alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-97 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, June 22, 1998)

NRC ORDER TO THE TOLEDO EDISON CONFIRMS AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE

FIRE BARRIER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AT DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a confirmatory order to the

Toledo Edison Company confirming its commitment to complete Thermo-Lag fire

barrier corrective actions at its Davis-Besse nuclear power plant by December 31. The

plant is located near Toledo, Ohio.

In a letter to Toledo Edison Co. officials, Sam Collins, Director of the NRC’s

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said the order was issued because of concern

“that some licensees may not be making adequate progress toward resolving the plantspecific issues, and that some implementation schedules may either be too tenuous or

too protracted.” Davis-Besse is among them.

Thermo-Lag is a fire barrier material manufactured and supplied by Thermal

Science, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, and has been used to provide fire-resistance to

wiring and equipment at nuclear plants. The NRC has been concerned that ThermoLag 330-1 fire barrier material installed by some of its licensees may not provide the

intended level of fire protection and that licensees thus may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. Between 1992 and 1994, the NRC staff issued letters to all nuclear

utilities asking licensees to submit plans and schedules for resolving the issue. All

licensees with Thermo-Lag fire barriers have implemented around-the-clock “fire

watches,” using workers to patrol vital plant areas on a regular basis to watch for signs

of fire until corrective actions have been completed.

In his letter to Toledo Edison Co. officials, Collins noted that NRC has been

meeting with licensees to review their progress in completing implementation of their

fire barrier programs, but has been concerned about slow progress on resolution of the

issue at certain plants.

Toledo Edison Co. was one of the licensees with which NRC has periodically

held meetings. At these meetings, the NRC reviewed Toledo Edison’s schedule for

Thermo-Lag corrective actions and concluded they are reasonable. The company

formally agreed June 11 to the terms of the confirmatory order.
About 20 other plants have received or are expected to receive similar orders in

the coming months.

##
#### § 350.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulation in this part is to establish policy and procedures for review and approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of State and local emergency plans and preparedness for the offsite effects of a radiological emergency which may occur at a commercial nuclear power facility. Review and approval of these plans and preparedness involves preparation of findings and determinations of the adequacy of the plans and capabilities of State and local governments to effectively implement the plans.
#### § 9268.1 Cultural resource management. [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, *v.*John Brophy, Respondent. (And Ten Other Actions.)

Third Department,

March 12, 1952.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General {Paul W. Williams, Special Assistant Attorney-General,*in charge of the Saratoga Investigation, and *Harris B. Steinberg, Special Assistant Attorney-General,*of counsel), for appellant.

*480
      *Lynch & Lynch*for John Brophy, Alfred Pepper, Costabule DeMatteo, Augustus DeMatteo, Jr., Victor Urquhart, Almeron White, James White, George White and Leo Grennan, respondents.

*Carroll, Amyot and Boling*for George Smaldone, Louis J. Farone and Anthony Padula, respondents.

*Edward T. Sullivan*for Gerard E. King, respondent.

*Ray F. Fowler*for Thomas O’Brien, respondent.

*Baniel H. Prior*for all respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal by the People from an order of Supreme Court, Albany Special Term, which dismissed indictments found by a Grand Jury of Saratoga County which had been impaneled at an Extraordinary Special and Trial Term of Supreme Court. This Extraordinary Term was directed by the proclamation of the Governor to inquire into the violation of laws relating to gambling, bribery, corruption, public offices and officers, the collection of public revenues and the administration of justice, in Saratoga County.

While the opinion of the Justice at Special Term does not expressly say so, it was evidently his conclusion that the Extraordinary Term followed a systematic pattern of exclusion against citizens who were qualified to sit as grand jurors, and hence that the Grand Jury as finally selected was not drawn by lot within the traditional meaning of that term.

This case resembles closely the case of *People*v. *Prior*(268 App. Div. 717, affd. 294 N. Y. 405). In our opinion the errors assigned here did not justify a finding that the Grand Jury, as finally selected, was not a constitutional body, or that any constitutional rights of the defendants were violated, within the principles enunciated by the decision of the Court of Appeals in the *Prior*case as we understand it.

We add that the Justice at Special Term was justified, as a matter of law, in entertaining the motion that resulted in the order appealed from, and did not abuse his discretionary power in that regard. Under the present practice there is no direct appeal available in a criminal case from an intermediate order and a party who desires to raise a constitutional issue against the procedure adopted by a Justice presiding at an Extraordinary Term ought to be able to examine the question in some other forum.

*481The order should be reversed on the law and the indictments reinstated.

Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur.

