alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27136]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
From the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, To Be Included in the 
Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and 
Human Services.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: NIOSH gives notice of a decision to evaluate a petition to 
designate a class of employees from the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests 
can also be submitted by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ace8efedffecefe8ef82ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0145424052414245422f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: 42 CFR 83.9-83.12. Pursuant to 42 
CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being 
evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as 
follows:

    Facility: Y-12 Plant.
    Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: ``All employees of the Department 
of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and 
subcontractors who worked at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 
during the period from January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1976, 
for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, 
occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with 
work days within the parameters established for one or more other 
classes of employees in the SEC.''
    Period of Employment: January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1976.

Frank J. Hearl,
Chief of Staff, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-27136 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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-03-034 June 11, 2003

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING WITH PROGRESS ENERGY JUNE 27

TO DISCUSS SECOND ROBINSON LICENSE RENEWAL INSPECTION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Progress Energy management at

8:30 a.m. on Friday, June 27, in Hartsville, South Carolina, to discuss the results of the agency’s

second inspection of the plant’s license renewal program.

The meeting will be held at the Hartsville Memorial Library, located at 147 West College

Avenue in Hartsville and will be open to public observation. NRC officials will be available prior to

the close of the meeting to answer questions from interested observers. A report on the inspection will

be issued approximately 45 days after the meeting and will be available to the public.

The inspection is being conducted from June 9 until June 27 and is the second license renewal

review at Robinson, conducted to verify that programs are in place to manage the material condition of

the plant’s systems, structures and components. 

The NRC conducted a similar meeting at Hartsville on April 4 to discuss results of the agency’s

initial inspection of the Robinson license renewal program. Progress Energy filed an application to

renew the Robinson operating license in June of 2002. 

###
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                              <C>
Hermes Europe Railtel (Holdings) B.V.            --- The Netherlands

Beheer-en Beleggingsmaatschappij Vesto B.V.      --- The Netherlands

Hermes Europe Railtel (Ireland) Limited          --- Ireland

Hermes Europe Railtel (Network) Limited          --- Ireland

HER Network Services B.V.B.A                     --- Belgium

Hermes Europe Railtel (UK) Limited               --- United Kingdom

Hermes Europe Raitel (Germany) GmbH              --- Germany

Hermes Europe Railtel (France) Sarl              --- France

Hermes Europe Railtel (Italy) s.r.l.             --- Italy

Hermes Europe Railtel (Spain) S.L                --- Spain
</TABLE>
U.S.DepartmentofTransportationDocketManagementSystem1200NewJerseyAve.,SEWashington,DC20590October30,2014Re:AmendmenttoExemption11067issuedpursuanttoSection333oftheFAAReformActandPart11oftheFederalAviationRegulationsinRegulatoryDocketNo.FAA-2014-0357.DearSirorMadam;PictorvisionInc.wasissuedanExemptionnumbered11067(hereinaftertheExemption)forthepurposeofconductingscripted,closed-setfilmingforthemotionpictureandtelevisionindustry.PictorvisionInc.herbyrequestsanamendmenttotheExemptiontoallow2additionalmodelsofunmannedaircraftsystem(UAS)thatfullycomplieswiththeconditionsoftheExemption.PictorvisionInc.wishestooperatetwoadditionalvariationsofthesUAS(modelsnumberPV-HL1andPV-HL2)underthesametermsandconditionscontainedintheExemption.Attachedhereto,andsubmittedasaconfidentialdocument,istheFlightOperationsandProceduresManual(FOPM)fortheadditionalUAS.AlloperationsoftheadditionalUASwillbeinfullcompliancewiththetermsoftheExemption.Asthisisanamendmenttoanexistingexemptionaskingforonlytheadditionof2similarmodelsofunmannedaerialvehicle,PictorvisionInc.respectfullysubmitsthatgoodcauseexistssothatnoticedoesnotneedtobepublishedintheFederalRegisterfortherequestedamendment.PleasecontacttheundersignedshouldyouhaveanyquestionconcerningthisrequestforanamendmenttotheExemption.cc:JamesWilliamsRobertPappasJakeTroutmanJohnMcGrawJonathanB.Hill111298720v1Sincerelyyours,TomHallmanPresidentPictorvisionInc.818-785-9282
### §1308. Telephone and metered services

Charges for telephone and metered services (such as gas, electricity, water, and steam) for a time period beginning in one fiscal year or allotment period and ending in another fiscal year or allotment period may be charged against the appropriation or allotment current at the end of the time period covered by the service.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 919.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1308 | 31:668a. | Apr. 27, 1937, ch. 143, 50 Stat. 119; restated Apr. 26, 1939, ch. 103, 53 Stat. 624. |

