alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2020319EN.01000101.xml

| 2.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 319/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 319/1

---

Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union

The abovementioned Protocol between the European Union and the State of Israel, signed in Brussels on 20 December 2018, entered into force on 1 October 2020.

---
No. IV-12-042

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

October 4, 2012 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC RECEIVES RESPONSE TO CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER, 

ACTION PLAN FOR SAN ONOFRE UNIT 2 PROPOSED;

NRC REVIEW TO TAKE MONTHS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received a letter from Southern California 

Edison indicating they have addressed issues in an NRC Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL). The 

NRC also received a proposed action plan that includes operating Unit 2 at the San Onofre plant 

at reduced power for an initial five-month period followed by more inspection; however, months 

of NRC inspection and analysis will precede any decision on whether to restart the reactor.

“Our primary focus now must be on analyzing SCE’s response to the CAL before 

addressing the restart question. The agency will not permit a restart unless and until we can 

conclude the reactor can be operated safely,” NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane said. “This 

could take a number of months. Our inspections and review will be painstaking, thorough and 

will not be rushed.” 

The agency will convene public meetings near the plant as the process progresses. One 

will be scheduled soon to discuss the licensee’s letter to the NRC responding to the CAL the 

agency sent the company.

A leak in a Unit 3 steam generator tube Jan. 31 led to the shutdown of that unit. The other 

reactor, Unit 2, was off-line at the time. Subsequent inspections of the nearly new generators in 

both units found unexpected wear. The two-reactor plant is located just south of San Clemente, 

Calif.

SCE is seeking NRC permission to operate Unit 2 at 70 percent power for approximately 

five months after which it would shut down for an inspection to examine the steam generators 

again. NRC expects to spend several months reviewing documents submitted by the licensee and 

performing a thorough and independent assessment prior to making any decisions about restart. 

NRC staff will evaluate the licensee’s analysis of the excessive tube wear and the ability 

of the Unit 2 steam generator tubes to maintain integrity during the proposed five-month cycle. 

Unit 3 remains shutdown for further evaluation.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

 Arlington, TX 76011-4511

Telephone: (817) 860-8100

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
The CAL and SCE’S response letter will be publicly available in ADAMS and on NRC’s 

Web page at this link.

###

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 website.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67299-67300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will 
meet on December 9, 2004, in Eureka, California. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss issues relating to implementing the Northwest 
Forest Plan (NWFP).

DATES: The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

[[Page 67300]]


ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Six Rivers National Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phebe Brown, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, 825 N. Humboldt Avenue, Willows, CA 
95988, (503) 934-1137; E-MAIL <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5828213a2a372f36183e2b763e3d3c762d2b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62121b00100d150c2204114c0407064c1711">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Regional Exosystem Office (REO) update; (2) Provincial Interagency 
Executive Committee (PIEC) feedback to the PAC regarding their 
recommendations on watershed analyses and Healthy Forest Restoration 
Act projects; (3) Report on the Province 2004 Implementation Monitoring 
activity held in September; (4) Continue panel discussion concerning 
options for silvicultural treatments on federal lands; (5) Presentation 
on the NWFP 10-year monitoring program; (6) Presentation on Bureau of 
Land Management/Department of Fish and Game research on impacts of 
fall, winter and spring prescribed burning on avian and terrestrial 
species; and (7) Public comment. The meeting is open to the public. 
Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the 
opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: November 9, 2004.
Phebe Y. Brown,
Committee Staff Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 04-25482 Filed 11-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 8
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear at 68 FR 51352, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 8.15 Effect on other laws; supplementary instructions; coordination. ( a ) *Effect on other laws.* All regulations, orders, or like directions heretofore issued by any officer of the Department which impose requirements designed to prohibit any discrimination against individuals on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program to which this part applies, and which authorizes the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance to any recipient or other party subject to this part of such assistance for failure to comply with such requirements, are hereby superseded to the extent that such discrimination is prohibited by this part, except that nothing in this part shall be deemed to relieve any one of any obligations assumed or imposed under any such superseded regulation, order, instruction, or like direction prior to January 9, 1965. Nothing in this part, however, shall be deemed to supersede any of the following (including future amendments thereof): ( 1 ) Executive Order 11246 and regulations issued thereunder, or
( 2 ) Executive Order 11063 and regulations issued thereunder, or any other regulations or instructions, insofar as such order, regulations, or instructions prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in any program or situation to which this part is inapplicable, or prohibit discrimination on any other ground.
( b ) *Forms and instructions.* Each responsible Department official shall issue and promptly make available to interested parties forms and detailed instructions and procedures for effectuating this part as applied to programs to which this part applies and for which he is responsible.
( c ) *Supervision and coordination.* The Secretary may from time to time assign to officials of the Department, or to officials of other departments or agencies of the Government with the consent of such departments or agencies, responsibilities in connection with the effectuation of the purposes of title VI of the Act and this part (other than responsibility for final decision as provided in § 8.13), including the achievement of effective coordination and maximum uniformity within the Department and within the executive branch of the government in the application of title VI and this part to similar programs and in similar situations. Any action taken, determination made, or requirement imposed by an official of another Department or agency acting pursuant to an assignment of responsibility under this paragraph shall have the same effect as though such action had been taken by the responsible official of this Department.
July 15, 2010 conference call on the NRC Safety Culture Initiative 

