alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC CLARIFIES ACCEPTANCE PROCESS 

FOR NEW REACTOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 

clarifying the agency’s procedures for accepting applications for a Combined License (COL) to 

build and operate a new nuclear power plant. 

In particular, the RIS describes an expanded 60-day “acceptance review” every COL 

application will go through, ensuring it is complete and technically sufficient for a full review, 

before the staff decides whether to “docket,” or formally accept the application. This expansion, 

from the general 30-day acceptance review, is one of several recommendations from an agency 

task force that sought to identify possible efficiencies in the new reactor licensing process. The 

Commission voted in June to adopt several of those recommendations 

(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2007/07-080.html ). In its decision, the 

Commission also stated the staff’s overall review schedule for a COL application should start at 

the point of docketing, not during the 60-day acceptance review. 

The RIS also informs potential applicants that the Office of New Reactors has issued 

formal staff guidance for conducting an acceptance review. This guidance includes information 

on how the NRC will consider issues, such as departures from a certified design or alternative 

methods for meeting regulatory requirements, when developing an application-specific review 

schedule. 

 The RIS is available on the NRC’s Web site here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/gen-comm/reg-issues/2007/ . More information on the NRC’s new reactor licensing 

process is available here: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-licensing.html . 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

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 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 07-169 December 20, 2007
#### § 2634.905 Use of alternative procedures.

Agencies are encouraged to consider whether an alternative procedure would allow the agency to more effectively assess possible conflicts of interest. With the prior written approval of OGE, an agency may use an alternative procedure in lieu of filing the OGE Form 450. The alternative procedure may be an agency-specific form to be filed in place thereof. An agency must submit for approval a description of its proposed alternative procedure to OGE.

# Example 1:

A nonsupervisory auditor at an agency is regularly assigned to cases involving possible loan improprieties by financial institutions. Prior to undertaking each enforcement review, the auditor reviews the file to determine if she has a conflict of interest. After determining that she has no conflict of interest, she signs and dates a certification which verifies that she has reviewed the file and has made such a determination. She then files the certification with the head of her auditing division at the agency. On the other hand, if she cannot execute the certification, she informs the head of her auditing division. In response, the division will either reassign the case or review the conflicting interest to determine whether a waiver would be appropriate. This alternative procedure, if approved by the Office of Government Ethics in writing, may be used in lieu of requiring the auditor to file a confidential financial disclosure report.

# Example 2:

To reduce its workload, an agency proposes that employees may file a statement certifying there has been no change in reportable information and no change in the filer's position and duties and attaching the most recent OGE Form 450. This alternative procedure, if approved by the Office of Government Ethics in writing, may be used in lieu of requiring the filer to complete an OGE Form 450.
#### § 550.141 Authorization of premium pay on an annual basis.

An agency may pay premium pay on an annual basis, instead of the premium pay prescribed in this subpart for regularly scheduled overtime, night, holiday, and Sunday work, to an employee in a position requiring him or her regularly to remain at, or within the confines of, his or her station during longer than ordinary periods of duty, a substantial part of which consists of remaining in a standby status rather than performing work. Premium pay under this section is determined as an appropriate percentage, not in excess of 25 percent, of that part of the employee's rate of basic pay which does not exceed the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-10 (including any applicable locality-based comparability payment under 5 U.S.C. 5304 or special rate of pay under 5 U.S.C. 5305 or similar provision of law).

[56 FR 20342, May 3, 1991, as amended at 61 FR 3542, Feb. 1, 1996]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-05-0048 -  Petition for Rulemaking on Protection of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Against Radiological Sabotage (PRM-50-80)

Accession Number: ML043270400

Date Released: Thursday, November 17, 2005

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.
    - ML043270383 - SECY-05-0048 - Petition for Rulemaking on Protection of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Against Radiological Sabotage (PRM-50-80) (8 page(s), 3/28/2005)
    - ML043280033 - SECY-05-0048Atch 1: FRN: Petition for Rulemaking on Protection of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Against Radiological Sabotage (PRM-50-80) (12 page(s), 3/28/2005)
    - ML043280098 - SECY-05-0048Atch2 -  Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-80: Better Protection of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Against Radiological Sabotage, Letter to Petitioners (3 page(s), 3/28/2005)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
# L_2017300EN.01006501.xml

| 16.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 300/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 300/65

---

NOTE TO THE READER

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 67/2016 has been withdrawn prior to adoption and is therefore blank.

