alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 400 appear at 78 FR 69289, Nov. 19, 2013.

§ 400.32 Procedures for docketing applications and commencement of case review. ( a ) Once the pre-docketing copy of the application is determined to be sufficient and any fees under § 400.29 have been paid, the Executive Secretary shall within 15 days: ( 1 ) Formally docket the application, thereby initiating the proceeding or review;
( 2 ) Assign a case-docket number; and
( 3 ) Notify the applicant of the formal docketing action.
( b ) After initiating a proceeding based on an application under §§ 400.21 and 400.23 through 400.25, the Executive Secretary shall: ( 1 ) Designate an examiner to conduct a review and prepare a report or memorandum with recommendations for the Board;
( 2 ) Publish in the Federal Register a notice of the formal docketing of the application and initiation of the review. The notice shall include the name of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and an invitation for public comment. If the application requests authority for production activity and indicates that a component to be used in the activity is subject to a trade-related measure or proceeding (e.g., AD/CVD order or proceeding, suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures), the notice shall include that information. For applications to establish or expand a zone or for production authority, the comment period shall normally close 60 days after the date the notice appears. For applications for subzone designation, the comment period shall normally close 40 days after the date the notice appears. However, if a hearing is held (*see* § 400.52), the comment period shall not close prior to 15 days after the date of the hearing. The closing date for general comments shall ordinarily be followed by an additional 15-day period for rebuttal comments. Requests for extensions of a comment period will be considered, subject to the standards of § 400.28(c). Submissions must meet the requirements of § 400.28(b). With the exception of submissions by the applicant, any new evidence or new factual information and any written arguments submitted after the deadlines for comments shall not be considered by the examiner or the Board. Submission by the applicant of new evidence or new factual information may result in the (re)opening of a comment period. A comment period may otherwise be opened or reopened for cause;
( 3 ) Transmit or otherwise make available copies of the docketing notice and the application to CBP;
( 4 ) Arrange for hearings, as appropriate;
( 5 ) Transmit the report and recommendations of the examiner and any comments by CBP to the Board for appropriate action; and
( 6 ) Notify the applicant in writing (via electronic means, where appropriate) and publish notice in the Federal Register of the Board's determination.
( c ) Any comments by CBP pertaining to the application shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary by the conclusion of the public comment period described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
[89 FR 8529, Feb. 8, 2024]
#### § 286.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this program is to enable U.S. industry to satisfy mandated foreign technical requirements using the results of U.S.-based conformity assessment programs that perform technical evaluations comparable in their rigor to practices in the receiving country. Under this program, the Department of Commerce, acting through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, evaluates U.S.-based conformity assessment bodies in order to be able to give assurances to a foreign government that qualifying bodies meet that government's requirements and can provide results that are acceptable to that government. The program is intended to provide a technically-based U.S. approval process for U.S. industry to gain foreign market access; the acceptability of conformity assessment results to the relevant foreign government will be a matter for agreement between the two governments.
1

Springs, Chanel

From: John Miller [jjmiller@intisoid.com]

Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:03 AM

To: thomasjh@comcast.net; Bartlett, Matthew

Subject: RE: Call summary for clarification on Financial Assurance and possible Exemption

Minutes are fine with me. 

Call Summary for Clarification 

on Financial Assurance and 

Possible Exemption

July 13, 2011

Participants:

 NRC 

INIS

Roman Przygodzki, NRC John 

Miller, INIS

Matthew Bartlett, NRC 

Laurie McKenzie-Carter

 Jim 

Thomas, INIS

 Mike 

Davis, INIS

Meeting Summary:

The purpose of the call was to discuss the 

follow-up RAIs for the financial assurance 

review. The NRC staff received 

clarification on several issues including the 

basis for the cost estimates for 

decommissioning the DUF6 Inventory. 

The NRC staff will notify INIS in writing if 

the clarifications need to be docketed. 

The participants also discussed whether 

INIS planes to request an exemption to 

10 CFR 40.36(d) in order to conduct 

incremental funding of the financial 

assurance instruments. The NRC staff 

expressed difficulty envisioning how 

incremental funding would be implemented 

for the INIS process, since the entire 

facility would be involved in operations 

from the beginning. 

The NRC staff acknowledged that a 

sinking fund is allowed under 

10 CFR 40.36(e)(3), provided the balance 
2

in the sinking fund, plus the surety method 

or insurance, is at least as great as the 

decommissioning cost estimate, consistent 

with 40.36(e)(2). INIS discussed the 

possibility of using an environmental 

insurance policy as the surety method. 

The NRC staff recommended INIS provide 

a draft of the surety method prior to 

implementation, in order to identify and 

resolve any concerns before the financial 

instruments are finalized. This may help 

avoid costly modifications.

