alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 02-083 July 18, 2002

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE FOR 

 SPENT FUEL STORAGE 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting public comment on proposed

regulations regarding licensing requirements for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) or in a Department of Energy monitored retrievable storage

installation (MRS). 

The proposed changes would make the siting and design criteria for dry storage more risk

informed and would require that uncertainties be considered in seismic hazard evaluations. Reflected

in these proposed changes are over 10 years of agency experience in licensing dry cask storage facilities

and rapid advancements in the earth sciences and earthquake engineering. 

Specifically, the proposed regulation would (1) require certain specific license applicants for a

dry storage facility to account for uncertainties in their seismic evaluations by using probabilistic

seismic hazard analysis methods or other suitable sensitivity analyses; (2) allow the ISFSI or MRS

applicants to use a design earthquake ground motion appropriate for and commensurate with the risk

associated with an ISFSI or MRS; and (3) require general licensees to conduct analyses to determine

whether the designs of cask storage pads and areas adequately account for dynamic loads, in addition to

static loads. 

Detailed guidance on the procedures acceptable to the NRC for meeting the requirements is

contained in a draft regulatory guide to be issued in parallel for public comment as Draft Regulatory

Guide, DG-3021, “Site Evaluations and Determination of Design Earthquake Ground Motion for

Seismic Design of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and DOE Monitored Retrievable

Storage Installations.” 

Interested persons may submit comments within 75 days of publication of a Federal Register

notice on this subject, expected shortly. The proposed rule will be available on the NRC web site at

http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Comments may be submitted electronically at the web site or by mail to the

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking

and Adjudications Staff. 

###
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffect of a rotating propeller on the separation angle of attack and distortion in ducted propeller inletsThe present study represents an extension of an earlier wind tunnel experiment performed with the P&W 17-in. Advanced Ducted Propeller (ADP) Simulator operating at Mach 0.2. In order to study the effects of a rotating propeller on the inlet flow, data were obtained in the UTRC 10- by 15-Foot Large Subsonic Wind Tunnel with the same hardware and instrumentation, but with the propeller removed. These new tests were performed over a range of flow rates which duplicated flow rates in the powered simulator program. The flow through the inlet was provided by a remotely located vacuum source. A comparison of the results of this flow-through study with the previous data from the powered simulator indicated that in the conventional inlet the propeller produced an increase in the separation angle of attack between 4.0 deg at a specific flow of 22.4 lb/sec-sq ft to 2.7 deg at a higher specific flow of 33.8 lb/sec-sq ft. A similar effect on separation angle of attack was obtained by using stationary blockage rather than a propeller.Document ID19930007436Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsBoldman, D. R.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Iek, C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Hwang, D. P.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Larkin, M.*(Pratt and Whitney Aircraft East Hartford, CT., United States)*Schweiger, P.*(Pratt and Whitney Aircraft East Hartford, CT., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1993Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-105935AIAA PAPER 93-0017E-7451NAS 1.15:105935Meeting InformationMeeting: Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 11, 1993End Date: January 14, 1993Accession Number93N16625Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-03-10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007436.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
CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GlobalIndustries, Ltd. ("Global") on Form10-Q for the quarter ending September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on November21, 2005 (the "Report"), theundersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1350 asadopted pursuant to §§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge basedupon a review of the Report, that:

(1)              The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Global as of thedates and for periods presented as required by such Report.

| /S/ WILLIAM J. DORE'    |
|-------------------------|
| William J. Dore'        |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| November 21,  2005      |

