alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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-01-032 July 20, 2001 

 

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

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

NRC PLANS ADDITIONAL INSPECTION AT OCONEE NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT DUE TO MULTIPLE PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has completed its significance determination of

an inspection finding at Duke Energyís Oconee nuclear plant near Seneca, South Carolina, related to

the adequacy of the plantís tornado mitigation procedures, and concluded that the finding was White

(low to moderate safety significance).

In March of this year, the NRC conducted an inspection at the Oconee plant, and inspectors

identified that the licensee had not corrected deficiencies in the implementation of the plantís tornado

mitigation strategies. Specifically, because of the location of some equipment, plant personnel would

be unable, in a sufficient amount of time, to align a pump to provide lake water to the steam generators

should such water be needed to mitigate the effects of an accident during a tornado. 

This finding and another tornado mitigation related White finding in the same time period both

affect the mitigation systems cornerstone (a cornerstone is one of seven specific areas the NRC uses to

measure plant performance) on Unit 1, resulting in a degraded cornerstone. As a result of the degraded

cornerstone, the NRC staff will perform an additional inspection at the Oconee plant to better

understand the causes contributing to these performance issues. 

The safety significance of each NRC inspection finding is characterized by a color -- green,

white, yellow, or red. The agency response to the inspection findings is based on the significance of the

items. A green finding receives normal NRC oversight, while white, yellow, or red assessments result

in increasing NRC involvement, including additional inspections.

The NRC cited the Oconee plant for a violation related to the finding, and Duke Energy has 30

days to respond to that notice of violation. 

###
#### § 158.29 Decision by port director.

When the application and evidence have been received and examined by the port director, he shall determine whether the desired abatement or refund of duty shall be made and notify the importer of his decision.
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. 02-087 August 9, 2002

 NRC RECOMMENDS SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTIONS

 FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR VESSEL HEADS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent a bulletin to companies that hold licenses for

operating pressurized water reactors (PWRs) advising them they may need to supplement inspection

programs for reactor vessel heads.

The discoveries of cracked and leaking vessel head penetration nozzles at several PWRs and

significant corrosion of the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in Oak Harbor,

Ohio, have raised concerns about the adequacy of current inspection programs that primarily rely on

visual examinations to identify nozzle cracking, boric acid leakage, and corrosion. The concerns

prompted NRC to issue the bulletin to the nation’s 69 PWR licensees. 

On August 3, 2001, NRC sent a bulletin to the licensees that described the discoveries of

circumferentially cracked and leaking penetration nozzles in reactor pressure vessel heads. In response

to that bulletin, PWR licensees provided their plans for inspecting their reactor pressure vessel head

penetration nozzles and/or the outside surface of the reactor pressure vessel head to determine whether

the nozzles were leaking. Following the discovery of vessel head degradation at Davis-Besse, the NRC

issued a bulletin on March 18, 2002 requiring PWR licensees to supply additional information on vessel

head inspection programs. 

NRC staff has analyzed the data supplied by the PWR licensees in response to the March 18

bulletin and concluded that inspection programs that primarily rely on visual examinations may need to

be supplemented with volumetric or surface examinations. The bulletin provides suggested inspection

schedules and examples of acceptable supplemental inspection techniques. These include the use of

ultrasound, electric currents, and liquid dyes to check for cracking and corrosion in metal structures.

The bulletin requests that within 30 days licensees provide written responses, describing their

plans for future inspections.

A copy of the bulletin is available from the NRC Public Document Room, Washington, D.C.

20555; telephone: 301/415-4737 or 800/397-4209. A copy will be available electronically through the

NRC's web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation.html
The staff of the NRC will meet August 23 in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss the bulletin with

the Nuclear Energy Institute and PWR licensees. The meeting, which is open to public observation and

participation at designated points, will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. at the agency’s One White

Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting contact is Michael

Marshall at (301) 415-2734.