---
§ 831.1110 Initial decision. ( a ) Upon completion of a hearing pursuant to § 831.1106, the presiding officer shall make and file an initial decision, a copy of which shall be served on each party or counsel by certified or registered mail.
( b ) The initial decision shall include a statement of findings and conclusions, with the reasons therefor, and shall be based upon a consideration of the entire record.
( c ) The initial decision shall become the final decision of OPM unless the case is appealed or reviewed pursuant to § 831.1111.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1947

To ensure that members of the Armed Forces who are married and have 

minor dependents are eligible for military family housing containing 

more than two bedrooms. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2003

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. 

TOWNS, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. OSE, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To ensure that members of the Armed Forces who are married and have minor dependents are eligible for military 

family housing containing more than two bedrooms.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Armed Forces Housing 

5 Improvement Act’’. 
2

•HR 1947 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR MARRIED MEMBERS OF 

2 THE ARMED FORCES WITH MINOR DEPEND3 ENTS. 

4 (a) MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS.—(1) A mem5 ber of the Armed Forces who has a spouse and at least 

6 one dependent under the age of nineteen residing with the 

7 member shall be eligible for installation housing con8 taining at least three bedrooms, regardless of the grade, 

9 rank, or rating of the member, and installation housing 

10 containing less than three bedrooms shall be considered 

11 to be inadequate housing for such a member. 

12 (2) The actual occupancy of installation housing de13 scribed in paragraph (1) by a member described in such 

14 paragraph shall be subject to availability. 

15 (b) REVISION OF HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS AND

16 FAMILY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretaries of 

17 the military departments shall require the military base 

18 housing office for each military installation to review and 

19 revise its housing market analysis and military family 

20 housing requirements in order to accommodate the policy 

21 specified in subsection (a)(1). 

22 (c) CONDITIONS ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR

23 FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION.—Funds appropriated 

24 before the effective date of this Act for the construction 

25 of military family housing, and unobligated by that date, 
3

•HR 1947 IH 

1 may not be obligated until the Secretaries of the military 

2 departments certify to Congress that—

3 (1) the housing market analysis and military 

4 family housing requirements have been revised as re5 quired by subsection (b); and 

6 (2) the unobligated military housing funds will 

7 be used as part of a plan to accommodate the policy 

8 specified in subsection (a)(1) and implement the out9 come of its revised housing market analysis and 

10 military housing requirements. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

12 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2030 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2030

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ``Patsy Takemoto 
                      Mink Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2030

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ``Patsy Takemoto 
                      Mink Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 
Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 575.112 Internal monitoring requirements and revocation or suspension of authority. ( a ) Each agency must monitor the use of recruitment incentives to ensure that its recruitment incentive plan and the payment of recruitment incentives are consistent with the requirements and criteria established under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and this subpart.
( b ) When OPM finds that an agency is not paying recruitment incentives consistent with the agency's recruitment incentive plan and the criteria established under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and this subpart or otherwise determines that the agency is not using this authority selectively and judiciously, OPM may— ( 1 ) Direct the agency to revoke or suspend the authority granted to any organizational component in the agency and, with respect to any category or categories of employees, require that the component obtain approval from the agency's headquarters level before paying a recruitment incentive to such employees; or
( 2 ) Revoke or suspend the authority granted to the agency under this subpart for all or any part of the agency and, with respect to any category or categories of employees, require that the agency obtain OPM's approval before paying a recruitment incentive to such employees.
SCWC-12-0000762 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

_________________________________________________________________ BRUCE EDWARD COX, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. CARLYN DAVIDSON COX, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000762; FC-D NO. 06-1-0096) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By : Rec kte nwa ld, C. J., Na kayama , McKe nna , P oll ack , a nd Wil son , JJ.)

