alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 31, 1999

MEMORANDUM TO: Karen D. Cyr

General Counsel

William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /s/

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-165 - FINAL STANDARD

REVIEW PLAN REGARDING FOREIGN OWNERSHIP,

CONTROL, OR DOMINATION OF APPLICANTS FOR REACTOR

LICENSES

The Commission has approved the final Standard Review Plan (SRP) regarding foreign

ownership, control, or domination of applicants for reactor licenses. The Commission has also

approved of the staff publishing the responses to the comments received on the draft SRP in

the Federal Register.

The staff should clarify its understanding of NEI’s comment regarding a foreign entity owning a

share of a nuclear power plant. Specifically, staff should replace the third sentence of the

response (“However, ....” beginning on the fifth line, last full paragraph p. 2 of SECY-99-165)

with the following:

However, the intent of NEI’s comment that a foreign entity “should be allowed to own a

significant share of a nuclear power plant” is not entirely clear. If NEI is suggesting that

a foreign entity may become a direct owner of a substantial percentage of the facility, its

position would not appear to be consistent with the Commission’s interpretation of the

statute, even if the foreign entity is only a co-owner.

At the end of the second full paragraph of page 5 of the SRP, add the following footnote:

In any event, a license would not be issued to any person if the Commission found that

issuance would be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety

of the public. See, e.g., §§ 103d and 104d of the AEA. Pursuant to this provision, the

Commission has the authority to reject a license application that raises a clear

proliferation threat, terrorist threat, or other threat to the common defense and security

of the United States.

cc: Chairman Dicus
Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

CIO

CFO

OCA

OIG

OPA

Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR

DCS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTheoretical constraints in the design of multivariable control systemsThe research being performed under NASA Grant NAG1-1361 involves a more clear understanding and definition of the constraints involved in the pole-zero placement or assignment process for multiple input, multiple output systems. Complete state feedback to more than a single controller under conditions of complete controllability and observability is redundant if pole placement alone is the design objective. The additional feedback gains, above and beyond those required for pole placement can be used for eignevalue assignment or zero placement of individual closed loop transfer functions. Because both poles and zeros of individual closed loop transfer functions strongly affect the dynamic response to a pilot command input, the pole-zero placement problem is important. When fewer controllers than degrees of freedom of motion are available, complete design freedom is not possible, the transmission zeros constrain the regions of possible pole-zero placement. The effect of transmission zero constraints on the design possibilities, selection of transmission zeros and the avoidance of producing non-minimum phase transfer functions is the subject of the research being performed under this grant.Document ID19930007194Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsRynaski, E. G.*(Calspan-State Univ. of New York Joint Venture Buffalo, NY, United States)*Mook, D. Joseph*(Calspan-State Univ. of New York Joint Venture Buffalo, NY, United States)*Depena, Juan*(Calspan-State Univ. of New York Joint Venture Buffalo, NY, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1991Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-191943NAS 1.26:191943Accession Number93N16383Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-1361Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007194.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §117b–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 117b–2 was editorially reclassified as section 6631 of this title.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ener1, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Charles Gassenheimer, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/ Charles GassenheimerCharles
      GassenheimerChief
      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal
      Executive Officer and Duly Authorized
Officer





May 10,
2010





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Ener1, Inc. and will be retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
### §2121. House of Representatives Fine Arts Board

#### (a) Establishment and authority

There is established in the House of Representatives a Fine Arts Board (hereafter in sections 2121 and 2122 of this title referred to as the "Board"), comprised of the House of Representatives members of the Joint Committee on the Library. The chairman of the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives shall be the chairman of the Board. The Board, in consultation with the House Office Building Commission, shall have authority over all works of fine art, historical objects, and similar property that are the property of the Congress and are for display or other use in the House of Representatives wing of the Capitol, the House of Representatives Office Buildings, or any other location under the control of the House of Representatives.

#### (b) Clerk of the House of Representatives

Under the supervision and direction of the Board, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall be responsible for the administration, maintenance, and display of the works of fine art and other property referred to in subsection (a).

#### (c) Architect of the Capitol

The Architect of the Capitol shall provide assistance to the Board and to the Clerk of the House of Representatives in the carrying out of their responsibilities under sections 2121 and 2122 of this title.

(Pub. L. 100–696, title X, §1001, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4611; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §221(8), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1749.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 188c of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "House Oversight" for "House Administration".

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.

#### Transfer of Functions

Certain functions of Clerk of House of Representatives transferred to Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services by section 7 of House Resolution No. 423, One Hundred Second Congress, Apr. 9, 1992. Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services replaced by Chief Administrative Officer of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Jan. 4, 1995.
No. 13,007.

#### Estate of Kinsella. Woodward, Administrator *v.*Molander.

(22 P. [2d] 624)

Decided May 1, 1933.

Rehearing denied May 29, 1933.

*557Mr. Clay E. Apple, Mr. E. T. Snyder, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. X. Erickson, Mr. Emory L. O’Connell, for defendant in error.

