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, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

 

No. 06-024 February 13, 2006

NRC TERMINATES ACHP CONSULTATION,

PREPARES TO ISSUE LICENSE TO PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has formally terminated its consultation with the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and other agencies regarding the protection of

historic sites potentially impacted by a proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Skull Valley,

Utah, and is preparing to issue a license to Private Fuel Storage, LLC.

On Sept. 9, 2005, the Commission concluded the agency’s adjudication over the PFS license

application and authorized the agency staff to issue a license upon resolution of any outstanding issues.

One matter that remained to be resolved was completion of consultations with other federal and state

agencies and other parties aimed at concluding a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) concerning the

identification and protection of historic sites under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

On Nov. 22, 2005, the NRC informed the ACHP that, as permitted by the ACHP’s regulations,

it was terminating the consultation process because of a decision by the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer not to sign the MOA at that time. The

NRC indicated that it would include the substantive terms of the MOA, which PFS had agreed to

undertake, as conditions in the final license.

The ACHP provided comments to NRC in a letter dated Jan. 9, 2006, indicating it had no

objection to the substantive provisions of the agreement or to the treatment proposed for historic

properties, and it agreed with NRC’s plan to include those provisions as conditions in the license.

In a letter to ACHP Chairman John L. Nau III dated Feb. 10, 2006, NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz,

on behalf of the Commission, provided the NRC’s response to the ACHP’s comments and notified the

ACHP of the NRC’s determination to issue a materials license to PFS. When a license is issued to PFS,

the NRC’s determination will be published in the Federal Register.

Chairman Diaz’ letter to the ACHP effectively concludes the ACHP consultation process.

Accordingly, the agency has provided PFS a draft of the license and has requested comments from PFS

within seven days regarding any errors or omissions. After that review is complete, the NRC will issue

the final license.
PFS, a consortium of utility companies, plans to store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel

from commercial nuclear power plants in dry casks on land leased from the Skull Valley Band of

Goshute Indians, as interim storage before final disposal in an underground repository.

The license will not authorize PFS to begin immediate construction of the facility. Rather, it

conditions construction authorization on the company first arranging for adequate funding. In addition,

PFS must obtain necessary approvals from other agencies, including BLM, the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, and the Surface Transportation Board.

###
#### § 1820.22 Final determination.

The General Counsel will notify the requestor and, when appropriate, the court or other body of the final determination, the reasons for the response to the request or demand, and any conditions that the General Counsel may impose on the testimony of an OSC employee or the release of OSC records or information. The General Counsel has the sole discretion to make the final determination regarding requests to employees for testimony or production of official records and information in litigation in which OSC is not a party. The General Counsel's decision exhausts administrative remedies for purposes of release of the information.
#### Mount Vernon Trust Company and Another, Respondents, v. James T. Penfield, Individually, etc., and Others, Defendants. Susan A. Penfield, Respondent; William W. Penfield, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. 2279 Realty Corporation, Appellant, against Harry B. Chambers et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. [240 West End Ave., Borough of Manhattan.]

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6445

JUMA A. WHITFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. GARMAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-612-3) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juma A. Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Because the appeal is late, we lack jurisdiction to determine whether Whitfield has established grounds for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Juma A. Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 3, 2003. Giving Whitfield the benefit of Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), his notice of appeal was filed on March 12, 2003. Because Whitfield failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We deny Whitfield’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions3 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §1299. State certification of projects

Whenever the Governor of a State which has been delegated sufficient authority to administer the construction grant program under this subchapter in that State certifies to the Administrator that a grant application meets applicable requirements of Federal and State law for assistance under this subchapter, the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such application within 45 days of the date of receipt of such application. If the Administrator does not approve or disapprove such application within 45 days of receipt, the application shall be deemed approved. If the Administrator disapproves such application the Administrator shall state in writing the reasons for such disapproval. Any grant approved or deemed approved under this section shall be subject to amounts provided in appropriation Acts.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title II, §219, as added Pub. L. 97–117, §20, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1631.)
### 2 alternative registered miticid es as identified by BEAD. Tables 1 and 2 provide mammalian and terrestrial plant toxicity data, respectively, on a chemical-by-chemical basi s; the tables are ranked with the most toxic miticides (based on NOAECs or NOAELs) at the top a nd the least toxic at the bottom. The NOAEL and NOAEC are used to estimate chronic dose-based and dietarybased risk, respectively, to listed and non-listed mammals. The NOAEC is used to estimate risk to listed terrestrial plants. Terrestrial plant seed ling emergence toxicity data are not available for all of the miticides considered. Therefore, the data for terrestrial plants do not represent a complete picture of toxicity to this taxon. It shou ld be noted that lower t oxicity values represent miticides that are more toxic.

