alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# June 2012 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML12180A093

Date Released: Tuesday, July 17, 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.
    - ML12180A082 - June 2012 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of The Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (3 page(s), 7/13/2012)
    - ML12180A086 - Enclosures: June 2012 Report on The Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of The Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (30 page(s), 7/13/2012)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 841.416 Contents of a request for reconsideration of the supplemental liability. ( a ) To request reconsideration of the amount payable with respect to the supplemental liability, the Secretary of the Treasury or the Postmaster General must file with OPM— ( 1 ) A signed letter of appeal summarizing the basis of the request; and
( 2 ) An actuarial report that contains a detailed actuarial analysis of the request.
( b ) The actuarial report must— ( 1 ) Be signed by an actuary;
( 2 ) Specifically present any data and development of assumptions related to the request for reconsideration;
( 3 ) Use each of the demographic factors listed in § 841.404; and
( 4 ) Use the economic assumptions under § 841.414(b). When a request is based in whole or in part on a pattern of merit salary increases, the report may include an analysis of the economic assumptions concerning salary and wage growth to take into account the combined effect of merit and general wage and salary growth.
[82 FR 49281, Oct. 25, 2017]
#### Edith C. PETERSON, Appellant, v. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, Inc., Appellee.

No. 14879.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 16, 1954.

Frank Vaughan, Guy Bonham, San-Antonio, Tex., for appellant.

Frank M. Wilson, Waco, Tex., for ap-pellee.

Before HOLMES and STRUM, Circuit Judges, and THOMAS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
§ 2002.3 Section 301 Committee. ( a ) There is hereby established, as a subordinate body of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, the Section 301 Committee. The Chairman of the Section 301 Committee shall be designated by the Deputy Special Representative from the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations. The Committee shall consist of the Chairman and, with respect to each complaint, such members as may be designated by agencies which have an interest in the issues raised by the particular complaint and whose participation is invited by the Chairman of the Committee.
( b ) The Section 301 Committee performs the following functions unless such functions are assigned to a different body by the Special Representative, or his designee: ( 1 ) Reviews complaints received pursuant to section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
( 2 ) Provides an opportunity by the holding of public hearings upon request by a complainant or an interested party, as appropriate, and by such other means as the Special Representative, a Deputy Special Representative or the Chairman of the section 301 Committee deems appropriate, for any interested party to present his views to the section 301 Committee concerning foreign restrictions, acts, policies, and practices affecting U.S. commerce, and United States actions in response thereto, as provided for in section 301 of the Trade Act (Pub. L. 93-618, 88 Stat. 1978).
( 3 ) Reports to the Trade Policy Staff Committee the results of reviews and hearings conducted with respect to complaints received pursuant to section 301 of the Trade Act.
( 4 ) On the basis of its review of petitions filed under section 301 and of the views received through hearings or otherwise on such petitions, makes recommendations to the TPSC for review by that committee.
[40 FR 39497, Aug. 28, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 55611, Oct. 18, 1977]
NRC RENEWS OPERATING LICENSE FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating license for the Pilgrim 

Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., for an additional 20 years. The new license will 

expire June 8, 2032.

The decision to renew the license comes after thorough safety and environmental reviews 

of the application submitted by the plant’s operator, Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., on 

Jan. 27, 2006. Pilgrim is a boiling-water reactor.

Motions to reopen the adjudicatory hearing contesting the license renewal application are 

pending before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Commission. Under NRC 

policy, a decision to issue a renewed license before a hearing’s completion requires the approval 

of the Commission. That approval was granted in a Staff Requirements Memorandum issued 

May 25.

Without the license renewal, Entergy could continue to operate the Pilgrim reactor after 

its license expires on June 8 under “timely renewal” provisions in NRC regulations, which would 

keep the current license in effect while the adjudication continues. Renewal of the license means 

new license conditions take effect, requiring Entergy to implement age-management policies and 

programs designed to ensure safety during the period of extended operations.

During the review of Entergy’s license renewal application, the NRC held several public 

meetings near the plant to explain the environmental and safety reviews. The NRC staff 

published a final Safety Evaluation Report in June 2007, plus supplements in September 2007 

and July 2011. The final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was issued in July 2007. 

After reviewing the plant’s safety systems and specifications, the staff concluded that 

there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal and that the applicant had 

effectively demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging. The review 

processes included several inspections and audits at the plant conducted by NRC staff to verify 

information provided in the application.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-063 May 29, 2012
The safety and environmental review reports, as well as other documents relating to the 

Pilgrim license renewal application, are available on the NRC website.

Pilgrim is the 73rd reactor license renewed by the NRC. A complete listing of renewal 

applications may be found on the NRC website.

###

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.
Editorial Note on Part 400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 400 appear at 78 FR 69289, Nov. 19, 2013.

