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 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 01-117 October 2, 2001

NRC AMENDS REGULATIONS TO ALLOW USE OF SIMULATORS

TO FULFILL PORTION OF REACTOR OPERATOR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to allow applicants for nuclear

power plant operator licenses the option of using simulators, rather than the controls of actual nuclear

plants, in fulfilling a portion of their experience requirements. 

Over the last 14 years, simulator fidelity, operator training, and simulator testing have improved

significantly. Given these improvements, the NRC is revising its regulations to allow candidates to

perform reactor control manipulations either on a plant-referenced simulator or on the actual plant. The

NRCís requirements will ensure that simulators mimic expected plant performance and that candidates

for operator licenses receive the same overall experience in the principles of safe operation as they

would on the plant itself. Use of simulators will also minimize interruptions of actual plant operations. 

 The changes will eliminate outdated requirements for utility certification of simulation facilities

and eliminate routine submittals to the NRC of simulator performance test reports. However,

performance test results will have to be maintained onsite. The revisions will also allow utilities to

revise their simulator performance testing programs to be compatible with updated industry standards.

 Computerized control room simulators must meet strict requirements and create training and

testing conditions in an environment comparable to those of the actual plant control room. Realistic

scenarios, which mirror situations that could actually occur under certain plant conditions, are

developed and used for testing of applicants. The NRC will maintain the integrity of the operator

training and testing process, confirming simulator suitability through its inspection and operator

licensing processes. 

To obtain an operator license, candidates must possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities

necessary to operate the plant in a safe manner. Eligibility for a reactor operator license calls for a

combination of rigorous education, training and experience. The final rule does not change any of the

current requirements for training. In addition to experience gained on the simulator, candidates for an

operator license will still spend a substantial amount of time under instruction performing the duties of

a licensed operator on the actual plant.
A proposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2000, for public

comments. Changes made as a result of the comments received are discussed in a Federal Register

notice to be published shortly.

###
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-01-028 July 2, 2001 

 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH FP&L NUCLEAR OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS

SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Florida Power & Light

Company officials on Wednesday, July 11, to discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of safety

performance at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant.

The meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m.(EDT) in Room 123 of the Nuclear Training Center at the

plant site on Biscayne Bay at Florida City, near Homestead. The public is invited to observe the

meeting. NRC officials will be available after the meeting to answer questions. The NRC will hold a

second meeting with state and local government officials after the first meeting. That second meeting

is also open to the public.

A letter sent from NRC Region II to FP&L, which addresses plant safety performance during

the previous year and forms the basis of the meeting discussion, is available from the Region II Office

of Public Affairs or on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr . Current information for the plant

is available at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP3/tp3_chart.html

and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP4/tp4_chart.html .

###
### Part A—Organizational Provisions
Fw Vinyl Institute Estimate of Direct Economic Impact of Proposed PVC MACT Rule

 From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org> 

 

 To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen 

Blakey <ablakey@vinylinfo.org>, 

 "Richard M. Doyle" <ddoyle@vinylinfo.org> 

 

 Date: 10/27/2011 03:22 PM 

 

 Subject: Vinyl Institute Estimate of Direct Economic Impact of Proposed PVC MACT Rule 

 

 

Dear Ms. Howard,

The attached document delineates a recently completed estimate of direct

costs that was referred to in part in our August 2, 2011 comments as

further consideration for EPA’s economic impact on the PVC Industry from

the PVC MACT rule as proposed. This is being submitted to further

clarify the Agency’s understanding of the fuller impacts on the resin

producers and their downstream customer base if the rule is promulgated

as proposed.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or additional

information regarding this estimate. Thank you for the opportunity to

submit this important information to EPA.