Table 1. Comparison of Mammalian Chroni c NOAECs and NOAELs for Cyflumetofen and Other Miticides

Chemical PC Code NOAEL # (mg/kg-bw) NOAEC # (mg/kg-diet) MRID

Abamectin 122804 0.12 2.4* 00265576 Emamectin benzoate 122806 0.6 12* 42851511 Bifenazate 000586 1* 20 45076503 Bifenthrin 128825 1.5* 30 00005336 Fenproximate 129131 1.5* 30 43429506 Spirodiclofen 124871 5.2 128 45696802, 45696709 Cyflumetofen 138831 9.21 150 48542702 Etoxazole 107091 20 400* 45090007 Hexythiazox 128849 120* 2400 00147578

# The NOAEL and NOAEC are used to es timate chronic dose-based and dietary- based risk, respectively, to listed mammals. * Endpoint estimated based on the assumption that 1 mg/kg-bw = 20 mg/kg-diet



### Table 2. Comparison of Terrestrial Plant Endpo ints for Cyflumetofen and Other Miticides

Chemical PC Code Monocots MRID Dicots MRID

NOAEC* (lb a.i./A) EC 25 (lb a.i./A) NOAEC* (lb a.i./A) EC 25 (lb a.i./A) Cyflumetofen 138831 <0.0007** ND** 48542933 0.0007 0.0363 48542933 Etoxazole 107091 0.06 >0.06 45621623 0.06 >0.06 45621623 Spirodiclofen 124871 0.14 0.25 45697028 ND >0.36 45696925 Hexythiazox 128849 <0.21 <0.21 47433305 <0.16 <0.16 48211801 Fenproximate 129131 0.3 >0.30 45649809 0.3 >0.30 45649809 Bifenazate 000586 >2.0 >2.0 45052217 >2 .0 >2.0 45052217 Abamectin 122804 No data NA No data NA Bifenthrin 128825 No data NA No data NA Emamectin benzoate 122806 No data NA No data NA ND: not determined; NA: not applicable * The NOAEC is used to estimate risk to listed terrestrial plants. Therefore, the miticides are ranked based on their NOAECs from lowest (most toxic) to highest (least toxic). ** The registrant recently submitted a summary of a new seedling emergence study with oat. These endpoints may change when EFED completes the review of this study.
### §1515. Citizen civil action

#### (a) Equitable relief; case or controversy; district court jurisdiction

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person may commence a civil action for equitable relief on his own behalf, whenever such action constitutes a case or controversy—

(1) against any person (including (A) the United States, and (B) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter or any condition of a license issued pursuant to this chapter; or

(2) against the Secretary where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Secretary. Any action brought against the Secretary under this paragraph shall be brought in the district court for the District of Columbia or the district of the appropriate adjacent coastal State.

In suits brought under this chapter, the district court shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce any provision of this chapter or any condition of a license issued pursuant to this chapter, or to order the Secretary to perform such act or duty, as the case may be.

#### (b) Notice; intervention of right by person

No civil action may be commenced—

(1) under subsection (a)(1) of this section—

(A) prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice of the violation (i) to the Secretary and (ii) to any alleged violator; or

(B) if the Secretary or the Attorney General has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action with respect to such matters in a court of the United States, but in any such action any person may intervene as a matter of right; or

(2) under subsection (a)(2) of this section prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Secretary.

Notice under this subsection shall be given in such a manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation.

#### (c) Intervention of right by Secretary or Attorney General

In any action under this section, the Secretary or the Attorney General, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of right.

#### (d) Costs of litigation; attorney and witness fees

The Court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party whenever the court determines that such an award is appropriate.

#### (e) Statutory or common law rights unaffected

Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement or to seek any other relief.