 Interested individuals may listen to the meeting via telephone by calling: (888) 566-5771 and

 entering passcode 31063 at the prompt. One hundred and fifty phone lines will be available. 

###
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128967 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, THOMAS CODDINGTON, Justices 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v SC: 128967 

 COA: 260269 

Oakland CC: 2000-026955-CK 

SPECIALIZED VEHICLES, INC., and 

2468 ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., 

Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees, 

and 

GARY H. CUNNINGHAM,

Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 23,
2001(except for Note 8, as to which the date is March 30, 2001), with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Teligent, Inc. (on May 21, 2001,
Teligent, Inc. filed for protection under the United States bankruptcy laws, see
Note 18 (unaudited) to the consolidated financial statements) included in Form
10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2000 and the related financial statement
schedule included therein, in the Registration Statement Number 333-45005 on
Form S-8, Registration Number 333-93241 on Form S-8, and Registration Number
333-52456 on Form S-8.

                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

McLean, Virginia
June 29, 2001
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5031

## A Revised Logistic Regression Equation and an Automated Procedure for Mappingthe Probability of a Stream Flowing Perennially in Massachusetts

by Gardner C.  Bent and Peter A. Steeves

In cooperation with theMassachusetts Department of Environmental ProtectionBureau of Resource ProtectionWetlands and Waterways Program

----

On-line version of this report:

Entire Report (except Appendix 2): SIR 2006-5031 [3.3 MB PDF] 

Appendix 2 [25.2-MB Zip file for use in ArcReader. You will need to open **maps** --> **pmf** -->  **Shawsheen.pmf**.]
§ 1201.172 Organization of Special Panel; designation of members. ( a ) A Special Panel is composed of: ( 1 ) A Chairman, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose term is six (6) years;
( 2 ) One member of the Board, designated by the Chairman of the Board each time a Panel is convened;
( 3 ) One member of the Commission, designated by the Chairman of the Commission each time a Panel is convened.
( b ) *Designation of Special Panel members* — ( 1 ) *Time of designation.* Within 5 days of certification of a case to a Special Panel, the Chairman of Board and the Chairman of the Commission each will designate one member from his or her agency to serve on the Special Panel.
( 2 ) *Manner of designation.* Letters designating the Panel members will be served on the Chairman of the Panel and on the parties to the appeal.
In the Senate of the United States,

October 17, 2003.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1516) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of five additional cemeteries in the National Cemetery System.’’, do pass

with the following

AMENDMENTS:

1 Ω1æPage 2, line 8, strike out øfive¿ and insert: six

2 Ω2æPage 2, after line 18, insert:

3 (6) The Sarasota County, Florida, area.

4 Ω3æPage 3, line 17, strike out øfive¿ and insert: six

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to provide

for the establishment by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of additional cemeteries in the National Cemetery

Administration.’’

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1516

AMENDMENTS
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

No. II-03-037 July 18, 2003

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

McCOY NAMED NRC SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR 

AT SURRY NUCLEAR PLANT

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in the Region II office in Atlanta have

announced the promotion of Gerald (Gerry) McCoy to the Senior Resident Inspector at the Surry

nuclear power plant in Surry, Virginia. McCoy had been the Resident Inspector at Surry. 

McCoy joined the NRC as a project engineer in the Region II office in September 1997. He

was then assigned as a Resident Inspector at the Surry plant, where he has worked until his promotion. 

Prior to joining the NRC, McCoy worked as an engineer for ADI Technology Corp, an engineering

firm in Arlington, Virginia. He also served in the United States Navy as a submarine officer. McCoy

holds a bachelor of science degree in physics from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

McCoy, his wife Barbara and their sons Dan and Sean live in Williamsburg.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has assigned NRC resident inspectors who 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. 

McCoy joins Site Secretary Kathy Lippard at the Surry plant, and the NRC office there can be

reached at 757-357-2101.