Sincerely,

Richard Krock

Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

1737 King Street Suite 390

Page 1
Fw Vinyl Institute Estimate of Direct Economic Impact of Proposed PVC MACT Rule

Alexandria, VA 22314

Direct: 571.970.3392

Mobile: 571.216.4474

Fax: 571.970.3271

Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: VI PVC MACT Dirct

Economic Impact Estimate for EPA 10-27-11.pdf)

Page 2
Editorial Note on Part 174
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 174.11 Matters subject to protest. The following decisions of CBP, including the legality of all orders and findings entering into those decisions, may be protested under the provisions of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514): ( a ) *Clerical errors, mistakes of fact, and other inadvertences.* Except as provided for in sections 501 (relating to voluntary reliquidations), 516 (relating to petitions by domestic interested parties), and 520 (related to refunds) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended), any clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence, whether or not resulting from or contained in an electronic submission, that is adverse to the importer in any entry, liquidation or reliquidation is subject to protest. In addition, any entry, liquidation, or other CBP transaction that occurred prior to December 18, 2004, also may be the subject of a reliquidation request made pursuant to the terms set forth in § 173.4 (19 CFR 173.4).
( b ) *Administrative decisions.* CBP administrative decisions involving the following subject matters are subject to protest: ( 1 ) The appraised value of merchandise;
( 2 ) The classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable;
( 3 ) All charges or exactions of whatever character, including the accrual of interest, within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of the Treasury;
( 4 ) The exclusion of merchandise from entry, delivery, or a demand for redelivery to CBP custody under any provision of the customs laws except a determination that may be appealed under 19 U.S.C. 1337;
( 5 ) The liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, or any modification of an entry;
( 6 ) The refusal to pay a claim for drawback;
( 7 ) The refusal to reliquidate an entry made before December 18, 2004, under section 520(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(c)); or
( 8 ) The refusal to reliquidate an entry under section 520(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(d)).
[CBP Dec. 11-02, 76 FR 2577, Jan. 14, 2011]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-6264-SNOW

IN RE: SEALED 

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

_______________________________________/ 

MOTION TO SEAL

COMES NOW, the United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorney, and 

respectfully requests that the foregoing Criminal Complaint, Affidavit in Support of Criminal 

Complaint, Arrest Warrant, and any resulting order be SEALED until the arrest of the defendant, 

excepting the United States Attorney’s Office and Law Enforcement Personnel, which may obtain 

copies of any Criminal Complaint, Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint, Arrest Warrant, 

or other sealed document for purposes of arrest, extradition, or any other necessary cause, for the 

reasons that the integrity of the ongoing investigation might be compromised, and the defendant

and/or any uncharged co-conspirators might flee should knowledge of this Criminal Complaint

become public. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Dated: July 6, 2020____ ROB ZINK

CHIEF

CRIMINAL DIVISION, FRAUD SECTION

BY: __________________________ 

SARA M. CLINGAN

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, Fraud Section

1400 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Phone: (202) 880-2232 

Sara.clingan@usdoj.gov 

jz Jul 6, 2020 FTL

Case 0:20-mj-06264-LSS Document 2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 1 of 1
### §5328. Authority to prescribe regulations

The Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives shall have authority to prescribe regulations for the carrying out of sections 5327 to 5329 of this title.

(Pub. L. 97–51, §101(c), Oct. 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 959; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §204(44), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1736.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 92b–2 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is based on section 2 of House Resolution 804, Ninety-sixth Congress, Oct. 2, 1980, as enacted into permanent law by H.R. 4120, as reported July 9, 1981, which was enacted into permanent law by section 101(c) of Pub. L. 97–51.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "House Oversight of the House of Representatives" for "House Administration".

