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

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-20 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, April 2, 1999)

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT FARLEY IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remains

acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at the Farley nuclear power plant,

operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company near Columbia, Alabama.

In a letter to Southern Nuclear, NRC official Pierce Skinner said overall performance

was acceptable and “management oversight, involvement, and emphasis on plant safety and

equipment problem resolution continued to be strong.” However, Skinner pointed out that

steam generator tube integrity continues to be a concern.

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region II

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

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in

the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance

and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are being used as an interim measure to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment

program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide

quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection

findings. This program will be tested at eight sites beginning in June and will be extended to all

plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

#
Exhibit 32.1


                           GREG MANNING AUCTIONS, INC.
                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Greg Manning Auctions,
Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2003, I, Greg Manning, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

   1. this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with
   the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
   Exchange Act of 1934; and

   2. the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended September
   30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
   and results of operations of Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.

Dated:    November 11, 2003
                                          /s/ Greg Manning
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Greg Manning, President and Chief
                                          Executive Officer
Exhibit 15.5

[Levy Cohen and Co. Letterhead]



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



OF



MAGIC SOFTWARE JAPAN K.K



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-156686) of our report dated January 30, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Magic
Software Japan K.K as of December 31, 2013, which report appears in Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F of Formula
Systems (1985) Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2013.



| | /s/ KDA Audit Corporation
| | -------------------------
| | KDA Audit Corporation    
| | Registered Auditors      



Tokyo, Japan

December 31, 2014
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. 98-198 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, November 2, 1998)

NRC APPROVES SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS FOR SHIPPING

SPENT FUEL FROM LIMERICK REACTOR TO CALIFORNIA FACILITY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved security arrangements for trucking a

bundle of irradiated nuclear fuel from a power plant near Philadelphia to a facility near

Pleasanton, California.

The purpose of the shipment from PECO Energy Company’s Limerick, Pennsylvania,

nuclear power plant to General Electric Company’s Vallecitos Nuclear Center in California is to

test the feasibility of burning fuel in commercial reactors for a longer period than is the current

practice.

The ten 12-foot long fuel rods will be contained in a 23-ton NRC-certified steel shipping

cask hauled by tractor-trailer. As is required for spent fuel shipments by road or rail, elaborate

security arrangements will be followed, including armed escorts, special communications,

frequent contact with a dedicated communications center, and close coordination with state and

local law enforcement agencies along the entire route. Special procedures are provided for in

case of emergencies, such as an accident or hijacking attempt. In the latter case, the truck

could be instantly immobilized so that it could not be moved.

There have been more than 1,000 separate shipments of commercial spent fuel in the

United States over the last 20 years. Although there have been a small number of traffic

accidents, in no case has any radioactive material been released to the environment.

NRC regulations prohibit details of scheduling to be disclosed until ten days after the

shipment has been completed.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.10 [Reserved]
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-35 April 10, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WITH WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE

ON APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF NRC REQUIREMENTS AT KEWAUNEE PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet April 17 with

representatives of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for a predecisional

enforcement conference on apparent violations at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power

Station. The plant is in Carlton, Wisconsin.

The meeting will start at 12:30 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room

of the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois. It will

be open to public observation.

The enforcement conference will focus on Wisconsin Public Service's

failure to implement an effective testing program for two safety systems. One

is the auxiliary feedwater system, a backup system for providing water for

reactor cooling system heat removal and the production of steam. The other is

the residual heat removal system, which keeps the reactor core cool when the

plant is shut down and which is used in some emergency situations. The

conference was scheduled as the result of findings from an NRC inspection in

January.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean the NRC has

determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be

taken. Rather, 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 decisions on apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement

action, such as a fine, will be made at this conference. Those decisions will

be made by senior NRC officials at a later date.

####
§ 333.23 Criteria for assistance. Requests for special priorities assistance should be timely, *i.e.,* the request must be submitted promptly and in enough time for FEMA or the Delegate Agency to effect a meaningful resolution to the problem, and must establish that: ( a ) There is an urgent need for the item; and
( b ) The applicant has made a reasonable effort to resolve the problem.
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. 97-158 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Wednesday, October, 22,

1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has scheduled a

meeting on November 13-14 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will

begin at 8:30 a.m. each day in Room T-2B3, of the NRC's One White

Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Subcommittee

on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment will continue

its review of the proposed final Standard Review Plan sections

and associated regulatory guides for risk-informed, performancebased regulation.

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.

#
1

Russell, Sherry

From: Stewart, Michael

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 4:09 PM

To: Russell, Sherry

Subject: FW: Integrated Review Plan for the SO2 NAAQS

Please docket.  Thanks!

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541‐7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

From: Stewart, Michael  

Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 4:08 PM

To: 'Roger Caiazza'

Subject: RE: Integrated Review Plan for the SO2 NAAQS

Thank you for your comment.  I will share with the appropriate folks here and enter it into the rulemaking docket.