Sincerely,

Matt Bartlett

Project Manager

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NMSS/FCSS/AFCB

(301)-492-3119

From: Przygodzki, Roman 

Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:57 PM 

To: Bartlett, Matthew 

Subject: RE: Call summary for clarification on 

Financial Assurance and possible Exemption

 

Looks good. Some minor comments for 

your consideration. I don’t think anything in 

your summary is proprietary. 

Regarding INIS’s question concerning the 

amount of assurance provided with an 

external sinking fund, NUREG-1757, 

Volume 3, Appendix A.15.2, Page A-147 

has some additional detail:

• “An external sinking fund must be 

in an amount that, in total, is at 

least equal to the licensee’s 

prescribed amount or estimated 

cost of decommissioning.The 

prepayment mechanism may be 

funded initially in any amount. The 

surety method or insurance must 

then assure the difference between 

the prepaid amount and the 

prescribed amount or estimated 

cost of decommissioning”
No. IV-11-042

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 860-8128

 Lara Uselding (817) 276-6519

 

 September 19, 2011 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD REGULATORY CONFERENCE WITH ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a regulatory conference with representatives 

of Entergy Operations, Inc., on Oct. 3 to discuss a preliminary finding involving the failure to use 

effective engineering controls to protect workers at the Waterford 3 nuclear plant from unnecessary 

radiation exposure. The plant is located near New Orleans, La.

The conference will begin at 9 a.m. at the NRC’s Region IV office, 612 East Lamar Blvd., 

Suite 400, Arlington, Texas. During the conference, the company will have an opportunity to 

address the preliminary finding identified during an NRC inspection. The public is invited to 

observe the meeting. NRC officials will be available before the conclusion of the meeting to answer 

questions.

According to an NRC inspection, officials at the plant failed to use effective engineering 

controls as part of their pre-job planning to reduce contamination and subsequent exposure to 

workers during a refueling outage in the fall of 2009. Specifically, they failed to keep highly 

radioactive water from leaking onto work areas around the reactor coolant pumps, despite having 

knowledge that this could occur. 

NRC regulations require that radiation exposures be limited to As Low As Reasonably 

Achievable. (ALARA). The failure resulted in high levels of radioactive contamination and 

unexpected and unintended radiation doses to plant workers. None of the workers received radiation 

doses in excess of NRC requirements.

The NRC evaluates performance at nuclear plants with a color-coded process which 

classifies regulatory findings as either green, white, yellow, or red, in order of increasing safety 

significance. The NRC has preliminarily determined that the finding was “white,” or of low to 

moderate safety significance.

The decision to hold a regulatory conference does not mean that a final determination has 

been made that a finding has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. The purpose is to 

discuss the preliminary finding, causes and safety significance, to provide the licensee with an 

opportunity to point out any errors, if any, in the NRC inspection report and to enable the company 

to outline its corrective actions.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125

Telephone: (817) 860-8128

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
No decision on the preliminary finding or any contemplated enforcement action will be 

made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later date. 

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link 

on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to 

NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
### §17503. Data collection

(a) Cost Identification and Analysis.—The head of each executive agency shall develop a system to identify, collect, and analyze data with respect to all costs (including obligations and outlays) the agency incurs in the operation, maintenance, acquisition, and disposition of motor vehicles, including vehicles owned or leased by the Federal Government and privately owned vehicles used for official purposes.

(b) Requirements for Data Systems.—

(1) Scope of requirements.—In cooperation with the Comptroller General of the United States and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Administrator of General Services shall prescribe requirements governing the establishment and operation by executive agencies of the systems required by subsection (a), including requirements with respect to data on the costs and uses of motor vehicles and with respect to the uniform collection and submission of the data.

(2) Conformity with principles and standards.—Requirements prescribed under this section shall conform to accounting principles and standards issued by the Comptroller General. Each executive agency shall comply with those requirements.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1284.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 17503 | 40:902. | Pub. L. 99–272, title XV, §15302, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 335. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "including vehicles owned or leased by the Federal Government and privately owned vehicles" are substituted for "Government-owned vehicles, leased vehicles, and privately owned vehicles" for clarity.
EXHIBIT
32.1


DEEP
DOWN, INC.


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Deep Down, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
Ronald E. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By: /s/
RONALD E. SMITH


Ronald E.
Smith


President
and Chief Executive Officer


March 16,
2009
**GAO-02-1119R**                      Published: Sep 20, 2002. Publicly Released: Sep 20, 2002.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements of the Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc., for fiscal year 2001. GAO found no reportable instances of noncompliance. The audit report included the auditors' opinions that the financial statements of the corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

## Full Report

Full Report (2 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Auditing and Financial Management

Audit reportsAuditing standardsFederal corporationsFinancial statement auditsReporting requirementsFinancial statementsVeteransVietnam veteransFederally chartered corporationFinancial management
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Chester High

*Leopold P. DeFusco,*in support of the petition.