The words "On and after April 27, 1937" are omitted as executed. The words "Charges for telephone and metered services" are substituted for "in making payments for commodities or services the quantity of which is determined by metered readings . . . and for telephone services" to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "another fiscal year or allotment period" are substituted for "another", and the words "time period covered by the service" are substituted for "such period", for clarity.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50437

Conference Calendar

 

LEE ROGER SIMPSON, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THOMAS B. SEHON; KATHRYN J. “JODY” GILLIAM;

LESLIE B. VANCE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-01-CV-185

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lee Roger Simpson, Texas prisoner # 642385, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Simpson’s motion to

expedite the appeal is DENIED. The district court determined

that Simpson’s action was barred by Texas’s two-year statute of

limitations, and that this would constitute Simpson’s third

strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
No. 02-50437

-2-

Simpson argues generally that the district court abused

procedures to defeat his damage claims against the defendants,

but he does not mention or make any specific arguments concerning

the basis of the district court’s dismissal that his claims were

barred by the statute of limitations. Simpson does not address

the merits of the district court's opinion. Failure to identify

any error in the district court's analysis or application to the

facts of the case is the same as if the appellant had not

appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Simpson’s

appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal

is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

This court dismissed Simpson’s appeal as frivolous in

Simpson v. Pamplin, No. 96-50794 (5th Cir. Apr. 9, 1998). The

district court dismissed Simpson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous in Simpson v. Amos, No. 98-CV-338 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 24,

1998). His appeal in that case, No. 98-41521, was dismissed for

failure to pay the docketing fee and to comply with the district

court’s order requiring authorization consent forms. Thus, the

district court’s dismissal as frivolous in that case stands as a

strike. The district court’s dismissal as frivolous in this

case, and this court’s dismissal of this appeal as frivolous

constitute his third and fourth strikes. Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Therefore, Simpson is now
No. 02-50437

-3-

barred from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) while

incarcerated.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED; MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph F. McKenna, Appellant.

*977Ho opinion. Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SIMIONE CENTRAL HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,532,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,957,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,114,937
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               583,636
<PP&E>                                       1,787,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,532,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,756,920
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,972
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,357,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,532,507
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,427,921
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,478,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,257,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                643,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            643,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   643,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


MULTIMEDIA GAMES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Multimedia Games, Inc.
     Registration on Form S-3

   
We are aware that our report dated February 7, 1997 on our review of the
interim financial information of Multimedia Games, Inc. for the period ended
December 31, 1996, and included in this Form 10-QSB/A is incorporated by
reference in the Company's registration statement on Form S-3 (File No.
333-16729). Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this
report should not be considered a part of the registration statement prepared
or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.
    



COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Tulsa, Oklahoma
   
May 28, 1997
Order entered August 2 1, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01421
- CR STACY STINE CARY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. 366
- 81637
- 2011



### O RDER
The Court DENIES as moot appellant’s August 1 9 , 2013 motion to extend time to file a reply brief. As stated in our order of August 19, 2013, a ppellant’s reply brief was filed within
the seven

- day period provided by this Court’s order of August 8, 2013.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-04-0190 - Final Rule:  Security Requirements for Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct Material (RIN 3150-AH06)

Accession Number: ML040780976

Date Released: Wednesday, November 3, 2004

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.
    - ML042670021 - SECY-04-0190 - Final Rule:  Security Requirements For Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct Material (RIN 3150-AH06) (14 page(s), 10/19/2004)
    - ML031950239 - SRM-SECY-03-0092 - Proposed Rule - Enhanced Security Requirements for Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct Material. (1 page(s), 7/14/2003)
    - ML042670032 - SECY-04-0190-Attachment 3 - Federal Register Notice - Final Rule:  Security Requirements For Portable Gauges Containing Byproduct Material (33 page(s), 10/19/2004)
    - ML042670049 - SECY-04-0190-Attachment 4-Regulatory Analysis for Amendment to 10 CFR 30:  Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material for Security Requirements for Portable Gauges (19 page(s), 10/19/2004)
    - ML042670060 - SECY-04-0190-Attachment 5- Environmental Assessment - Final - Finding No Significant Impact For the Final Rule Amending 10 CFR Part 30 - Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material - Portable Gauge Rule (5 page(s), 10/19/2004)
    - ML042940384 - SECY-04-0190-Attachment 2 - Federal Register for Proposed Rule (68 FR 45172) (5 page(s), 7/28/2003)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         469,350
<SECURITIES>                                   139,650
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                   134,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,225,946
<PP&E>                                       3,841,425
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,390,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,537,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          844,466
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,770,000
<COMMON>                                           599
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,951,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,537,410
<SALES>                                         70,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,027
<CGS>                                          672,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,666,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,714,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    80,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,634,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,634,623)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.15)


</TABLE>
#### § 1204.22 Decision on appeal.