Thanks again,

Mike

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541‐7524

stewart.michael@epa.gov

From: Roger Caiazza [mailto:roger.caiazza@gmail.com]  

Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:40 AM

To: Stewart, Michael

Subject: Integrated Review Plan for the SO2 NAAQS

Dr. Stewart,

I missed the opportunity to comment on the draft Integrated Review Plan for the Primary National Ambient Air Quality

Standard for Sulfur Dioxide and wanted to let you know my concern with these standards and the air quality benefit

assessments.  Given the large cost benefit projections for relatively small future concentration decreases, I am at a loss

why EPA has not been able to produce verification studies showing what I would assume to be even larger benefits of
2

the health impact improvements for the much larger ambient pollutant level decreases observed over the last 25

years.  Therefore, my comment would have been to please do that data analysis in the upcoming review.

Thank you,

Roger Caiazza

7679 Bay Cir

Liverpool, NY 13090
#### § 3823.4 Withdrawal from operation of the mining laws.

Effective at midnight, December 31, 1983, subject to valid rights then existing, the minerals in lands within National Forest Wilderness are withdrawn from the operation of the mining laws by virtue of the provisions of section 4(d)(3) of the Wilderness Act.
§ 122.61 Aircraft required to clear. ( a ) Private aircraft leaving the United States as defined in § 122.22, for a foreign area are required to clear as set forth in § 122.26. All other aircraft, except for public aircraft leaving the United States for a foreign area, are required to clear if: ( 1 ) Carrying passengers and/or merchandise for hire; or
( 2 ) Taking aboard or discharging passengers and/or merchandise for hire in a foreign area.
( b ) Any aircraft used by members of air travel clubs are required to clear, and foreign aircraft traveling under a permit to proceed shall also clear.
[T.D. 88-12, 53 FR 9292, Mar. 22, 1988, as amended by CBP Dec. 08-43, 73 FR 68313, Nov. 18, 2008]
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

KEY WEST DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-10090-JLK 

MILVIA I. VIVERO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PINECREST BAKERY LLC, 

EFRAIN VALDES JR., individually, 

and JOEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, 

Defendants, 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO

APPROVE THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order 

Approving Settlement and Dismissing the Case with Prejudice, and the Court having reviewed the motion 

and the file in this cause, having noted the agreement of the parties and being otherwise fully advised in 

the premises, it is hereby 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties’ settlement is hereby APPROVED. It is further 

ordered that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court retains jurisdiction to 

enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement, should such enforcement become necessary. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 12th day of November, 2020.

_______________________________

JAMES LAWRENCE KING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-10090-JLK Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 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. 97-170 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Tuesday, November 18,

1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received two reports

from its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The reports,

in the form of letters, provide comments on:

-- Proposed final generic letter, "Loss of Reactor Coolant

Inventory and Associated Potential for Loss of Emergency

Mitigation Functions While in a Shutdown Condition."

-- Draft regulatory guide DG-29, Revision 1.7, "Guidelines

for Evaluating Electromagnetic and Radio-Frequency Interference

in Safety-Related I&C Systems."

Copies of the reports are available through the NRC's Office

of Public Affairs, the NRC's Internet Homepage

(http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW) and the Public Document Room in

Washington, D.C. To access the letters on the NRC Internet

Homepage use the "Search" function to look for "446th."

##
#### Joseph J. Robbin, Appellant, v. Antonie Berenson-Chirkin et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 655.]
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.539 Retail packaging materials and containers.

Packaging materials and containers in which a good is packaged for retail sale, if classified with the good for which preferential treatment under the SFTA is claimed, will be disregarded in determining whether all non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergo the applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 25(o), HTSUS. If the good is subject to a regional value content requirement, the value of such packaging materials and containers will be taken into account as originating or non-originating materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional value content of the good.

# Example 1.

Singaporean Producer A of good C imports 100 non-originating blister packages to be used as retail packaging for good C. As provided in § 10.536(a)(1) of this subpart, the value of the blister packages is their adjusted value, which in this case is $10. Good C has a regional value content requirement. The United States importer of good C decides to use the build-down method, RVC = ((AV−VNM)/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.535(b) of this subpart), in determining whether good C satisfies the regional value content requirement. In applying this method, the non-originating blister packages are taken into account as non-originating. As such, their $10 adjusted value is included in the VNM, value of non-originating materials, of good C.

# Example 2.

Same facts as in Example 1, but the blister packages are originating. In this case, the adjusted value of the originating blister packages would not be included as part of the VNM of good C under the build-down method. However, if the U.S. importer had used the build-up method, RVC = (VOM/AV) × 100 (*see* § 10.535(c) of this subpart), the adjusted value of the blister packaging would be included as part of the VOM, value of originating material.
### §287b. Staff; Deputy Parliamentarian; delegation of functions

(a) With the approval of the Speaker, or in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Speaker, the Parliamentarian shall appoint such attorneys and other employees as may be necessary for the prompt and efficient performance of the functions of the Office. Any such appointment shall be made without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the position. Any person so appointed may be removed by the Parliamentarian with the approval of the Speaker, or in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Speaker.