This certification is provided pursuant to §§ 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Global or the certifying officerfor purposes of §§ 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by§§ 906 has been provided to Global and will be retained by it and furnished tothe SEC or its staff upon request.
Case 1:20-mj-03189-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:20-mj-03189-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:20-mj-03189-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:20-mj-03189-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:20-mj-03189-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:20-mj-03189-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 6 of 6
§ 111.102 Obligations of individual brokers in conjunction with continuing broker education requirement. ( a ) *Continuing broker education requirement.* All individual brokers must complete qualifying continuing broker education as defined in § 111.103(a), except: ( 1 ) During a period of voluntary suspension as described in § 111.52; or
( 2 ) When individual brokers have not held their license for an entire triennial period at the time of the submission of the status report as required under § 111.30(d).
( b ) *Required minimum number of continuing education credits.* All individual brokers who are subject to the continuing broker education requirement must complete at least 36 continuing education credits of qualifying continuing broker education each triennial period, except upon the reinstatement of a license following a period of voluntary suspension as described in § 111.52. Upon the reinstatement of a license following a period of voluntary suspension as described in § 111.52, the number of continuing education credits that an individual broker must complete by the end of the triennial period during which the reinstatement of the license occurred will be calculated on a prorated basis of one continuing education credit for each complete remaining month until the end of the triennial period.
( c ) *Reporting requirements.* Individual brokers who are subject to the continuing broker education requirement must report and certify their compliance upon submission of the status report required under § 111.30(d).
( d ) *Recordkeeping requirements* — ( 1 ) *General.* Individual brokers who are subject to the continuing broker education requirement must retain the following information and documentation pertaining to the qualifying education completed during a triennial period for a period of three years following the submission of the status report required under § 111.30(d): ( i ) The title of the qualifying continuing broker education attended;
( ii ) The name of the provider or host of the qualifying continuing broker education;
( iii ) The date(s) attended;
( iv ) The number of continuing education credits accrued;
( v ) The location of the qualifying continuing broker education; and
( vi ) Any documentation received from the provider or host of the qualifying continuing broker education that evidences the individual broker's registration for, attendance at, completion of, or other activity bearing upon the individual broker's participation in and completion of the qualifying continuing broker education.
( 2 ) *Availability of records.* In order to ensure that the individual broker has met the continuing broker education requirement, upon CBP's request, the individual broker must make available to CBP the information and documentation described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section on or before 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of CBP's request. CBP can request that the information and documentation be made available for in-person inspection or be delivered to CBP by either hard-copy or electronic means, or any combination thereof.
#### § 200.735-114b Employee complaints on filing requirements.

Any employee who believes that his position has been improperly included under the reporting requirements of § 200.735-114 may obtain a review thereof through the Commission's grievance procedures.

[42 FR 59958, Nov. 23, 1977]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Broughton Foods Company and Subsidiary on Form S-1 (File No. 333-37387) of
our reports dated February 24, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Broughton Foods
Company and Subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1997 and for the years ended
December 31, 1995, 1996 and 1997, which reports are included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