*En Bmtc.*

Mr. Justice Hilliard

delivered the opinion of the court.

Based on the judgment of the district court in *Woodward, Administrator v. Molander,*92 Colo. 551, 22 P. (2d) 622, this day reversed, Molander exhibited a claim in the Weld county court against the Kins ella, estate, there in the course of administration. The county court rejected the claim, but on appeal the district court ordered its allowance. Since by our determination the original judgment no longer obtains, it follows that the judgment here must be reversed. Let it be so ordered.

Mr. Justice Campbell and Mr. Justice Moore not participating.
#### George Alexander MILLS and Houdry Process Corp., Appellants, v. Robert C. WATSON, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee.

No. 12472.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 16, 1955.

Decided May 19, 1955.

Mr. Frank S. Busser, Philadelphia, Pa., with whom Messrs. B. Max Klevit, Philadelphia, Pa., and Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. S. William Cochran, Atty., United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

*336Before BAZELON, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a patent case under Rev.Stat. § 4915 (1875).1 The District Court denied relief, and this appeal followed.

Plaintiffs-appellants say that their invention lies “in the *discovery*of a particular and unique kaolin clay,” which proved unusually successful as a catalyst in the so-called “catalytic cracking process” for making gasoline. But it is clear that the clay in question — described as “Eureka halloysite” 2 — was already known and available for purchase in the market. What was discovered was that this clay had certain desirable properties not previously realized. The question is whether that discovery, under the circumstances here presented, amounted to invention.

The prior art knew that certain clays were good catalysts in the cracking process. Legg taught that halloysite from Indiana, having high bulk specific gravity, hardness and fine porosity, was suitable (Patent No. 2,305,220). Shabaker taught the use of measures to lower the iron content of kaolin clays, including halloysite, to improve their catalytic function (Patent No. 2,466,051). The Eureka halloysite which plaintiffs employ is low in iron content — so low, in fact, as not to require the reductive measures described by Shabaker.3 It would be natural, therefore, for one skilled in the art to use — or at least test — Eureka halloysite, once it had been called to his attention (as it was here) by one knowing its general characteristics. Vanadium Corp. of America v. Marzall, 1952, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 3, 197 F.2d 187. The results achieved were better than expected. But the Patent Office and the District Court were justified in concluding that this fact did not convert plaintiffs’ choice of a particular clay — belonging to a known class— into a patentable invention.

Affirmed.

1

. Rev.Stat. § 4915 (1875), as amended, 35 U.S.C. § 63 (1946), was repealed by the Act of July 19, 1952, c. 950, Section 5, 66 Stat. 815, and was replaced, to the extent here pertinent, by 66 Stat. 803, 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952).

2

. The application says that this clay is “found as a large deposit in the Tintie mining district, Dragon mine, near Eureka, Utah * * * ”

3

. Its iron content is 0.3% Fe203. Shabaker says that “The preferred catalysts of superior properties are obtained when the iron content is lower than 0.4% Ee203 * * (No. 2,466,051, col. 4, line 38)
466 P.2d 884

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard L. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 402.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 6, 1970.

Dan Sosa, Jr., Sosa, Garza & Neumeyer, Las Cruces, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., James V. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969) was denied after a hearing. Defendant appeals giving two groxxnds for reversal.

We affii'm.

> “POINT I

> “THE COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBERED * * * ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.”

Findings which are supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Moser, 80 N.M. 404, 456 P.2d 878 (1969).

We have carefully examixxed the briefs and the transcript and find that the trial court’s findings are supported.

> “POINT II

> “THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE DEFENDANT’S REQUESTED FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBER * * *.”

The requested findings complained of go to competence of defense counsel at the original trial. One of the findings attacked under Point I and found to be suppprted by substantial evidence is:

> “At all times Mr. C. C. Chase, Jr., protected the constitutional rights, civil rights, all guarantees, due process of law, equal and just protection of laws for his client, Mr. Richard L. Johnson.”

When findings are supported by substantial evidence, refusal to make other findings opposed to or inconsistent with those findings is not error. Fox v. Doak, 78 N.M. 743, 438 P.2d 153 (1968); Hancock v. Berger, 77 N.M. 321, 422 P.2d 359 (1967); Gray v. J. P. (Bum) Gibbins, Inc., 75 N.M. 584, 408 P.2d 506 (1965).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.
### §1921a. Sole and exclusive authority of Board and Chief to determine rates of pay

#### (a) In general

The Capitol Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police shall have the sole and exclusive authority to determine the rates and amounts for each of the following for members of the Capitol Police:

(1) The rate of basic pay (including the rate of basic pay upon appointment), premium pay, specialty assignment and proficiency pay, and merit pay.

(2) The rate of cost-of-living adjustments, comparability adjustments, and locality adjustments.

(3) The amount for recruitment and relocation bonuses.

(4) The amount for retention allowances.

(5) The amount for educational assistance payments.

#### (b) No review or appeal permitted

The determination of a rate or amount described in subsection (a) may not be subject to review or appeal in any manner.