§ 400.29 Application fees. ( a ) *In general.* This section sets forth a uniform system of charges in the form of fees to recover some costs incurred by the Foreign-Trade Zones staff of the Department of Commerce in processing the applications listed in paragraph (b) of this section. The legal authority for the fees is 31 U.S.C. 9701, which provides for the collection of user fees by agencies of the Federal Government.
( b ) *Uniform system of user fee charges.* The following fee schedule establishes fees for certain types of applications and requests for authority on the basis of their estimated average processing time. ( 1 ) Additional zones (§ 400.21; § 400.11(a)(2))—$3,200.
( 2 ) Subzones (§ 400.25): ( i ) Not involving production activity or involving production activity with fewer than three products—$4,000.
( ii ) Production activity with three or more products—$6,500.
( 3 ) Expansions (§ 400.24(b))—$1,600.
( c ) *Timing and manner of payment.* Application fees shall be paid prior to the FTZ Board docketing an application and in a manner specified by the Executive Secretary.
[77 FR 12139, Feb. 28, 2012, as amended at 89 FR 8528, Feb. 8, 2024]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2577

To require the Comptroller General to conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on price controls of foreign governments on pharmaceuticals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2003

Mr. BURGESS (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of Utah) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To require the Comptroller General to conduct a study and 

submit to Congress a report on price controls of foreign 

governments on pharmaceuticals.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT ON FOREIGN PRICE CON4 TROLS ON PHARMACEUTICALS. 

5 (a) STUDY.—The Comptroller General shall conduct 

6 a study on—

7 (1) the impact of price controls of foreign gov8 ernments on pharmaceuticals, including the impact 
2

•HR 2577 IH 

1 of such price controls on full market access for 

2 United States pharmaceuticals and on increased 

3 prices for pharmaceuticals generally for United 

4 States consumers; and 

5 (2) the extent to which negotiations conducted 

6 by the United States Trade Representative under 

7 the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 

8 2002 (title XXI of division B of the Trade Act of 

9 2002) facilitate the elimination of such price con10 trols of foreign governments on pharmaceuticals. 

11 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

12 of the enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, 

13 the Comptroller General shall prepare and submit to Con14 gress a report that contains the results of the study con15 ducted under subsection (a) for the preceding 1- or 5-year 

16 period (as the case may be).

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 15
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 15 appear at 62 FR 19669, Apr. 23, 1997.

§ 15.23 Definitions. ( a ) *Active duty.* Full-time duty in the NOAA Corps.
( b ) *Authorized person.* Any agent or attorney of any state having in effect a plan approved under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651-664), who has the duty or authority to seek recovery of any amounts owed as child or child and spousal support (including, when authorized under the state plan, any official of a political subdivision); and the court that has authority to issue an order against a member for the support and maintenance of a child or any agent of such court.
( c ) *Child support.* Periodic payments for the support and maintenance of a child or children, subject to and in accordance with state or local law. This includes but is not limited to, payments to provide for health, education, recreation, and clothing or to meet other specific needs of such a child or children.
( d ) *Designated official.* The official who is designated to receive notices of failure to make payments from an authorized person (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section). For the Department of Commerce this official is the Assistant General Counsel for Administration.
( e ) *Notice.* A court order, letter, or similar documentation issued by an authorized person providing notification that a member has failed to make periodic support payments under a support order.
( f ) *Spousal support.* Periodic payments for the support and maintenance of a spouse or former spouse, in accordance with state and local law. It includes, but is not limited to, separate maintenance, alimony while litigation continues, and maintenance. Spousal support does not include any payment for transfer of property or its value by an individual to his or her spouse or former spouse in compliance with any community property settlement, equitable distribution of property, or other division of property between spouses or former spouses.
( g ) *Support order.* Any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or by administrative procedures established under state law that affords substantial due process and is subject to judicial review. A court of competent jurisdiction includes: ( 1 ) Indian tribal courts within any state, territory, or possession of the United States and the District of Columbia; and
( 2 ) a court in any foreign country with which the United States has entered into an agreement that requires the United States to honor the notice.
# L_2023004EN.01008301.xml

| 5.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 4/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 4/83

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 246/2019

of 27 September 2019

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms [2023/51]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to include Decision (EU) 2019/420 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2019 amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to include Decision (EU) 2019/420 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2019 amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (1).

| (2) | Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly in order to allow for that extended cooperation to take place from 21 March 2019, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly in order to allow for that extended cooperation to take place from 21 March 2019,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following sub-indent shall be added in the indent (Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Article 10(8)(d) of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32019 D 0420: Decision (EU) 2019/420 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2019 amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 77I, 20.3.2019, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32019 D 0420: Decision (EU) 2019/420 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2019 amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 77I, 20.3.2019, p. 1).’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement (*1).

It shall apply from 21 March 2019.

Article 3

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, 27 September 2019.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gunnar PÁLSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 77I, 20.3.2019, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

South Central Florida Express, Inc.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board 

regarding the status of the South Central Florida Express, Inc.,

(SCFE) as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C.

§231 et sea.) (RRA) and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45

U.S.C. §351 et sea. ) (RUIA) . SCFE has not previously been

determined to be an employer under the RRA and the RUIA.

■Information about SCFE was furnished by Mr. Dick Conley, of SCFE.