(b)(1) One of the attorneys appointed under subsection (a) of this section shall be designated by the Parliamentarian as Deputy Parliamentarian. During the absence or disability of the Parliamentarian, or when the office is vacant, the Deputy Parliamentarian shall perform the functions of the Parliamentarian.

(2) The Parliamentarian may delegate to the Deputy Parliamentarian and to other employees appointed under subsection (a) of this section such of the functions of the Parliamentarian as the Parliamentarian considers necessary or appropriate.

(Pub. L. 95–94, title I, §115, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 668.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 3 of House Resolution No. 502, Ninety-fifth Congress, Apr. 20, 1977, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 95–94.
No. 41,102

#### Mayme D. Day and Ruby Burgess, *Appellees,*v. State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas, *Appellant,*The Texas Company and Columbian Fuel Corporation, Intervenors, *Appellants.*

(345 P. 2d 651)

Opinion denying rehearing filed November 7, 1959.

(For original opinion of affirmance, see *Day v. State Corporation Commission,*185 Kan. 165, 341 P. 2d 1028.)

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Robb, J.:

To prevent any misunderstanding in regard to the jurisdiction of the state corporation commission in attributing acreages to a particular gas well for the purpose of determining the allowable of such gas well for production of gas therefrom, the syllabus in *Day v. State Corporation Commission,*185 Kan. 165, 341 P. 2d 1028, is modified in the 4th and 5th lines thereof by substitution of the word *attributing*for the words “unitization and pooling” so the syllabus in pertinent part reads:

> “In a proceeding originating before the state corporation commission by reason of certain producers filing an application seeking an exception to paragraph ‘g’ of the basic proration order of the Hugoton gas field for the attributing of non-contiguous and non-adjoining acreages. . . .”

The corresponding portions of the opinion are also modified so that in line 13, page 166, as well as in line 14, page 167, where the words “unitization and pooling” appear, the word *attributing*is substituted therefor.

The final paragraph on page 167 is stricken and the following is incorporated into the opinion in lieu thereof:

> The trial court found: “Notice was given as provided by 55-705b, 55-706 and 55-605, G. S. 1949, but the record shows that neither of plaintiffs had *actual notice*of the hearing.” (Our emphasis.)

> The record fully supports this finding in that the notice was published but a copy thereof was not mailed to each person interested in the hearing according to the latter part of G. S. 1949, 55-605, and as we construe that part of the statute, it requires the applicants (here intervenors) to make known to the commission the names and addresses of the parties who are interested in' and affected by the hearing on the application and the results thereof.

Since the record fails to affirmatively show any necessary elements of acquiescence or estoppel on the part of plaintiffs, land*383owners, and in view of what was said in the original opinion in re1 gard to mailing notice under G. S. 1949, 55-605, supplemented by *Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.,*339 U. S. 306, Syl. ¶ 3, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. ed 865, the petition for rehearing is denied.

Price, J., dissents, being of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                                 QUITCLAIM DEED

     Hologic, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a place of business at 35
Crosby Drive, Bedford, MA ("Grantor"), for consideration of Twenty Six Million
Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($26,250,000.00) paid, hereby
grants to BONE (DE) QRS 15-12, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a place of
business c/o W.P. Carey & Co., LLC, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, Second Floor, New
York, New York 10020, with QUITCLAIM COVENANTS.

     That certain parcel of land situated in Bedford in the County of Middlesex,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts being shown as Lot 12 on a plan of land entitled
"Plan of Land in Bedford, Mass. (Middlesex County), Being a Subdivision of Lot 5
on Land Court Plan Number 34759C, Prepared for: Hologic, Inc., Scale 1" = 100'"
by the BSC Group, Inc. dated July 26, 2002, and containing approximately 903,621
square feet as shown on said plan. Said parcel of land is shown as Lot 12 on
Land Court Plan Number 34759F.

     The premises are conveyed subject to, and with the benefit of, all
restrictions, easements, covenants, conditions, agreements, and other
appurtenant rights of record insofar as the same may be now in force and
applicable.

     Being a portion of the premises conveyed to Grantor by deed dated July 27,
1998 filed with the Middlesex South Registry District of the Land Court as
Document No. 1074531 and Transfer Certificate No. 212281.

     This conveyance does not constitute a sale or transfer of all or
substantially all of the assets of Grantor in Massachusetts.

     Deed stamps in the amount of $119,700.00 are affixed to this deed.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Hologic, Inc. has caused this instrument to be
executed under seal, this 4th day of September, 2002.

       Hologic, Inc.


       By: /s/ Glenn P. Muir
           ------------------------------------
       Name:  Glenn P. Muir
       Title: Treasurer and Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration
       Hereunto duly authorized

                          COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Middlesex, ss                                              September 4, 2002

     Then personally appeared before me Glenn P. Muir, the Treasurer and
Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration, of Hologic, Inc., who
acknowledged that he executed the foregoing instrument as his free act and deed
in such capacity and the free act and deed of Hologic, Inc.

                                                   /s/ Laureen E. McQuaid
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Notary Public Laureen E. McQuaid
                                               My Commission Expires: 6/5/09