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals at the time the application for writ of certiorari was filed, see Hawai # i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner/PlaintiffAppellant’s application for writ of certiorari, filed February 27, 2015, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000762 12-MAR-2015 08:33 AM2

application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2014) (“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 12, 2015.
R. Steven Geshell /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioner /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
---

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Eduardo Avila, Chief Financial Officer of Tortuga Mexican
Imports, Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Tortuga Mexican Imports, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to date a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's control over financial reporting.

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.

Date: April 21, 2008

/S/ Eduardo AvilaSignature: Eduardo Avila
Title: Chief Financial Officer

---
Editorial Note on Subpart F of Part 531
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart F of part 531 appear at 70 FR 31305, May 31, 2005.

§ 531.606 Maximum limits on locality rates. ( a ) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, a locality rate may not exceed the rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule.
( b ) ( 1 ) A locality rate for an employee in a category of positions described in 5 U.S.C. 5304(h)(1)(A) and 5304(h)(1)(B) may not exceed the rate for level III of the Executive Schedule.
( 2 ) A locality rate for an employee in a category of positions described in 5 U.S.C. 5304(h)(1)(C) may not exceed— ( i ) The rate for level III of the Executive Schedule, when the positions are not covered by an appraisal system certified under 5 U.S.C. 5307(d); or
( ii ) The rate for level II of the Executive Schedule, when the positions are covered by an appraisal system certified under 5 U.S.C. 5307(d).
( 3 ) A locality rate for an employee in a category of positions described in 5 U.S.C. 5304(h)(1)(D) may not exceed— ( i ) The rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule, when the maximum scheduled annual rate of pay (excluding any retained rate) for such positions is less than or equal to the maximum payable scheduled annual rate of pay for GS-15; or
( ii ) The rate for level III of the Executive Schedule, when the maximum scheduled annual rate of pay (excluding any retained rate) for such positions exceeds the maximum payable scheduled annual rate of pay for GS-15, but is not more than the rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule.
( 4 ) If initial application of paragraph (b)(3) of this section otherwise would reduce an employee's existing locality rate, the employee's locality rate is capped at the higher of— ( i ) The amount of the employee's locality rate on the day before paragraph (b)(3) of this section was initially applied; or
( ii ) The rate for level IV of the Executive Schedule.
( c ) Paragraph (b) of this section does not apply to experts and consultants appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3109 if the pay for those experts and consultants is limited to the highest rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5332 (*i.e.*, the unadjusted maximum GS-15 rate). Such experts and consultants are subject to the pay limitations established in 5 CFR 304.105.
( d ) A portion of a locality payment that is not payable because of an applicable limitation is not considered in applying any other provision of law or regulation.
[70 FR 31304, May 31, 2005, as amended at 76 FR 32863, June 7, 2011]
# L_2018142EN.01001001.xml

| 7.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 142/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 142/10

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 112/2017

of 13 June 2017

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2018/805]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014 of 4 March 2014 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 as regards the 2010 average specific CO2 emissions specified for the manufacturer Great Wall Motor Company Limited (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014 of 4 March 2014 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 as regards the 2010 average specific CO2 emissions specified for the manufacturer Great Wall Motor Company Limited (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 21ayb (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32014 R 0482: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014 of 4 March 2014 (OJ L 138, 13.5.2014, p. 51).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32014 R 0482: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014 of 4 March 2014 (OJ L 138, 13.5.2014, p. 51).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 482/2014 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 14 June 2017, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 111/2017 of 16 June 2017 (2), whichever is the later.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 2017.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 138, 13.5.2014, p. 51.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

(2)  See page 45 of this Official Journal.

2

---
### §643. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts June 28, 1879, ch. 43, §2, 21 Stat. 37; June 25, 1910, ch. 382, §1, 36 Stat. 658; Mar. 1, 1917, ch. 144, §4, 39 Stat. 951, related to compensation of commissioners. See section 702h of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6573

DAVID A. HOSKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES CONGRESS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED 

STATES SUPREME COURT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:11-ct-03186-BO)

Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 26, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Hoskins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David A. Hoskins appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record 

and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss 

the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Hoskins v. United States Cong., No. 5:11-ct-03186-BO (E.D.N.C. 

Mar. 22, 2012). We further deny Hoskins’ motion for transcript 

at government expense. 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.

DISMISSED