Order reversed on the law and the indictments reinstated.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.237 Verification and justification of claim for preferential tariff treatment. ( a ) *Verification by Customs.* A claim for preferential tariff treatment made under § 10.235, including any statements or other information contained on a Certificate of Origin submitted to Customs under § 10.236, will be subject to whatever verification the Center director deems necessary. In the event that the Center director for any reason is prevented from verifying the claim, the Center director may deny the claim for preferential tariff treatment. A verification of a claim for preferential tariff treatment may involve, but need not be limited to, a review of: ( 1 ) All records required to be made, kept, and made available to Customs by the importer or any other person under part 163 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Documentation and other information in a CBTPA beneficiary country regarding the country of origin of an article and its constituent materials, including, but not limited to, production records, information relating to the place of production, the number and identification of the types of machinery used in production, and the number of workers employed in production; and
( 3 ) Evidence in a CBTPA beneficiary country to document the use of U.S. materials in the production of the article in question, such as purchase orders, invoices, bills of lading and other shipping documents, and customs import and clearance documents.
( b ) *Importer requirements.* In order to make a claim for preferential tariff treatment under § 10.235, the importer: ( 1 ) Must have records that explain how the importer came to the conclusion that the article qualifies for preferential tariff treatment. Those records must include documents that support a claim that the article in question qualifies for preferential tariff treatment because it meets the applicable rule of origin set forth in General Note 12, HTSUS, and in the appendix to part 181 of this chapter. A properly completed Certificate of Origin in the form prescribed in § 10.236(b) is a record that would serve this purpose;
( 2 ) Must establish and implement internal controls which provide for the periodic review of the accuracy of the Certificate of Origin or other records referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
( 3 ) Must have shipping papers that show how the article moved from the CBTPA beneficiary country to the United States. If the imported article was shipped through a country other than a CBTPA beneficiary country and the invoices and other documents from the CBTPA beneficiary country do not show the United States as the final destination, the importer also must have documentation that demonstrates that the conditions set forth in § 10.233(d)(3)(i) through (iii) were met; and
( 4 ) Must be prepared to explain, upon request from Customs, how the records and internal controls referred to in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section justify the importer's claim for preferential tariff treatment.
State of Israel Ministry of Transport Civil Aviation Authority

G: \ AIRW

- EN \ AD \ AD G150 \ AD 28

- 12

- 06

- 18 Page 1 of 1 AD 2 8

- 12

- 06

- 18

Date : J u n e 24 , 201 2

EMERGENCY

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

This Airworthiness Directive, issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in accordance with t he Israeli Air Navigation Regulations applies to an aircraft for which our records list you as the registered owner. It affects aviation safety and requires your immediate attention. No person may
operate an aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive app lies, except in accordance with that

Directive

.

APPLIES TO : GALP model G150 aircraft serial numbers 201 through 2 90 certificated

in any category.

SUBJECT: One

- time detailed visual inspection of the inboard vent holes

.

REASON: Fasteners protruding from the lower wing surface were discovered during

p ost flight inspection. Investigation revealed structural damage to and separation of ribs from wing planks. Further inspection showed that the inboard vent tube hole was completely

covered with sealant, blo cking air flow through the vent. Under these conditions, internal pressure rise during pressure fueling or due to thermal expansion is sufficient to damage the wing.

ACTION: Unless previously accomplished, i nspect both LH & RH inboard vent

holes as detail ed in Gulfstream Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)

150

- 28A

- 146 original issue or later approved revision

. Report any discrepancy to Gulfstream in accordance with ASB instructions.

COMPLIANCE : Compliance is required before next flight, unless previously accom plished.

EFECTIVE DATE : J une 25 , 20 1 2

.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mr

. Nathan Kletshevsky , Engineering Branch, Airworthiness Div., CAAI

, P.O.Box 1101

, Airport City , Israel

, 701 00. Tel

. 972

- 3

- 97745 3 9

, Fax 972

- 3

- 9774592, E

- mail kletshn @mot.gov.i l
Fw: MACT floor spreadsheets - 1 of 2 RobertJ Wayland to: Cortney_Higgins 11/07/2012 11:32 AM Cc: Bill Maxwell

Set 1 of 2.

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt ********************************************************* ----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/07/2012 11:32 AM

-----

From: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 11/07/2012 09:51 AM Subject: MACT floor spreadsheets - 1 of 2

UPL_Coal_Se_110612.xlsx

UPL_Coal_fPM_Springerville_110612.xlsx

UPL_Coal_HCl_Logan_110612.xlsm

UPL_Coal_Hg_Nucla_110612.xlsm

UPL_Coal_Pb_110612.xlsmDeliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450
Exhibit 4.440

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182542 dated July 28, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Telecommunication services for provision of communication channels

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until July 28, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 23, 2020 No. 172-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Terlyakov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS,
   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119595
### §1150. Applicability of State law to combat fraud and abuse