                                                         Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P

Columbus, Ohio
March 27, 1998
```

[Federal Register: February 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 22)]
[Notices]               
[Page 5637]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03fe10-96]                         


[[Page 5637]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6891]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Architecture as Icon: Perception and Representation 
of Architecture in Byzantine Art''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Architecture as Icon: Perception and 
Representation of Architecture in Byzantine Art,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Princeton University Art 
Museum, Princeton, NJ, from on or about March 6, 2010, until on or 
about June 6, 2010, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of 
these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 27, 2010.
Maura M. Pally,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-2274 Filed 2-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23694]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Review of a 
Revised Information Collection: Standard Form 2808

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revised information 
collection. SF 2808, Designation of Beneficiary: Civil Service 
Retirement System (CSRS), is used by persons covered by CSRS to 
designate a beneficiary to receive the lump sum payment due from the 
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in the event of their 
death.
    Approximately 2,000 forms will be completed annually. The form 
takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 
estimated at 500 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, Fax (202) 418-3251 or via E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#214c43554e4e4c4458614e514c0f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97faf5e3f8f8faf2eed7f8e7fab9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Pamela S. Israel, Chief 
Operations Support Group, Retirement Services Program, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 
20415; and Joseph F. Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management & Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
    For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination--Contact: 
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, Support Group, (202) 
606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kay Coles James,
Director.
[FR Doc. 04-23694 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: <gary.burke@adpholdings.com>

To: Julia MacAllister/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "'Burdett Hallett'" <burdett.hallett@adpholdings.com>

Date: 02/13/2013 05:46 PM

Subject: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards for Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2): Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0546; FRL-9678-8] RIN 2060-AR43

Dear Ms. MacAllister:

We are sending this email after reviewing the proposed rulemaking announced in the Federal Register. 

ADP Holdings response to the US-EPA Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2) 45-day public comment 

period.

ADP is engaged in the development of hydrogen-based supplemental fuel technologies that have the 

effect of off-setting the need for carbon-based fuels. As such these technologies are more 

environmentally friendly than even cellulosic biofuels. ADP fully supports the EPA’s rule to promote the 

manufacture and use of biofuels.

40 CFR Part 80 includes the regulation of fuels and fuel additives. Interpretation of supplementing a 

liquid fuel or bio fuel with gaseous H2 may be considered a fuel or additive, but in either case it would 

seem to be an important opportunity for the EPA to promote an energy technology that is a domestic, 

renewable, and a source of zero-carbon energy that can reduce the consumption of all liquid fuels, 

including biofuels by 5%-15%.

The EPA could include in their rule making the ability to offset carbon-based fuels and measure such 

offsets are Gasoline -Gallon Equivalents (GGEs).

Although economics are currently driving a move toward the rapidly adopt CNG/LNG to transportation 

and other liquid fuel applications; natural gas is a potent GHG (when leaked) and when combusted to 

form CO2 as a primary GHG. H2 on the other hand is only a secondary GHG when leaked and completely 

zero-carbon when combusted.

ADP’s technology is ready for commercialization once appropriate EPA/CARB testing can be performed 

to verify the results. We would appreciate your recommendations for introducing this technology to the 

EPA, DOE and other interested government agencies.

Have a Great Day,

Gary W Burke

Sr. Consultant

ADP Holdings

858-212-1630 (p)
### §931. Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to reestablish a statutory procedure to enforce a rule of budget neutrality on new revenue and direct spending legislation.

(Pub. L. 111–139, title I, §2, Feb. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 8.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title I of Pub. L. 111–139, Feb. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 8, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 111–139, title I, §1, Feb. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 8, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter and amending sections 639, 900, 905, and 906 of this title] may be cited as the 'Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010'."
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-02 January 7, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NOTE TO EDITORS -- NEWS BRIEFING ON POINT BEACH:

NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach will meet with the

news media following a meeting Friday (January 10) with utility

representatives to discuss findings of a recent NRC team

inspection at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Station.

The news briefing will follow the meeting which begins at 10

a.m. in the Two Creeks Town Hall at Highway 42 and Tapawingo Road

north of Two Rivers. A second meeting between NRC officials and

representatives of Wisconsin Electric Power Co. will be at 12:30

p.m. Both meetings are open to public observation.

The inspection by the 10-person NRC team began December 2 at

the Point Beach plant near Two Rivers, Wisconsin. The team spent

two weeks at the plant and then continued its inspection during

the week of December 16 at the utility's corporate offices in

Milwaukee.

The 10 a.m. meeting will discuss the preliminary findings of

the team inspection. The 12:30 p.m. meeting will focus on issues

to be resolved prior to restarting Unit 2 at the plant. Unit 2

has been shut down since October of last year for refueling and

for replacement of its steam generators.

#####
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

RIV: 99-27 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson June 29, 1999

OFFICE: 817-860-8128

PAGER: 888-876-2331

E-Mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC PROPOSES $8,800 FINE FOR ANVIL CORP.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a civil penalty of $8,800

against the Anvil Corp., of Bellingham, Washington, for violating radiography safety rules that

resulted in two employees receiving radiation exposures in excess of federal limits.

Radiography is an industrial procedure in which radiation is used to inspect the welds on

piping and other metal components in much the way an X-ray is taken in medical applications.

The safety violations occurred on November 20, 1998, at a company job site in Billings,

Montana. A radioactive source was mistakenly left partially outside the shielded area of a

radiography camera after use. Two workers operating the camera received substantial

radiation exposures when they failed to follow basic radiation safety practices.

The radiographer’s assistant received 11.8 rem, giving him a total annual radiation dose

of 12.8 rem, and the radiographer received 3.9 rem, giving him a 5.7 rem annual radiation dose.

Federal limits restrict the annual dose to a radiation worker to a maximum of five rem. A “rem”

is the unit used to measure radiation exposure. In this case, the workers did not experience

any immediate adverse health effects.

In its investigation of this incident, the NRC found that the radiographer failed to

adequately supervise his assistant during radiography operations, neither worker adequately

performed a required survey to be sure the radioactive source was fully shielded, and one

worker failed to wear an operating personal dosimetry instrument during radiographic

operations.

In a letter to Vern Grenier, Anvil’s manager in Bellingham, NRC Regional Administrator

Ellis W. Merschoff, said, “. . . because of the significance which the NRC assigns to radiation

doses in excess of NRC limits, which were preventable by basic radiation safety practices, the

NRC has decided . . . to impose a civil penalty. . .But for your actions in response to this event,

the penalty would have been substantially higher.”

Anvil reported the incident to the NRC, conducted a thorough investigation and

improved the safety of its operations.

The incident was judged to be a Severity Level II problem on the NRC’s four-level scale,

with Level I being the most serious. A Severity Level II problem has a base civil penalty of

$8,800 for radiography license holders.
###