alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

No: II-98-60 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)

NRC STAFF TO HOLD INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 26

ON PETITION TO REVOKE OPERATING LICENSE FOR BROWNS FERRY UNIT 1

Meeting Scheduled For 1:00 p.m. In Plant Training Center

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an informal public hearing on

October 26 at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry nuclear power plant near

Athens, Alabama on a petition filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists requesting

that the NRC revoke the operating license of Browns Ferry Unit 1. The meeting will

begin at 1:00 p.m. in the plant training center, located near the intersection of Shaw

Road and Nuclear Plant Road.

The informal hearing is intended to provide additional information from the petitioner,

TVA and the public to assist the NRC staff in its evaluation of the merits of the petition.

Members of the public who are interested in making presentations should contact Albert

W. De Agazio of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at least five working

days prior to the date of the informal hearing by calling (301) 415-1443. Written

statements will also be accepted and included in the hearing record. Written

statements should be mailed to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop O14B21, Attention: Albert W. De Agazio, Washington, D. C. 20555.

In a letter dated April 5 of this year, the UCS submitted to the NRC a petition requesting

that (1) the operating license of Browns Ferry Unit 1, which has been shut down since

June 1, 1985, be revoked and (2) that the NRC require TVA to submit either a

decommissioning plan or a lay-up plan for Unit 1 which the UCS says would provide

assurance that the Unit’s irradiated (spent) fuel is safely stored and that Units 2 and 3,

currently in operation, are sufficiently independent of Unit 1.

The UCS petition’s position is that a relicensing requirement for Unit 1 would be a

better, safer process than the current restart process which would be used under NRC

regulations.

#
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-99-05 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Wednesday, January 27, 1999)

NRC NAMES NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have announced the assignment

of Ted Easlick as the new Senior Resident Inspector at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant in

Southport, North Carolina.

Before being assigned to Brunswick, Easlick was a senior resident inspector at Northeast

Utilities’ Millstone nuclear plant in Waterford, Connecticut. Before his Millstone

assignment, he was a resident inspector at PECO’s Limerick plant in Limerick,

Pennsylvania. Easlick joined the NRC in 1988 as an operations engineer in the NRC’s

Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. He previously worked as a reactor

operator at PSE&G’s Hope Creek nuclear plant in Salem, New Jersey. Easlick has a B.S.

degree in nuclear engineering technology from Thomas A. Edison State College in

Trenton, New Jersey.

Easlick joins NRC Resident Inspectors Eva Brown and Eugene Guthrie, and Site Secretary

Joan Passine at the Brunswick plant. The NRC inspectors at Brunswick can be reached

at 910-457-9531.

#
§ 118.11 Contents of application. Each application to operate a CES shall consist of the following information, any application not providing all of the specified information will not be considered, and the responses to paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h) of this section shall constitute the criteria used to judge the application: ( a ) The name and address of the facility to be operated as the CES, the names of all principals or corporate officers, and the name and telephone number of an individual to be contacted for further information;
( b ) A description of the CES's accessibility within the port or other location, and a floor plan of the facility actually dedicated to the CES operation showing bay doors, office space, exterior features, security features, and staging and work space. Where a significant capital expenditure would be required in order for an existing facility to meet security or other physical or equipment requirements necessary for the CES operation, the applicant may request in the application time to conform the facility to such requirements. The agreement referred to in § 118.3 of this part shall not be executed, in any event, until the facility is conformed to meet the requirements;
( c ) A schedule of fees clearly showing what the applicant will charge for each type of service. Subject to any special costs incurred by the applicant such as facility modifications to meet specific cargo handling or storage requirements or to meet Customs security standards, the fees set forth in the schedule shall be comparable to fees charged for similar services in the area to be served by the CES;
( d ) A detailed list of equipment showing that the applicant can make a diverse variety of cargo available for examination in an efficient and timely manner;
( e ) A copy of an approved custodial bond on Customs Form 301. If the applicant does not possess such a bond, a completed Customs Form 301 must be included with the application for approval as a prerequisite to selection;
( f ) A list of all employees involved in the CES operation setting forth their names, dates of birth, and social security numbers. (Providing social security numbers is voluntary; however, failure to provide the number may hinder the investigation process.);
( g ) Any information showing the applicant's experience in international cargo operations and knowledge of Customs procedures and regulations; and
( h ) Any other information to address any local criteria that the port director considers essential to the selection process based on port conditions.
[T.D. 93-6, 58 FR 5604, Jan. 22, 1993; 58 FR 6574, Jan. 29, 1993, as amended by T.D. 98-29, 63 FR 16684, Apr. 6, 1998]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                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 Quarterly Report of General Growth Properties, Inc. (the
"Company') on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernard
Freibaum, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do 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) 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/ Bernard Freibaum
----------------------------
Bernard Freibaum
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Quarterly Report of Jarden Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin E. Franklin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Martin E. Franklin
|Name:                  |  | Martin E. Franklin     
|Title:                 |  | Chief Executive Officer
|October 27, 2006      