A decision on an appeal will be made within 20 workdays after the appeal is received. A decision not to provide expeditious processing of a request will be made within 15 workdays after the appeal is received. The decision will be in writing and will contain the reasons for the decision and information about the appellant's right to seek court review of the denial.
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-820

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

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-081 June 16, 2003 

 NRC TO HOLD MEETING ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ISSUES

 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, ON JULY 22

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding a meeting in Rockville, Md., on July 22

to discuss ways of improving the exchange of information with the public. The meeting is

designed to provide a forum to obtain, as well as share, more detail on issues of concern

identified by the agency’s stakeholders and to discuss possible solutions. 

The meeting, which will be held in Room 14-B8 of the agency’s One White Flint North

building, begins at 8:30 a.m. and is scheduled to adjourn at 12:15 p.m.

Among the topics to be discussed are the availability of agency information, the

development of a centralized electronic site listing all issues on which the NRC has requested

public comment, and suggestions on how the NRC can better demonstrate its evaluation of

public comments once it reaches a decision. 

A complete agenda for the meeting is attached. For more information, please contact

Chip Cameron at 301-415-1642, or via e-mail, FXC@nrc.gov .
 -2-

 AGENDA FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ISSUES MEETING

8:30 a.m. Meeting Objectives

8:45 a.m. Availability of Information

-- Timely entry of incoming correspondence into the Agency-wide 

 Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

-- Timely entry of completed NRC documents into ADAMS.

 -- More effective use of electronic distribution of documents to the public.

10:00 a.m. Break

10:15 a.m. Development of an NRC staff contact list on various activities.

 

10:45 a.m. Development of a centralized electronic site listing all issues on which

NRC has requested public comment, with dates and contacts.

11:15 a.m. Suggestions as to how the NRC can better demonstrate its evaluation of

public comments in reaching a decision.

11:45 a.m. Comments on NRC’s revised policy on public meetings.

12:15 p.m. Adjournment

 ###
§ 1620.13 Retroactive contributions. ( a ) An employing authority can make retroactive employer contributions on behalf of FERS employees described in this subpart, but cannot duplicate employer contributions already made to the TSP.
( b ) An employing authority making retroactive employing agency contributions on behalf of a FERS employee described in § 1620.12 must continue those contributions (but only to the extent they relate to service with the employing authority) if the employee returns to his or her agency of record or is transferred to another Federal agency without a break in service.
( c ) CSRS and FERS employees covered by this subpart can make retroactive employee contributions relating to periods of service described in § 1620.12, unless they already have been given the opportunity to make contributions for these periods of service.
Jonathan Taylor UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105



## JAN 14 

## 2014

Branch Chief, Transportation Planning Branch, California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, California 95812 Subject: Use ofSan Joaquin Valley Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Recession Adjustment Methodology
DearMr. Taylor:
I am responding to your letter ofSeptember 23, 2011, requesting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval ofa Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Recession Adjustment Methodology in the San Joaquin Valley, California. The methodology would apply to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) whentheyuse the EMF AC2011 model for regional emissions analyses in transportation conformity determinations.
After reviewing the technical documentation, and consulting with your staff, EPA Region 9 approves the HeavyDuty Diesel Vehicle VMTRecession Adjustment Methodology as an acceptable method for adjusting VMTdata. Our approval is limited to use ofthe methodology with EMFAC2011 and in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment areas. We understand that the adjustment factors inthe methodology are based on updated statewide diesel fuel usage and economic forecasts. However, ARB has onlyrequested use ofthe methodology in the San Joaquin Valleynonattainment areas since these adjustments were incorporated into the area's 2012 PM2.5 and 2013 ozone attainment demonstrations. We further understand EMFAC2011 is in the process ofbeing updated and expect that update to incorporate updated fuel usage and economic forecasts andthe updated vehicle fleet. Therefore we do not anticipate use ofthis methodology once EMFAC is updated and approved for use in California.
Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (415) 972-3851 orKarina O'Connor at (775) 434-8176. Sincerely, 

# /}}f.h.--

# tJ

**~1~L-** Matthew Lakin Manager, Planning Office
Exhibit 23


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 Audit Committee, Board of Directors and Stockholders
 Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc.
 Springfield, Missouri
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-47241, 333-31196, 333-65544, 333-83822 and 333-117918 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-157634 on Form S-3 of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2010, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2009.
  /s/BKD, LLP
   Springfield, Missouri
 March 30, 2010