(Pub. L. 93–627, §16, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2140.)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1535

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the mid-quarter 

convention for depreciable property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2003

Mr. ENGLISH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the mid-quarter convention for depreciable property.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF MID-QUARTER CONVENTION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 168 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applicable 

6 convention) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and re7 designating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3). 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 168(d)(3) 

9 of such Code (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is amend10 ed by striking subparagraph (C). 
2

•HR 1535 IH 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
§ 2635.202 General prohibition on solicitation or acceptance of gifts. ( a ) *Prohibition on soliciting gifts.* Except as provided in this subpart, an employee may not, directly or indirectly: ( 1 ) Solicit a gift from a prohibited source; or
( 2 ) Solicit a gift to be given because of the employee's official position.
( b ) *Prohibition on accepting gifts.* Except as provided in this subpart, an employee may not, directly or indirectly: ( 1 ) Accept a gift from a prohibited source; or
( 2 ) Accept a gift given because of the employee's official position.
( c ) *Relationship to illegal gratuities statute.* A gift accepted pursuant to an exception found in this subpart will not constitute an illegal gratuity otherwise prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B), unless it is accepted in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. As more fully described in § 2635.205(d)(1), an employee may not solicit or accept a gift if to do so would be prohibited by the Federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201(b). *Example 1 to paragraph (c):* A Government contractor who specializes in information technology software has offered an employee of the Department of Energy's information technology acquisition division a $15 gift card to a local restaurant if the employee will recommend to the agency's contracting officer that the agency select the contractor's products during the next acquisition. Even though the gift card is less than $20, the employee may not accept the gift under § 2635.204(a) because it is conditional upon official action by the employee. Pursuant to this paragraph (c) and § 2635.205(a), notwithstanding any exception to the rules in this part, an employee may not accept a gift in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-01-0074 - Approval to Publish Generic License Renewal Guidance Documents

Accession Number: ML011130506

Date Released: Friday, May 4, 2001

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.
    - ML010990201 - SECY-01-0074 -  Approval to Publish Generic License Renewal Guidance Documents (7 page(s), 4/26/2001)
    - ML011070105 - SECY-01-0074-Attachment 1- RG 1.188, "Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses" (9 page(s), 4/26/2001)
    - ML011130496 - SECY-01-0074-Attachment 2 - NUREG-1800, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" (1 page(s), 4/23/2001)
    - ML011130527 - SECY-01-0074-Attachment 3  -  NUREG-1801, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report" (1 page(s), 4/23/2001)
    - ML011130542 - SECY-01-0074-Attachment 4 -  NUREG-1739, "Analysis of Public Comments on the Improved License Renewal Guidance Documents" (1 page(s), 4/26/2001)
    - ML011150312 - SECY-01-0074 -Attachment 5- Federal Register Notice (6 page(s), 4/26/2001)

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

                                                                    

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            48,528
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,460
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  72,116
<CASH>                                          45,554
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               3,937
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         170,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,406,822
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 63,846
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              1,046
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,109,825
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,500
<COMMON>                                         4,502
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,406,822
<PREMIUMS>                                       2,150
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,563
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,051
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     106
<BENEFITS>                                       1,505
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      2,532
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,017
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,617
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,617
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 63196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24116]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34597]


Progressive Rail, Incorporated--Lease and Operation Exemption--
Rail Line of Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Progressive Rail, Incorporated (PGR), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from 
Union Pacific Railroad Company and operate 38.3 miles of rail line 
consisting of the Cameron Line that extends between milepost 50.00 at 
or near Cameron and milepost 11.70 at or near Norma, in Barron and 
Chippewa Counties, WI.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rail line in the instant transaction connects in Barron 
County, WI, to a rail line that is the subject of a concurrently 
filed notice of exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34596, Wisconsin 
Northern Railroad Company, LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail 
Lines of Wisconsin Central, Ltd., wherein Wisconsin Northern 
Railroad Company (WNRC) has sought to lease and operate 
approximately 23.97 miles of rail line in Barron County, WI. PGR is 
the parent company of WNRC. However, by letter filed on October 15, 
2004, WNRC has requested withdrawal of its notice, indicating that 
PGR proposes to file a new notice in its own behalf to lease and 
operate the 23.97 miles of rail line in Barron County to avoid the 
common control situation that otherwise would occur and require 
Board approval. The withdrawal request was granted by decision 
served October 22, 2004, in that proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PGR certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this 
transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I 
rail carrier. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated no sooner 
than October 12, 2004, the effective date of the exemption (7 days 
after the exemption was filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34597, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on: Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 208 
South LaSalle St., Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604-1112.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: October 22, 2004.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-24116 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
#### In the Matter of Harold M. Axley et al., Respondents, against John F. O’Connell et al., Individually and as Members of the State Liquor Authority, Appellants.

We think the refusal of the State Liquor Authority to renew petitioners’ restaurant liquor license was not an abuse of its authority. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies
that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of BUCA, Inc.

Date: March 27, 2006



/s/ Wallace B. DoolinWallace B. DoolinChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Kaye R. OLearyKaye R. OLearyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)