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jarden Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ian G.H. Ashken, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Ian G.H. Ashken
|Name:               |  | Ian G.H. Ashken        
|Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer
|October 27, 2006
§ 161.2 Enforcement for other agencies. ( a ) *Laws enforced by Customs Service for administering agencies.* Some of the laws enforced in whole or in part by the Customs Service for administering agencies are: ( 1 ) Importations and exportations of arms, ammunition, implements of war, helium gas, and other munitions of war are governed by laws administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Department of State;
( 2 ) Importations and exportations of controlled substances are governed by laws administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice;
( 3 ) Importations, exportations, and transactions involving identified goods, services, and technology with any of those countries designated as subject to economic sanctions under the laws and regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.
( 4 ) Importations and exportations of atomic energy source material, fissionable material, and equipment and devices for utilizing or producing fissionable material are subject to laws administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and
( 5 ) The exportation of articles, other than those previously mentioned herein, are subject to requirements of laws administered by the Department of Commerce.
( b ) *Seizure for violation of law.* When articles are imported or are intended to be, are being, or have been exported from the United States in violation of law, such articles and any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft knowingly used in their transportation shall be seized and proceeded against.
[T.D. 72-211, 37 FR 16487, Aug. 15, 1972, as amended by T.D. 76-21, 41 FR 2383, Jan. 16, 1976; T.D. 78-329, 43 FR 43456, Sept. 26, 1978; T.D. 91-77, 56 FR 46115, Sept. 10, 1991; T.D. 96-42, 61 FR 24889, May 17, 1996]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41621 Conference Calendar

GERMAN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RAMONIA COLLINS, Correctional Officer III; SHIRLENE HASTY, Sergeant; CYNTHIA CHOAT, Counselor Substitute I; CLIFTON MATTOX, Disciplinary Captain, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:02-CV-92

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * German Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 748574, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. He argues that his allegations established an Eighth Amendment violation and that, even absent physical injury, he is entitled to nominal and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. He further asserts that the demotion in his time-earning status implicated due process protections. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-41621 -2- Rodriguez’s allegations established that Officer Collins and Sergeant Hasty would not allow him to use the restroom for several minutes. As the district court determined, Rodriguez’s allegations do not demonstrate that the defendants deprived him “of the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities.”

Palmer v. Johnson , 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Rodriguez also asserts that the defendants’ actions interfered with his medical treatment, he fails to explain how not allowing him to go to the restroom interfered with his taking blood pressure medicine. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Rodriguez’s Eighth Amendment claim as frivolous. See Taylor v. Johnson , 257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir. 2001). Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Rodriguez’s due process claim, as this court has specifically held that a demotion in time-earning status does not trigger due process protections. Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 2000). Rodriguez’s argument that he is entitled to nominal and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, need not be addressed, as that argument relates to the district court’s alternative basis for dismissing Rodriguez’s Eighth Amendment claim. The district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996).No. 03-41621 -3- Rodriguez is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Id.

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
45FR82988

82988 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Notices

Office of Conservation and Solar

Energy

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Petition for

Waiver of Consumer Product Test

Procedures From Hydro Therm, Inc.

(Case No. F-002)

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

SUMMARY: The energy conservation

program for consumer products, other

than automobiles, was established

pursuant to the Energy Policy

Conservation Act. The Department of

Energy (DOE) has amended the

Department's regulations for the energy

conservation program for consumer

products by allowing the Assistant

Secretary for Conservation and Solar

Energy temporarily to waive test

procedure requirements for a particular

covered product (45 FR 64108, Sept. 26,

1980). Waivers may be granted when

characteristics of the product prevent

use of the prescribed test procedures or

lead to results that provide materially

inaccurate comparative data. Pursuant

to paragraph (b) of § 430.27 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, DOE is required

to publish in the Federal Register all

received Petitions for Waiver and

supporting documents from which

confidential information has been

deleted in accordance with 10 CFR

1004.11. Also, DOE is required to solicit

comments, data and information with

respect to the determination of the

petition.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,

and information no later than January

16,1981.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

statements shall be sent to., Department

of Energy, Office of Conservation and

Solar Energy, Case No. D-002, Mail Stop

GH-068, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James A. Smith, U.S. Department of

Energy Office of Conservation and Solar

Energy, Room CH-065, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252-

9127. Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of General

Counsel, Room 88-128, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, D.G. 20585, (202) 252-

9528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 21, 1980, Hydro Therm,

Inc., filed a Petition for Waiver from the

DOE test procedures for consumer

products. Specifically, the petitioner

believes that the use of the existing

furnace test procedure will lead to

results that provide materially

inaccurate comparative data when these

test procedures are applied to a

particular design of furnace

manufactured by Hydro Therm, Inc.

