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

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-01-052 December 4, 2001

CONTACT: Breck Henderson 

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC PROPOSES $3,000 FINE FOR

CENTENNIAL ENGINEERING & RESEARCH, INC.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a fine of $3,000 against

Centennial Engineering & Research, Sheridan, Wyoming, for violation of NRC administrative and

radioactive material handling regulations.

An NRC inspector identified three violations in early March. The inspector determined that

Centennial failed to submit a license amendment request prior to designating a new radiation safety

officer (RSO), used radioactive materials at locations not authorized by its license, and failed to ensure

that radioactive material was transferred to a licensed entity.

The violations did not result in radiation overexposure to any workers or members of the

public. However, in failing to submit license amendment requests prior to appointing a new RSO and

storing radioactive materials at a previously unauthorized location, company officials knew they were

not in compliance with the regulations and failed to take action. This led the NRC to classify these

issues as ìwillfulî violations. The company has taken prompt corrective actions by sending the new

RSO to a training course, submitting the required license amendment requests and committing to

adhere to NRC regulations in the future.

Centennial officials met with the NRC in Sheridan on October 4 to discuss the violations. The

NRC has classified the two willful violations as a Severity Level III problem, which carries a $3,000

fine. The agency uses a four-level scale on which Level I is the most serious. 

Centennial is required to respond to the letter and Notice of Violation with actions the company

is taking to assure future compliance with regulatory and license requirements. The company has 30

days to pay the fine or protest it. If the protest is denied, the company may request a hearing by the

NRC.

###
### §62b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 26, 1949, ch. 366, 63 Stat. 482, which related to audits and reports by Comptroller General of fiscal records of House Sergeant at Arms, was transferred to section 81a of this title, and was subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 104–186.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-134 December 24, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC ISSUES ORDER SUSPENDING LICENSE OF CONNECTICUT GAUGE USER

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued an order

suspending the byproduct materials license of Special Testing

Laboratories, Inc. The order is effective immediately.

Special Testing Laboratories in Bethel, Conn., is authorized

to possess and use portable nuclear density gauges. Richard

Speciale is the company’s president and radiation safety officer.

The license was previously issued to Testwell Craig Laboratories

of Connecticut, Inc., but was suspended in July 1996 because of

non-payment of fees. Mr. Speciale was also the president of

Testwell Craig.

In October and November an NRC inspector and investigator

conducted an inspection at Special Testing Laboratories. They

determined that portable gauges were routinely used by some

employees who had not received the required training and some

employees were using the gauges without wearing the required

personnel radiation monitoring devices (dosimetry) and leak tests

of the gauges were not being performed at the required frequency.

During the November visit, the inspector and investigator

determined that Mr. Speciale had provided information to the NRC

regarding the number of gauges being used, and the number of

users and their training that he knew was not complete and

accurate. In addition, Mr. Speciale admitted that he had never

stopped using the nuclear gauges after the Testwell Craig license

was suspended.

In the order, NRC Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory

Effectiveness, Malcolm R. Knapp, said, “Deliberately violating

NRC requirements is significant because the NRC must be able to

rely on the integrity of licensee employees to comply with NRC

requirements.” He said providing false information to the NRC is
of significant concern because the Commission “must be able to

rely on its licensees to provide complete and accurate

information.”

Dr. Knapp said it appears the licensee is “either unwilling

or unable to comply with the Commission’s requirements.”

The order requires that the company suspend all activities

under its NRC license, place all NRC-licensed material in locked

storage, not receive any NRC-licensed material while the order is

in effect, maintain all records in their original form, inform

all employees of the order within two days, provide the NRC with

a list of clients and post the order at the facility within 24

hours.

The licensee or any other person adversely affected by the

order may request a hearing within 20 days. A request for a

hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.

#
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-043 June 27, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC ASSIGNS NEW SR. RESIDENT INSPECTOR TO TMI NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have assigned Daniel Orr as

the Senior Resident Inspector at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. He joins Resident

Inspector Craig Smith at the Middletown, Pa., plant.