#### (c) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section may be construed to affect—

(1) any authority provided under law for a committee of the House of Representatives or Senate, or any other entity of the legislative branch, to review or approve any determination of a rate or amount described in subsection (a);

(2) any rate or amount described in subsection (a) which is established under law; or

(3) the terms of any collective bargaining agreement.

#### (d) Effective date

This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2005 and each succeeding fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 108–447, div. G, title I, §1004, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3180.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is from the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005, which is div. G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.
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. 98-01 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, January 6, 1998)

NRC ISSUES LICENSE TO HYDRO RESOURCES

FOR URANIUM MINING PROJECT IN NEW MEXICO

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a license to Hydro Resources,

Inc. (HRI) to construct and operate the Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project in

New Mexico.

The project will involve the extraction of uranium at three sites, located near the

towns of Church Rock and Crownpoint, in McKinley County northeast of Gallup. It will

use a process known as in-situ leach uranium mining, or solution mining. In the in-situ

mining process, wells are drilled into rock formations containing uranium ore. Water,

with added oxygen and sodium bicarbonate, is injected down the wells to mobilize the

uranium in the rock so that it can be pumped to the surface, where a processing plant

separates the uranium from the solution. Once it is dried, the resulting uranium, known

as “yellowcake,” is packaged in drums and transported off-site to other processing

plants for conversion into fuel for nuclear reactors.

The license was issued subject to certain conditions, including the requirements

that, before HRI begins mining uranium, it must (1) obtain necessary permits, including

permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of New Mexico,

and reach agreements for emergency incident response with local authorities, the fire

department, medical facilities, and other emergency services; (2) replace the existing

water supply wells of the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and the Bureau of Indian Affairs

near Crownpoint, (3) complete designs for wastewater management ponds; and (4)

establish an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement to ensure adequate funds for

site decommissioning, reclamation and groundwater restoration at the end of the

project’s life.

Before issuing the license, the NRC conducted safety and environmental reviews

of HRI’s application. In December the agency issued a safety evaluation report in

which it concluded that, if specified conditions are met, issuance of the license will not

be inimical to public health and safety or to the common defense and security, and will

meet the requirements of NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy Act.

Earlier the NRC, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and

the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, published an environmental impact statement on the
proposed project. It concluded that the proposed project is environmentally

acceptable, and that potential impacts of the project could be mitigated. The mitigative

measures are included as conditions to the license.

The license is valid for five years from its effective date of January 5.

###
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 1 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 2 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-31   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 3 of 3
No: 23-041 July 19, 2023

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Makes Available Perry Nuclear Plant License Renewal Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received an application from Energy Harbor 

Nuclear Corp. to renew the operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, Ohio. 

The application is now available on the NRC website. 

Energy Harbor filed the application on July 3, seeking to renew the license for an 

additional 20 years of operation. Perry’s boiling-water reactor, located about 35 miles northeast 

of Cleveland, is currently licensed to operate through Nov. 7, 2026. 

The NRC staff is reviewing the application to determine if it is sufficiently complete to 

begin the agency’s detailed safety and environmental reviews. If the application is determined to 

be complete, the staff will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an 

adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 

Information about the license renewal process is available on the NRC website. A copy 

of the Perry license renewal application also will be available at the Perry Public Library,

3753 Main Street in Perry; and at the Madison Public Library, 6111 Middle Ridge Road in 

Madison, Ohio.
§ 108.1100 Type of Leverage and application procedures. ( a ) *Type of Leverage available.* You may apply for Leverage from SBA in the form of a guarantee of your Debentures.
( b ) *Applying for Leverage.* The Leverage application process has two parts. You must first apply for SBA's conditional commitment to reserve a specific amount of Leverage for your future use. You may then apply to draw down Leverage against the commitment. See §§ 108.1200 through 108.1240.
( c ) *Where to send your application.* Send all Leverage applications to SBA, Investment Division Office of New Markets Venture Capital, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
§ 111.67 Hearing. ( a ) *Hearing officer.* The hearing officer must be an administrative law judge appointed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3105.
( b ) *Rights of the broker.* The broker or his attorney will have the right to examine all exhibits offered at the hearing and will have the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present witnesses who will be subject to cross-examination by the Government representatives.
( c ) *Interrogatories.* Upon the written request of either party, the hearing officer may permit deposition upon oral or written interrogatories to be taken before any officer duly authorized to administer oaths for general purposes or in customs matters. The other party to the hearing will be given a reasonable time in which to prepare cross-interrogatories and, if the deposition is oral, will be permitted to cross-examine the witness. The deposition will become part of the hearing record.
( d ) *Transcript of record.* The processing Center will provide a competent reporter to make a record of the hearing. When the record of the hearing has been transcribed by the reporter, the processing Center will deliver a copy of the transcript of record to the hearing officer, the broker and the Government representative without charge.
[T.D. 00-17, 65 FR 13891, Mar. 15, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63320, Oct. 18, 2022]