SCFE began operations on September 17, 1994 . On September 17,

1994, SCFE had seventeen employees who were first compensated on

that date. SCFE operates over 100 miles of track as a common

carrier interchanging with two railroads, CSX Transportation in

Sebring, Florida, and the Florida East Coast Railway in Lake

Harbor, Florida. SCFE also operates over twenty-one miles of track

of the Florida East Coast Railway. SCFE has eight locomotives and

fifty six freight cars.

Section 1(a) (1) of the RRA defines the term "employer" to include:

Section 1(a) of the RUIA (45 U.S.C. § 351(a)) contains essentially

the same definition.

The evidence establishes that SCFE is a carrier operating in

interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that SCFE

became a rail carrier employer under the Railroad Retirement and

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts effective September 17, 1994,

the date on which it first compensated employees..

(i) any express company, sleeping car

company, and carrier by railroad, subject to

subchapter I of chapter 105 of Title 49; * * *

[45 USC § 231(a)(1)]

Glen L. Bower

V. MSpeakman, .

Jerome F. Kever

BCD 1995-4 BA # 5554
#### § 721.3 Destruction or disposal of records.

If BIS or other authorized U.S. government agency makes a formal or informal request for a certain record or records, such record or records may not be destroyed or disposed of without the written authorization of the requesting entity.
#### Rubin Shaps, Respondent, v. Harold Baker et al., Defendants, and Lenox Bake Shop, Inc., et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
§ 785.16 Decisions. ( a ) *Recommended decision and order.* After considering the entire record in the case, the ALJ will issue a recommended decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. The decision will include findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision based thereon as to whether the respondent has violated the Act. If the ALJ finds that the evidence of record is insufficient to sustain a finding that a violation has occurred with respect to one or more allegations, the ALJ shall order dismissal of the allegation(s) in whole or in part, as appropriate. If the ALJ finds that one or more violations have been committed, the ALJ shall issue an order imposing administrative sanctions.
( b ) *Factors considered in assessing penalties.* In determining the amount of a civil penalty, the ALJ shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s), and, with respect to the respondent, the respondent's ability to pay the penalty, the effect of a civil penalty on the respondent's ability to continue to do business, the respondent's history of prior violations, and such other matters as justice may require.
( c ) *Referral of recommended decision and order.* The ALJ shall immediately issue and serve the recommended decision (and order, if appropriate) to the Office of Chief Counsel, at the address in § 785.6(b) of the APR, and to the respondent, by courier delivery or overnight mail. The recommended decision and order will also be referred to the head of the designated executive agency for final decision and order.
( d ) *Final decision and order.* The recommended decision and order shall become the final agency decision and order unless, within 60 calendar days, the Secretary of Commerce, or a designated United States Government official, modifies or vacates it, or unless an appeal has been filed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
( e ) *Appeals.* The respondent may appeal the final agency decision within 30 calendar days after the date of certification. Petitions for appeal may be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the Court of Appeals for the district in which the violation occurred.
#### Ezra Somekh, Respondent, v. Sheffield Novik et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Novik & Company, Appellants. (Consolidated Action No. 1.) Sheffield Novik, Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Novik & Company, Appellants, v. Ezra Somekh, Respondent. Sheffield Novik et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Novik *&*Company, Third Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Ruppert Heitler et al., Third Party Defendants-Respondents. (Third Party Action No. 2.) Ruppert Heitler, Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Herman H. Berman, Third Party Defendant-Respondent. (Third Party Action No. 3.)

Order unanimously modified so as to permit the discovery and inspection by any person or persons to be selected by the appellants to he held, in the case of the shipment in Teheran, Iran, in the presence of a representative furnished by the official Lloyd’s Agency and provided that whatever samples are drawn shall he sealed by the Lloyd’s surveyor and be forwarded to the New York County Clerk by air mail. As to the lots of merchandise which are warehoused in New York City the inspection shall he in the presence of a person to he selected by the defendant-respondent [Somekh], This order shall be granted on the further condition that the trial be not postponed later than May 24, 1948, by reason of such inspections and examinations and on the further condition that the party seeking the examination stipulate in writing to be filed with the County Clerk of New York County that the certificate of the examination in Teheran, may he received in evidence without the taking of the deposition or the production in court as a witness of the person making the examination. As so modified the order is affirmed, without costs. Settle order on one day’s notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2501 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2501

To clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Cape Fear 
                              Unit NC-07P.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2003

 Mr. McIntyre introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Cape Fear 
                              Unit NC-07P.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
              MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The 2 maps subtitled ``NC-07P'', relating to the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal Barrier 
Resources System Cape Fear Unit NC-07P, that are included in the set of 
maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and referred to in 
section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), 
are hereby replaced by 2 other maps relating to those units entitled 
``Coastal Barrier Resources System Cape Fear Unit, NC-07P'' and dated 
February 18, 2003.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
maps referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for inspection 
in accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) of the Coastal 
Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
                                 <all>
```
#### Michael D. Lester et al., Doing Business as Copartners under the Name of Lester & Co., v. Kurt Offenberger et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 752.]
#### Carrie Shookhoff, as Administratrix of the Estate of Theodore S. Shookhoff, Deceased, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.