The Secretary may, for the purpose of identifying, preventing, or prosecuting fraud and abuse, adopt regulatory standards establishing, or issue an order relating to a specific person establishing, that a person engaged in the business of providing insurance through a multiple employer welfare arrangement described in section 1002(40) of this title is subject to the laws of the States in which such person operates which regulate insurance in such State, notwithstanding section 1144(b)(6) of this title or the Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986 [15 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.], and regardless of whether the law of the State is otherwise preempted under any of such provisions. This section shall not apply to any plan or arrangement that does not fall within the meaning of the term "multiple employer welfare arrangement" under section 1002(40)(A) of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §520, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title VI, §6604(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 780.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 97–45, Sept. 25, 1981, 95 Stat. 949, which is classified generally to chapter 65 (§3901 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3901 of Title 15 and Tables.
[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.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report**
 
2002| 2003 | 2004 |2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:T 13/2/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637578
 
October 31, 2017
#### § 7.6 Life, health, and safety.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5, a recipient of Federal financial assistance shall not be deemed to have failed to comply with section 3, if immediate provision of a service or other benefit to an individual is necessary to prevent his death or serious impairment of his health or safety.
Exhibit
      32.2





Ener1,
      Inc.


500
      West
      Cypress Creek Road-Suite 100


Ft.
      Lauderdale, Florida, 33309






August
        8, 2006





Securities
      and Exchange Commission


100
      F
      Street, NE


Washington,
      DC 20549





Re:
      Certification Of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350





Dear
      Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
      connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form
      10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Gerard Herlihy, Chief Financial Officer
      of Ener1, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)
            such
                Amendement No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc.,
                for
                the quarter ended March 31, 2006 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 such Amendement No. 1 to Quarterly Report on
                Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
                fairly
                presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                of
                operations of Ener1, Inc.








/s/
                Gerard HerlihyGerard
                Herlihy
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Duly
                Authorized Principal Financial and
              Accounting
                Officer and Duly Authorized
                Officer)











A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.





This
      certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to Ener1, Inc.’s
      quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
      to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
      reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
      except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
      filing.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-120 August 4, 2000

NRC APPROVES TRANSFER OF OPERATING LICENSES FOR 20 NUCLEAR PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the transfer of operating licenses for 20

commercial nuclear power plants from Commonwealth Edison and PECO Energy Company to Exelon

Generation Company.

Exelon is being formed in connection with the proposed merger of Unicom Corporation

(Unicom), the parent of Commonwealth Edison, and PECO.

The 13 Commonwealth Edison units affected are all located in Illinois. They are Braidwood 1

and 2, near Joliet; Byron 1 and 2, near Rockford; Dresden 1 (permanently shut down) and Units 2 and

3, near Morris; LaSalle 1 and 2, near Ottawa; Quad Cities 1 and 2, near Moline; and the permanently

shut down Zion 1 and 2, in Zion.

The PECO units affected are Peach Bottom 1 (permanently shut down) and Units 2 and 3, near

Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Limerick 1 and 2, in Limerick, Pa. Also affected are Salem 1 and 2, in

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey, which are partially owned by PECO but operated by Public Service

Electric & Gas Co.

Last December PECO and Commonwealth Edison submitted applications to the NRC

requesting approval for the license transfers. The key issues considered by the NRC’s technical staff

included decommissioning funding, insurance and Exelon’s technical and financial qualifications.

Notices of the requests for approval and for an opportunity for a hearing were published in the

Federal Register on March 9. The Commission received no comments or hearing requests. The

technical staff’s approval becomes effective immediately.

###
#### Meyer Fogel, an Infant, by Joseph Fogel, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Defendant, and Long Island Railroad Company et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
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. 97-168 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, November 7, 1997)

NRC SCHEDULES WORKSHOP IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

ON DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH CLEANUP CRITERIA

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a public workshop

November 13 and 14 in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss methods for

demonstrating compliance with NRC's radiological criteria for license

termination.

The workshop will be held in the NRC auditorium at Two White Flint

North, 11545 Rockville Pike, from 1:00 p.m. through 5:00 p.m. on November 13

and from 9:00 a.m. until about 5:00 p.m. on November 14.

It will include presentations by invited speakers from the Department of

Energy national laboratories and other federal agencies, and a concluding

panel discussion. The information presented and discussions during the

workshop will be considered by the NRC staff in the development of an NRC

regulatory guide working paper on "Demonstrating Compliance with the

Radiological Criteria for License Termination."

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

§ 10.728 Effect of noncompliance; failure to provide documentation regarding third country transportation. ( a ) *General.* If the importer fails to comply with any requirement under this subpart, including submission of a complete supporting statement prepared in accordance with § 10.724 of this subpart, when requested, the port director may deny preferential treatment to the imported good.
( b ) *Failure to provide documentation regarding third country transportation.* Where the requirements for preferential treatment set forth elsewhere in this subpart are met, the port director nevertheless may deny preferential treatment to an originating good if the good is shipped through or transshipped in a country other than a Party to the AFTA, and the importer of the good does not provide, at the request of the port director, evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of the port director that the conditions set forth in § 10.741 of this subpart were met.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-39 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1