Decided February 2, 1988

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 12 Conn. App. 685, is denied.
*^F COPY OFFICIALNOTICEFROM COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS OFTEXAS ~^ > P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

*****• *'•*» 1/12/2016 COA No. 12-14-00160-CR 

### JOHNSON, JOSHE LEESHEENTr. Ct. No. 2013-0719 PD-1299-15 

### This is to serve notice to the court of appeals that this Court granted a motion for extension oftime to file a petition for discretionary review until December 15, 2015. The time for filingthe petition for discretionary review has expired. Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK PAM ESTES 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lewis C. Smith, Respondent. Brooklyn Bar Association, Appellant; Frieda S. Miller, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

*1039Hill, P. J., Bliss and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Sehenek, J., dissents in memorandum, in which Crapser, J., concurs. Sehenek, J. (dissenting). Appellant was incorporated July 2, 1889. Were it to be incorporated today it could just as well state in the certificate as to its purposes that it was to be operated *“*exclusively for * * * charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit ® * 4 ”. It would then be exempt [§ 502, subd. 3, par. (3), cl. (d)]. From the record it appears that its general activities are within the frame of the statute. It renders legal aid to the poor, conducts public radio broadcasts, provides for public lectures on legal as well as public questions, contributes to the Joint Conference on Legal Education, makes recommendation on proposed legislation, assists in arbitration of disputes, conducts a library and holds mock trials, all of which come under the head of charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes. In addition, it hears and conducts the prosecution of grievances against members of the Bar, examines into the unlawful practice of the law, conducts memorials for members of the Bench and Bar, provides entertainment for its own members, gives an annual dinner, conducts golf tournaments and maintains a club room for the convenience of its members and others. Wherein does it differ from a church or any other religious corporation in respect of these additional activities ? Certainly, the religious corporation prosecutes grievances where the clergy are concerned, conducts memorials by whatever name they may be called, whether *1040it be a eulogy from the pulpit or a requiem mass, has church dinners at various times, church and Sunday school picnics for the benefit of its members where games of all kinds are played, and sometimes goes a step beyond this by conducting bingo games and auctions. As I understand the cases, the purposes set forth in the certificate of incorporation rather than the activities carried on govern : *“*To cultivate the science of jurisprudence, to promote reform in the law, to facilitate the administration of justice, to elevate the standards of integrity, honor and courtesy in the legal profession, and to cherish the spirit of brotherhood among the members thereof It would appear that these purposes, with the exception of the last, could be classified as scientific, literary or educational, and certainly, “to cherish the spirit of brotherhood among the members thereof ” clearly comes under the head of “ charitable,” charity meaning brotherly love. The order appealed from should be reversed.
Exhibit 15.3

[Letterhead of Maples and Calder]

NetEase.com, Inc.

26/F, SP Tower D

Tsinghua Science Park Building 8

No. 1
Zhongguancun East Road

Haidian District, Beijing 100084

Peoples Republic of China

29 June
2010

Dear Sirs,

Re:
NetEase.com, Inc. (the Company)

We have acted as legal advisors as to the laws of the Cayman Islands to the Company, an
exempted limited liability company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, in connection with the filing by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of an annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2009.

We hereby consent to the reference of our name under the headings Taxation and Enforcement of Civil Liabilities in
the Form 20-F.



|                     
|---------------------
|Yours faithfully     
|                     
|/s/ Maples and Calder
|Maples and Calder
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-12-0010 - Engagement of Stakeholders Regarding the Events in Japan

Accession Number: ML12006A006

Date Released: Tuesday, February 7, 2012

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.
    - ML12006A013 - SECY-12-0010 - Engagement of Stakeholders Regarding the Events in Japan (12 page(s), 1/23/2012)
    - ML12006A073 - SECY-12-0010 - Enclosure 1: Sampling of Feedback on the Near-Term Task Force Report (3 page(s), 1/23/2012)
    - ML12006A084 - SECY-12-0010 - Enclosure 2: Proposed Charter for External Communications Group (1 page(s), 1/23/2012)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### § 783.3 Reports containing information determined by BIS not to be required by the APR.

If you submit a report and BIS determines that none of the information contained therein is required by the APR, BIS will not process the report and will notify you, either electronically or in writing, explaining the basis for its decision. BIS will not maintain any record of the report. However, BIS will maintain a copy of the notification.
§ 4a.5 Duration of classification. ( a ) Information shall remain classified no longer than ten years from the date of its original classification, unless, in accordance with section 1.5(b) of E.O. 13526, the original classification authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision.
( b ) For Department of Commerce originally classified information marked for an indefinite duration which contains incomplete declassification instructions, or lacks them entirely: ( 1 ) The information shall be declassified in accordance with E.O. 13526 as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under E.O. 13526, or
( 2 ) if the standards for classification under E.O. 13526 are met, the information shall be declassified after 10 years from the date of the original classification, unless the original classification authority determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it remain classified for up to 25 years from the date of the original classification, as provided in section 1.5.(b) of E.O. 13526.
[85 FR 35375, June 10, 2020]