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.
EXHIBIT 12

                  PRIME MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
              FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND 1999
                                   (Unaudited)




<TABLE>
<S>                                                 <C>                 <C>
($ in thousands)                                     Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                      2000                1999
                                                    -------             -------
Income before income taxes and
     after minority interest                        $10,637             $12,440
Undistributed equity income                             (42)                 (4)
Minority interest income of subsidiaries
     with fixed charges                               5,709               1,278
                                                    -------             -------
Adjusted earnings                                    16,304              13,714
                                                    -------             -------
Interest on debt                                      5,004               4,654
Loan fees                                               107                 -
                                                    -------             -------
Total fixed charges                                   5,111               4,654
                                                    -------             -------
Total available earnings before fixed charges       $21,415             $18,368
                                                    =======             =======
Ratio                                                   4.2                 3.9
                                                    =======             =======







</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ACSYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,178,096                 370,468
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,499,952               9,632,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                   280,825                 427,578
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,643,099              10,350,109
<PP&E>                                       1,647,449               2,898,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                 794,665               1,090,321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,855,142              29,275,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,088,337               6,666,837
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       510,604               7,577,393
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,802,405               1,726,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,855,142              29,275,197
<SALES>                                     45,908,264              58,175,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            45,908,264              58,175,054
<CGS>                                       22,873,091              27,912,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,004,333              28,954,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (69,630)                (66,446)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               286,212                 302,345
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             872,958                 864,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,227,512                 510,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,227,512                 510,391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,227,512                 510,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
### §56. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §203(20)(A), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1728

Section, based on H. Res. No. 418, §2, Ninety-second Congress, May 18, 1971, enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 92–184, ch. IV, Dec. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 636, related to office expenses within District of Columbia of Delegate from District of Columbia.

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

#### Reimbursement of Expenses of House Members; Member of House of Representatives and Member Defined

Section 302(a), (b), and (d) of H. Res. No. 287, Ninety-fifth Congress, Mar. 2, 1977, enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 95–94, title I, §115, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 668, which related to reimbursement to Members of House of Representatives for official expenses incurred in the United States, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §203(20)(B), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1728.
#### § 24.2 Persons authorized to receive Customs collections.

Center directors, port directors, CBP cashiers, CBP officers, CBP dock tellers, and such other officers and employees as the Center director or port director will designate will receive Customs collections.

[CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93015, Dec. 20, 2016]
### §960. Limitation on issuance of temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction

In any proceeding in which the validity of any interim mandatory health or safety standard set forth in subchapters II and III of this chapter is in issue, no justice, judge, or court of the United States shall issue any temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of such standard pending a determination of such issue on its merits.

(Pub. L. 91–173, title V, §513, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 804.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MPW
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES GROUP INC. FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,138
<INVENTORY>                                     14,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,667
<PP&E>                                          89,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,591
<BONDS>                                         83,974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,161
<SALES>                                        115,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,607
<CGS>                                           71,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,753)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (702)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,051)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,604
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,553
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Khaliek FLIPPEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5072.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 1, 2006.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Khaliek Flippen appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eight months’ imprisonment after he admitted to violations of his supervised release. Flip-pen’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in imposing Flippen’s sentence. Although he was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Flippen has not filed a brief. Finding no meritorious issues and no error by the district court, we affirm the revocation order and the sentence imposed.

In light of Flippen’s admission that he violated the terms of his supervision, we find no error by the district court in revoking his supervised release. *See*18 *176U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005); *United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). Flippen challenges the length of the sentence and supervised release term. The eight-month term of incarceration imposed by the district court was within the five-to-eleven-month advisory guideline range and was reasonable. *See United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.2006) (No. 05-4270); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp.2005); *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 7B1.4(a). The forty-two month term of supervised release imposed following the eight-month revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum and was not “plainly unreasonable.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b), (h); 3742(a)(4) (2000).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have independently reviewed the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order revoking Flippen’s supervised release and imposing an eight-month sentence and a forty-two-month supervised release term. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
### §5544. Deposit of House Information Resources reimbursements for services

Effective with respect to fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding fiscal year, any amount received by House Information Resources from any office of the House of Representatives as reimbursement for services provided shall be deposited in the Treasury for credit to the account of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.

(Pub. L. 108–7, div. H, title I, §103, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 354.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 117l of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003, which is div. H of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.