In consideration of the foregoing and

in accordance with the provisions of

§ 430.27(b) of Chapter II of Title 10, Code

of Federal Regulations, DOE is hereby

publishing the "Petition for Waiver" in

the Federal Register in its entirety. The

petition contains no confidential

information. DOE is hereby soliciting

comments, data and information

respecting the determination of the

petition.

Issued in Washington, D.C., December ii,

1950.

Frank DeGeorge,

Principal DeputyAssistant Secretary,

Conservation and Solar Energy.

(FR Dvc. 80-59221 Filed IZ-1a-5 Eris emJ

BILGNG 000E 9450-01-N

CAS-RM-79-104 COMMENT 07
No. 13,458.

#### Jabot *v.*Industrial Commission et al.

(30 P. [2d] 871)

Decided March 5, 1934.

Mr. Fred S. Caldwell, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Paul P. Prosser, Attorney General, Mr. M. S. Ginsberg, Assistant, Mr. Frank C. West, for defendants in error.

*425
      *In Department.*

Mu. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a summary review of a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Colorado. The claim was disallowed, except as to medical expenses which were awarded in accordance with the employer’s medical plan adopted with the approval of the Industrial Commission. The claimant took the case to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the commission.

The commission, through its referee, took evidence and found that the accident in question occurred on November 8, 1932; that the claimant did not leave work until February 6,1933; that temporary total disability terminated June 1, 1933, that there was no permanent disability; that the notice prescribed by section 31 of the Act (C. L. ’21, §4405) was not given to the employer until somq weeks after he left his work; and that the claimant must be penalized one day’s compensation for each day’s failure to report his accident, as a result of which penalty the claimant was entitled to no compensation beyond that for medical expenses. An award was made accordingly.

The aforesaid penalizing section is as follows: “Every employe who sustains an injury shall notify his employer of said injury within two days of its occurrence, unless said employe shall be physically or mentally unable to do so, or unless his employer or his foreman, superintendent, manager or other person in charge shall have actual notice of said injury. If said employe shall fail to report said injury he shall lose one day’s compensation for each day’s failure to so report; provided, however, that if anyone shall report the said accident for said injured employe within the time above specified, to his employer, then the injured employe shall be relieved from reporting the accident as provided above. ’ ’

*426As to the alleged accident, injury and disability, the evidence was conflicting and we are not at liberty to interfere with the conclusions reached thereon by the commission. As to the penalty, there was no evidence that would bring the claimant within any exception of the above statutory provision. This is couched in clear language, and the commission properly held that it must be enforced. The judgment of the district court affirming the commission’s award is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Me. Chief Justice Adams and Me. Justice Butler concur.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle, IL 60532

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

No. III-01-050 November 9, 2001

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $3,000 FINE AGAINST WISCONSIN COMPANY FOR LOSS OF

NUCLEAR GAUGE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $3,000 fine against Mathy

Construction Company of Onalaska, Wisconsin, for violating NRC requirements associated with the

loss of a portable moisture density gauge containing two sealed radioactive sources.

The gauge, which is used to measure soil conditions at road and building sites, was later

recovered. The gauge was not damaged in the incident and consequently there was no immediate

health or safety concern.

On July 18, the company notified the NRC that a portable moisture density gauge had been

stolen from the back of a pickup truck parked at a gas station. While the gauge case was secured to the

truck bed, the key had been left in the case lock and the gauge itself was not locked. A member of the

public found the gauge shortly after its theft, and it was returned to the company.

The gauge contained 8 millicuries of cesium-137 and 40 millicuries of americium-241 in two

sealed sources. It was being used at a temporary job site in Baraboo, Wisconsin.

The NRC staff identified two violations involving the incident including the failure to

adequately secure and limit access to the gauge, and the failure to lock the gauge or the transport case

when it was not under the direct surveillance of an authorized user.

In notifying the company of the proposed fine, NRC Regional Administrator James E. Dyer

noted that Mathy Construction Company had taken corrective actions to prevent a reoccurrence of the

situation, including additional training for employees. However, he said, a newly adopted enforcement

policy provides that a fine be proposed to reflect the significance of the violation and emphasize the

importance of maintaining control of licensed material. The specified fines included in the

enforcement policy were developed to correspond to roughly three times the cost of proper disposal of

a gauge.

Mathy Construction Company has 30 days to pay the fine or protest it. If the fine is protested

and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing.

# # # # #