###
§ 132.23 Partial release procedure. ( a ) *Notification of quota restrictions.* If because of quota restrictions, a mail importation cannot be released, the director of the port of destination shall notify the addressee on Customs Form 3509 of the procedure required by paragraph (b) of this section, and shall inform the addressee that upon return of the Acknowledgement of Delivery by Postal Service, the packages admissible under the absolute quota will be forwarded to him and the restricted packages will be returned to the sender as inadmissible. The port director may at his discretion hold packages if it appears that the absolute quota will reopen in less than 30 days.
( b ) *Acknowledgement of delivery.* An Acknowledgement of Delivery by Postal Service shall be sent to the addressee. He shall be advised that if he desires to secure release of less than the total number of packages of the merchandise, the Acknowledgement of Delivery by Postal Service must be signed by him and returned to the port director. Such Acknowledgment of Delivery by Postal Service shall be in the following form: Acknowledgment of Delivery by Postal Service
In consideration of the fact that certain articles in a mail importation consisting of

(state number) packages mailed to me by ________________________ (name of sender) of ____________________________ (address) on ________________ (date of mailing), are subject to quota restrictions under which only a portion of such articles may be admitted to entry at one time, and the Postal Service permits no division of the importation before delivery thereof, and since I am desirous of receiving the packages of such importation which are admissible to entry under the quota administered by the United States Customs, I hereby agree and acknowledge that delivery of the package or packages to the United States Customs shall be regarded as delivery by the Postal Service to me. (Signature of addressee)
( c ) *Agreement to less than full delivery.* If, in any case, the sender of a mail package has indicated his agreement to the delivery of less than the entire importation at one time, an Acknowledgment of Delivery by Postal Service need not be secured from the addressee.
( d ) *Deposit required.* If a portion of a mail shipment may be released, the port director may require a deposit of an amount sufficient to defray the expenses of repacking merchandise for shipment by mail to the addressee. The shipment shall be under Government frank without new postage.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08978**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08978\08978_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08978\08978_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08978\08978_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08978\08978_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08978\08978_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08978\08978_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

08978\Certification Statement Plant ID 08978.pdf Plant certification statement x 08978\Supplemental Documents\08978_Fayette A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08978\Supplemental Documents\08978_Fayette A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
### 54FR1726

1725 Federal Register / Vol. "64, No. 10 1 Tuesday, January 17, 1989 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 'Office oTtonservation and Renewable Energy 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. CJ RM

-87-102J Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing . Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for Three Types of Consumer Products AGENCY: Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, DOE. Amos: Proposed rule: correction,
SUMMARY . On December 2,1988 (53 FR 48798), DOE published a proposed rule to consider amending the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; to establish standards for small gas furnaces and to consider establishing standards for television sets, This document corrects an error concerning refrigerator-freezers in that notice. FOR FURTHER tNFORMATLON CONTACT: Michael J. McCabe, (202) 588-9127. Issued in Washington, DC. January 9, IM. John R Berg, Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy. PART 430- { ORRECTEDI On page 48809, the standard level 19.1 AV + 499, under level 2 of Table 3-1, should be 19.1 AV x-399. JFR Dec. 89-1049 Filed 1-13-89; 8:45 am) bILUNG coos s..sa-oi-M 

### 54FR1726

1726 Federal Register 

## I Vol. "64, No. 10 

## f Tuesday, January 17, 1989 

## I Proposed 

### Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ""Office 

### of"'Conservation and

Renewable Energy 

### 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No.

# ~~7-102J Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed Rulemaklng and PublIC Hearing" Regarding Energy Conservation Standards forThree

### Types of Consumer Products " 

### AOENcvi Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. DOE. ACTION: Proposedrule; correction. SUMMARV; 

### OnDecember Z. 1988 (53 

### FR 48798), 

### DOE published a proposed 

### rule to consider amending the energy conservation standards 

### for refrigerators. refrigerator-freezers. and freezers; to establish standards for small gas furnaces and to consider establishing standards for television sets. This document corrects an error concerning refrigerator-freezers in that noUce. "OR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### MichE!el 