List of invited stakeholders and NRC staff 

NRC Invited Stakeholders

Roy Zimmerman, OE Mike Boren, US Enrichment Corp. 

Andy Campbell, OE Kevin Buckley, AAPM 

David Solorio, OE Gerard Castro, Joint Commission 

Maria Schwartz, OE David Collins, member of public 

Jose Ibarra, OE Lynne Fairobent, AAPM 

Catherine Thompson, OE Billie Garde, Attorney 

 James Houf, ANST 

 Tom Houghton, NEI 

 Jere Jenkins, Purdue University 

 Ken Koves, INPO 

 John Larson, NUPIC 

 Bob Link, AREVA 

 Jim Lynch, INPO 

 George Marshall, APNGA 

 Steve Reese, Purdue University 

 Wayne Rice, AFL-CIO 

 Janet Schuleter, NEI 

 Shawn Seeley, OAS 

 Diane Sieracki, member of public 

 Gayle Staton, NDTMA 

 Duann Thistlethwaite, SNM 

 Richard Toohey, HPS 

 Bruce Williams, Shaw Power Group 

Victoria Winfrey, Prairie Island Indian Community Tribal Council 

 Chuck Workman, G4S
### **CHAPTER 85—NATIONAL CAPITAL SERVICE AREA AND DIRECTOR**

Sec.
8501.
National Capital Service Area.
8502.
National Capital Service Director.
### §15733. Northern Border Regional Commission

The region of the Northern Border Regional Commission shall include the following counties:

(1) Maine.—The counties of Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Knox, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Waldo, and Washington in the State of Maine.

(2) New hampshire.—The counties of Belknap, Carroll, Cheshire, Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan in the State of New Hampshire.

(3) New york.—The counties of Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Genesee, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston, Madison, Montgomery, Niagara, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Seneca, St. Lawrence, Sullivan, Washington, Warren, Wayne, and Yates in the State of New York.

(4) Vermont.—The counties of Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Essex, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans, Rutland, Washington, Windham, and Windsor in the State of Vermont.

(Added Pub. L. 110–234, title XIV, §14217(a)(2), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1481, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XIV, §14217(a)(2), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2243; amended Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6304(d), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4752.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2018—Par. (2). Pub. L. 115–334, §6304(d)(1), inserted "Belknap," before "Carroll," and "Cheshire," before "Coos,".

Par. (3). Pub. L. 115–334, §6304(d)(2), added par. (3) and struck out former par. (3). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The counties of Cayuga, Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Oswego, Seneca, and St. Lawrence in the State of New York."

Par. (4). Pub. L. 115–334, §6304(d)(3), inserted "Addison, Bennington," before "Caledonia,", "Chittenden," before "Essex,", and ", Rutland, Washington, Windham, and Windsor" before "in the State" and substituted "Orange," for "and".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first fiscal year beginning after June 18, 2008, see section 14217(d) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 15101 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Edwin Mayo, Respondent, against Cargill Warehouse Company et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*875Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
NRC AMENDS REGULATIONS ON SECURITY OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to codify and expand 

upon recent security measures the agency has imposed for certain sensitive radioactive materials.

In a final rule to be published soon in the Federal Register, the NRC adds a new Part 37 

to its regulations in Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and makes 

conforming changes to other parts of NRC regulations regarding radioactive materials.

The new regulation, which takes effect one year after publication, establishes security 

requirements for the most risk-significant radioactive materials (those in Category 1 and 

Category 2 of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s rankings of radiation sources), as well 

as for shipments of small amounts of irradiated reactor fuel.

