 

Date: 10/31/2019, 12:47 PM 

To: John Vlieger <johnv©shootersconnection.com> 

John, 

Here is the test report on Venom Custom's barrels. The 

Rockwell test showed 44.7RC on one and 45.1 RC on the other. 

Don had wrote 34RC on one and 37RC on the other. If you have 

any questions or concerns please let us know. If anymore 

customers want their barrels checked please let us know and 

we will send them over to Nevada Heat Treating for 

certification. 

Thanks for all your help, 

Luke 

KKM Precision 

5201 Convair Dr. 

Carson City, NV 89706 

support©kkrnprecision.com 

PH: 775-246-5444 

Attachments: 

TEST REPORT_000948.pdf 974 KB 

1 of 1 6/9/2021 1:06 PM 

000042

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-75 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
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:II-98-4

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah

Friday, January 16, 1998)

NRC STAFF ISSUES ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE

AT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Plant Issued Three Superior and One Good Performance Ratings

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has released a

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for

the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar nuclear power plant

near Spring City, Tennessee, which designates superior

performance in the functional areas of Maintenance, Engineering

and Plant Support and good performance in Plant Operations.

Operations at Watts Bar were evaluated by the NRC technical

staff for a period from November 10, 1996, through December 6,

1997. During the previous 12-month assessment period, from

November 12, 1995 through November 9, 1996, the plant received

identical ratings in those areas.

Luis A. Reyes, administrator of the NRC’s Atlanta regional

office, said in a January 14 letter to TVA’s chief nuclear

officer, O. J. Zeringue, that the current evaluation is the

second 12-month period of review since issuance of the plant’s

operating license and that " the evaluation frequency will be

extended commensurate with the facility’s performance." NRC

policy is to evaluate plant performance approximately every 18

months at plants which are performing well.

Reyes said the report is "indicative of management

establishing high standards of performance and carefully

monitoring the outcomes."

NRC SALP reports rate licensee performance during specific

time periods in the functional areas of Plant Operations,

Maintenance, Engineering and Plant Support. Performance is

measured as being in Category 1 (superior), Category 2 (good) or

Category 3 (acceptable). .
NRC officials will discuss details of the report with TVA

managers in a public meeting to be held at the Watts Bar site on

January 29 at 11:00 a.m. They will be available at the meeting’s

conclusion to answer questions from interested observers.

#

EDITORS: A copy of the SALP report is available from this

office, on the NRC’s Internet web site at http://www.nrc.gov and

by E-mail subscription. To receive SALP reports by E-mail as

they are issued, send an E-mail to Listproc@nrc.gov with the

message: subscribe salp yourfirstname yourlastname.
### Part C—Transfer Date
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

|In connection with the
  accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Insightful Corporation for the
  quarter ended September 30, 2004, the undersigned, Richard Barber, Chief
  Financial Officer of Insightful Corporation, does hereby certify pursuant to
  18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002, that:
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

|Date: November 15, 2004 | By: | /s/
  Richard P. Barber                     
|----------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                        |     |                                             
|                        |     | Richard
  P. Barber                         
|                        |     | Chief
  Financial Officer                   
|                        |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|                        |     |                                             

---

---
#### § 12.20 Disposition.

Viruses, serums, or toxins rejected by the Department of Agriculture shall be released by the port director to that Department for destruction, or exported under Customs supervision at the expense of the importer if exportation is authorized by the Department of Agriculture.
§ 113.71 Bond condition to observe neutrality. A bond to observe neutrality must contain the conditions listed in this section and must be a single transaction bond. Bond Condition To Observe Neutrality ( a ) If clearance is granted to the principal's vessel, which is armed or is built for a war-like purpose, with a cargo of arms and munitions, so that it is likely to be used to commit hostilities against people or countries with whom the Government of the United States is at peace, the principal guarantees that the vessel will not be used to commit hostilities against any country, state, colony, or people with whom the Government is at peace.
( b ) If the principal defaults, the obligors (principal and surety, jointly and severally) agree to pay liquidated damages equal to twice the value of the vessel and cargo.
[T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41171, Oct. 19, 1984, as amended by T.D. 88-72, 53 FR 45902, Nov. 15, 1988; CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70169, Nov. 13, 2015]
### §794f. Establishment of standards for accessible medical diagnostic equipment

#### (a) Standards

Not later than 24 months after March 23, 2010,1 the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board shall, in consultation with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, promulgate regulatory standards in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (2 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) 1 setting forth the minimum technical criteria for medical diagnostic equipment used in (or in conjunction with) physician's offices, clinics, emergency rooms, hospitals, and other medical settings. The standards shall ensure that such equipment is accessible to, and usable by, individuals with accessibility needs, and shall allow independent entry to, use of, and exit from the equipment by such individuals to the maximum extent possible.

#### (b) Medical diagnostic equipment covered

The standards issued under subsection (a) for medical diagnostic equipment shall apply to equipment that includes examination tables, examination chairs (including chairs used for eye examinations or procedures, and dental examinations or procedures), weight scales, mammography equipment, x-ray machines, and other radiological equipment commonly used for diagnostic purposes by health professionals.

#### (c) Review and amendment

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, in consultation with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, shall periodically review and, as appropriate, amend the standards in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (2 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).1

(Pub. L. 93–112, title V, §510, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title IV, §4203, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 570.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

March 23, 2010, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act", which was translated as meaning the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111–148, which enacted this section, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

The Administrative Procedure Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), is act June 11, 1946, ch. 324, 60 Stat. 237, which was repealed and reenacted as subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

1 See References in Text note below.