## J. McCabe. (ZOZj5a6-91Z7.

Issued in Washington, 

### DC. January 9.1989. 

### John R. Berg, AssistantSecretary. Conservation and RenewableEn£'l'8Y. 

### PART 43G-{CORRECTEO)

On 

### page 48009. the standard level 19.1 AV+499, under level ZtlCTable 3-1. should be 19.1 AV +399. IFR Doc. 89-1049 Filed 1-13-00; 8:45 am} 8tUING COD£ M$O-O,

.... 

### '"
,
AAM-13-342-E

April 25, 2013

 Exemption No. 10234A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0268

Mr. Keith Deschambeault

Acadian Seaplanes, LLC

2640 Main Street, P.O. Box 987

Rangeley, MA 04970

Dear Mr. Deschambeault:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10234. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 22, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Acadian Seaplanes, LLC (Acadian Seaplanes) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow

Acadian Seaplanes, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Acadian Seaplanes.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10234

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Acadian Seaplanes are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Acadian Seaplanes part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
§ 4.6 Departure or unlading before report or entry. ( a ) No vessel which has arrived within the limits of any Customs port from a foreign port or place shall depart or attempt to depart, except from stress of weather or other necessity, without reporting and making entry as required in this part. These requirements shall not apply to vessels merely passing through waters within the limits of a Customs port in the ordinary course of a voyage.
( b ) The “limits of any Customs port” as used herein are those described in § 101.3(b) of this chapter, including the marginal waters to the 3-mile limit on the seaboard and the waters to the boundary line on the northern and southern boundaries.
( c ) Violation of this provision may result in the master being liable for certain civil penalties and the vessel to arrest and forfeiture, as provided under 19 U.S.C. 1436, in addition to other penalties applicable under other provisions of law.
[T.D. 93-96, 58 FR 67316, Dec. 21, 1993, as amended by T.D. 98-74, 63 FR 51287, Sept. 25, 1998]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-03-0100 -  Rulemaking Plan on Post-Fire Protection Manual Actions

Accession Number: ML023180628

Date Released: Wednesday, July 2, 2003

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML023180599 - SECY-03-0100 - Rulemaking Plan on Post-Fire Protection Manual Actions (8 page(s), 6/17/2003)
    - ML023180613 - SP03-0100Atch - Rulemaking Plan on Post-Fire Protection Manual Actions, Revision to Appendix R of 10 CFR Part 50 (16 page(s), 6/17/2003)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 14 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Hol li s Dev in Mart z,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt ,

v. Ojiu go Iko , Doct or , Varn er Un it ; LaSo nya Gris wol d, Nu rs e, Varn er Un it ; Deb or ah L. York , HSA, Varne r Uni t; Mel an ie Jo ne s Fo st er, Do ct or , Wrig ht sv il le Uni t,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s - P in e Bl uf f

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ly 3, 20 15 Fi le d: Ju ly 17, 2 01 5 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Ark an sa s in m at e Hol li s Martz ap pe al s th e di st ric t co urt’s in te rlo cu to ry or de r 1 de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n in th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n. Afte r
care fu l revi ew of th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts on ap pe al , we con cl ud e th at th e di stric t cou rt di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 12 92 (a)( 1) (ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ); St

. Lo uis Effo rt fo r AIDS v. Huf f , 78 2 F.3d 10 16 , 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (s ta nd a r d o f r e v i e w); Datap ha se Sys., In c. v. CL Sys., In c. , 64 0 F.2 d 10 9, 11 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ) (enba nc ) (p rel im in ary-inju nc ti on fact or s)

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le D.P. Mar sh al l, Jr ., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep ort an d reco m m en da t i o n s of th e Hon or ab le Je ro m e T. Kearn ey , Uni te d St at es Mag is t r a t e Ju dg e fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. -2

-