Orr joined the NRC as a reactor engineer in the Region I office in February 1997. He was then

assigned as a resident inspector at the Hope Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey. Prior to joining the

Agency, Orr worked as a senior reactor operator at the Dresden nuclear plant in Illinois. He also

served in the United States Navy as a submarine officer.

Orr earned a bachelorís of science degree in electronic engineering from California Polytechnic

State University in San Luis Obispo. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They

serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring

significant work projects and interfacing with plant workers and the public. 

The Three Mile Island resident inspectors can be reached at 717/948-1165.

###
### §6624. Metered charges on copiers; "Sergeant at Arms" and "user" defined; certification of services and equipment as official; deposit of payments; availability for expenditure

(a) As used in this section, the term—

(1) "Sergeant at Arms" means the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the United States Senate; and

(2) "user" means any Senator, Officer of the Senate, Committee, office, or entity provided copiers by the Sergeant at Arms.

(b)(1) Subject to such regulations as may on and after November 5, 1990, be issued by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms shall have the authority, with respect to metered charges on copying equipment provided by the Sergeant at Arms, solely for the purposes of this section, to make such certification as may be necessary to establish such services and equipment as official, issue invoices in conjunction therewith, and receive payment for such services and equipment by certification, voucher, or otherwise.

(2) All moneys, derived from the payment of metered charges on copying equipment provided from funds from the Appropriation Account within the contingent fund of the Senate for "Contingent Expenses, Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate" under the line item for the Service Department, shall be deposited in and made a part of such Appropriation Account and under such line item, and shall be available for expenditure or obligation, or both, in like manner and subject to the same limitations as any other moneys in such account and under such line item.

(Pub. L. 101–520, title I, §4(a), (b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 2257.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This section, referred to in text, means section 4 of Pub. L. 101–520, which enacted this section, amended section 6314 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 6314 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 58a–4 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Congressional Operations Appropriations Act, 1991, which is title I of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1990, see section 4(d) of Pub. L. 101–520, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 6314 of this title.
§ 122.52 Aircraft of foreign origin registered in the U.S. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to commercial aircraft (as defined in § 122.1(d)) of foreign origin registered in the U.S. and arriving in the U.S. from a foreign area.
( b ) *Aircraft entered as an imported article.* If an aircraft covered by this section is entered as an imported article, and any applicable duty for the aircraft has been paid on a prior arrival, it may be allowed to proceed as other than an imported article. In this instance, the aircraft commander must file a declaration that states the: ( 1 ) Port where entry was made;
( 2 ) Date duty, if any, was paid; and
( 3 ) Number of the entry.
( c ) *Aircraft not entered as imported article* — ( 1 ) *Treatment as other than an imported article.* A commercial aircraft covered by this section which has not been entered as an imported article may travel from airport to airport in the U.S. without payment of duty. Each commercial aircraft shall proceed under a permit on Customs Form 7507 or 7509, as provided in § 122.54. Treatment of the aircraft as other than an imported article shall continue for so long as the aircraft: ( i ) Is used only for commercial purposes between the U.S. and foreign areas; and
( ii ) Will leave the U.S. for a foreign destination in commercial use or carrying neither passengers nor cargo.
( 2 ) *Treatment as an imported article.* Any aircraft covered by this section which was not entered as an imported article shall make entry if it: ( i ) Is withdrawn from commercial use between the U.S. and foreign areas; or
( ii ) Is used in the U.S. in a way not reasonably related to efficient commercial use of the aircraft between the U.S. and foreign areas.
( 3 ) *Aircraft damage and duty payment* — ( i ) *Substantial damage to commercial aircraft.* If an accident causes substantial damage to a commercial aircraft, no entry or duty payment is required for any part of the wreckage.
( ii ) *Less than substantial damage and export.* If an accident does not cause substantial damage to a commercial aircraft, salvageable parts of the wrecked aircraft may be exported. In this circumstance, the aircraft, as a whole or in part, is not considered to be withdrawn from commercial use and is not subject to entry or to duty as imported merchandise.
( iii ) *Less than substantial damage and no export.* If an accident does not cause substantial damage to a commercial aircraft and the wrecked aircraft or any salvageable part of it is not exported, then: ( A ) Entry is required to be made for the damaged aircraft or any salvageable part of it; and
( B ) A duty payment, if applicable, based on the condition of the aircraft following the accident, is required.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-03-031 April 8, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO MEET WITH OFFICIALS FROM NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY

TO DISCUSS SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT PALISADES

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials from the Nuclear

Management Company on Friday, April 11, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of the

Palisades nuclear power plant, located in Covert, Michigan.

The meeting will be held at 2 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express, 1741 Phoenix Street, South

Haven, Michigan. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available

before the conclusion of the meeting for questions and comments from the public.

A March 4 letter from the NRC to the Nuclear Management Company addresses plant safety

performance during the previous year and forms the basis for the meeting discussions. The letter

indicates that, overall, Palisades operated safely. 

The letter also indicates that an issue of low to moderate safety significance, identified in 2001,

was successfully resolved by the company in the first two quarters of 2002. This finding was

associated with improper location and installation of smoke detectors. There was another issue of low

to moderate safety significance associated with the plant’s performance during emergency drills. The

NRC conducted a supplemental inspection on this issue in February, 2003. Its results are documented

in Inspection Report 2003-03, which can be accessed on the NRC’s web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Enter accession number ML030650686. 

The letter mentions that the utility’s corrective actions in the area of human performance

successfully resolved this cross-cutting issue, identified in the previous year’s assessment letter.

However, the area of problem identification and resolution, also identified in last year’s assessment,

"will continue to be a substantive cross-cutting issue."

The letter is available from Region III Public Affairs Office and on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/pali_2002q4.pdf.

In addition, the letter notes: "As you are aware, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,

the NRC has issued several Orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities and improve

guard force readiness. We have conducted inspections to review your implementation of these

requirements and have monitored your actions in response to changing threat advisories. For calendar year
2003, we plan to continue these inspections and conduct portions of the security baseline inspection

program, as well as perform additional inspections to evaluate your compliance with new requirements

that may be ordered."

Current performance information for Palisades is available on the NRC web site at: 

Http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALI/pali_chart.html.

###
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

(MIAMI)

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-23402

PINNACLE THREE CORPORATION, and

LEON GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OLEG FIRER, IGOR “GARY” GELMAN, and

STAR EQUITIES, LLC

Defendants.

____________________________________/

DEFENDANT STAR EQUITIES, LLC’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 7.1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 7.1, Defendant STAR EQUITIES, LLC

certifies that it does not have any parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 

10% or more of the stock in Defendant STAR EQUITIES, LLC.

Dated: October 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: s/Steven D. Weber

Steven D. Weber

Fla. Bar. No.: 47543

STARK WEBER PLLC

1221 Brickell Avenue

Suite 900

Miami, FL 33131

Tel: (305) 377-8788

steve@starkweber.com

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 1:20-cv-23402-JEM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 1 of 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 19th day of October, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has 

been served via the Court’s CM/ECF portal to:

Sergiu Gherman 

Fla. Bar No. 37031

sgherman@ghermanlaw.com

Gherman Legal Pllc

25 SE 2nd Ave. Ste. 808

Miami FL 33131-1603

Attorney for Plaintiff

.

By: s/Steven D. Weber

Case 1:20-cv-23402-JEM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 192.12 Criteria for denial of applications requesting AES post-departure (Option 4) filing status; appeal procedures. ( a ) *Approval process.* Applications for the option of filing export commodity information electronically through AES after the vessel has departed (Option 4 filing status) must be unanimously approved by Customs, Census and other participating government agencies. Disapproval by one of the participating agencies will cause rejection of the application.
( b ) *Grounds for denial.* Customs may deny a participant's application for any of the following reasons: ( 1 ) The applicant is not an exporter, as defined in the Census Regulations (15 CFR 30.7(d));
( 2 ) The applicant has a history of non-compliance with export regulations (e.g., exporter has a history of late electronic submission of commodity records or a record of non-submission of required export documentation);
( 3 ) The applicant has been indicted, convicted, or is currently under an investigation, wherein Customs has developed probable cause, for a felony involving any Customs law or any export law administered by another government agency; or
( 4 ) The applicant has made or caused to be made in the “Letter of Intent”, a false or misleading statement or omission with respect to any material fact.
( c ) *Notice of denial; appeal procedures.* Applicants will be notified of approval or denial in writing by Census. (Applicants whose applications are denied by other agencies must contact those agencies for their specific appeal procedures.) Applicants whose applications are denied by Customs will be provided with the specific reason(s) for non-selection. Applicants may challenge Customs decision by following the appeal procedure provided at § 192.13(b).
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.3005 Importer obligations. ( a ) *General.* An importer who makes a claim for preferential tariff treatment under § 10.3003(b): ( 1 ) Will be deemed to have certified that the good is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the CTPA;
( 2 ) Is responsible for the truthfulness of the claim and of all the information and data contained in the certification provided for in § 10.3004; and
( 3 ) Is responsible for submitting any supporting documents requested by CBP, and for the truthfulness of the information contained in those documents. When a certification prepared by an exporter or producer forms the basis of a claim for preferential tariff treatment, and CBP requests the submission of supporting documents, the importer will provide to CBP, or arrange for the direct submission by the exporter or producer of, all information relied on by the exporter or producer in preparing the certification.
( b ) *Information provided by exporter or producer.* The fact that the importer has made a claim or submitted a certification based on information provided by an exporter or producer will not relieve the importer of the responsibility referred to in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Exemption from penalties.* An importer will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 for making an incorrect claim for preferential tariff treatment or submitting an incorrect certification, provided that the importer promptly and voluntarily corrects the claim or certification and pays any duty owing (*see* §§ 10.3031 through 10.3033).
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-042 June 25, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION 

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power on Thursday, June 28, to discuss the results of the agencyís annual assessment of safety

performance at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, will begin at 10 a.m. at the

Vermont Yankee Visitorís Center, at the Governor Hunt House, on Governor Hunt Road, in Vernon,

Vt. . NRC officials will be available afterwards to answer questions.

The performance period to be discussed is April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. Overall, the NRC

found that the plant operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and fully met all

cornerstone objectives during the period. A letter sent from the NRC Region I office to Vermont

Yankee addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting

discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/vermont_eoc2001.pdf.

Current performance information for the Vermont Yankee plant is available on the NRC web

site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VY/vy_chart.html.

###
### §1228. Interagency cooperation

The President shall, by such means as he deems appropriate, clarify agency responsibility for Federal mining and mineral resources research and provide for interagency coordination of such research, including the research authorized by this subchapter. Such coordination shall include—

(1) continuing review of the adequacy of the Government-wide program in mining and mineral resources research;

(2) identification and elimination of duplication and overlap between agency programs;

(3) identification of technical needs in various mining and mineral resources research categories;

(4) recommendations with respect to allocation of technical effort among Federal agencies;

(5) review of technical manpower needs, and findings concerning management policies to improve the quality of the Government-wide research effort; and

(6) actions to facilitate interagency communication at management levels.

(Pub. L. 98–409, §8, Aug. 29, 1984, 98 Stat. 1540.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute Act of 1984, and not as part of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1228, Pub. L. 95–87, title III, §308, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 455, contained provisions similar to this section covering fiscal years 1978 through 1984.
### **CHAPTER 19—LEAD AND ZINC STABILIZATION PROGRAM**
[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**
 
2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:Y 3/2/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000636310
 
November 1, 2017