The NRC took steps to strengthen the security of risk-significant radioactive materials 

immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Since that time, the agency has issued 

various orders imposing enhanced controls, implemented requirements for fingerprinting and 

criminal background checks for people with access to certain radioactive materials, and 

developed and implemented the National Source Tracking System. The NRC cooperates with the 

departments of Homeland Security and Energy as well as other federal, state and local agencies 

on security matters, and chairs the inter-agency Radiation Source Protection and Security Task 

Force.

The new Part 37 and changes to other parts of 10 CFR contained in the final rule 

incorporate NRC’s lessons learned in implementing the post-Sept. 11 security measures, as well 

as stakeholder input on the proposed rule. Codifying these requirements in NRC’s regulations 

enhances consistency of implementation as well as transparency and predictability of NRC’s 

oversight of radioactive material security.

The NRC published a proposed rule for public comment on June 15, 2010, and received 

110 comment letters from licensees, state agencies, industry organizations, individuals and a 

federal agency. The comments are addressed in the upcoming Federal Register notice 

accompanying the final rule.

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. 12-027 March 16, 2012
###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

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.
NRC APPROVES TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF

URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSES TO RUSSIAN FIRM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the transfer of control of two uranium 

recovery licenses in Wyoming from Uranium One, a Canadian firm, to JSC Atomoredzoloto 

(ARMZ), a Russian firm.

The transfer affects a license held by Uranium One USA for the Irigaray and Christensen 

Ranch in situ leach uranium recovery facility in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. It also affects a 

license granted Sept. 30 by the NRC to Uranium One Americas for the proposed Moore Ranch in 

situ leach recovery project in Campbell County, Wyo., as well as a materials license held by 

Uranium One Americas authorizing the use of tritium sealed sources for well logging. Two 

additional uranium recovery license applications by Uranium One Americas – for the Jab & 

Antelope and the Ludeman projects – are currently under review.

Uranium One USA and Uranium One Americas are U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium 

One, Inc., a Canadian firm. Earlier this year, Uranium One agreed to a merger with ARMZ, 

under which the Russian firm would gain majority control of the Canadian company. ARMZ is 

controlled by Rosatom, the Russian Federation’s state nuclear agency.

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will 

remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will 

continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and 

safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees 

will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither 

Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility 

may be exported.

The NRC published a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing and an 

opportunity for public comment on Sept. 20 for the uranium recovery licenses. No hearing 

requests were filed. Four public comments were received; however, none of them addressed the 

regulatory requirements for reviewing a transfer of control.

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: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 10-211 November 24, 2010
The NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report, Order and license amendments on the transfer of 

control, including discussion of the public comments, are available in the agency’s online 

ADAMS document library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html by entering 

accession number ML103120147. 

###

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.
GENERAL CONTACT REPORT 

I. Type of Contact (Telephone, Meeting, etc.): 

Telephone 

. , . CBI? /a i' -- 

Yes.= 

II. EPA Information 

Name(s) of EPA Representative(s): 

Greg Fritz 

1%41 

Date/Time: c•-• 

....._ _,- 11/03/03 11:37AM c--," i 

Division/Branch & Phone #: 

EETD/ICB (202) 564-8583 

Contact Initiator? 1 

Yes k_o 

.) 

.. 

- III. Second Party Information .. 1 

Name(s) of Second Party Representative(s): 

Bill Buxton 

PMN Number: 

FMG ECA 

Company & Phone #: 

DuPont / (302) 999-4658 

Contact Initiator? 

No 

IV. Summary of Issues Discussed and Comments Received: 

The company representative was informed of the internal EPA confusion regarding [31784- 

04-0] being listed on the FMG incineration ECA list of chemicals to be tested. These 

internal discussions centered around the future Agency dissemination of a list of chemicals 

and concern that inclusion of the chemical name and CAS Registry Number (CRN) was a 

breach of company confidentiality. This CRN and associated chemical name, Ethene, 

tetrafluoro-, polymer with trifluoro(pentafluoroethoxy)ethene (9CI), had been claimed as 

CBI. The following conversation confirms it is not a CBI disclosure to use the CRN or 

name. 

Q) Can we release the chemical name and CRN in our public ECA documents? 

A) Yes, the name and CAS Registry Number were protected under company patents and no 

longer needed CBI protection. 

Signature of EPA Official: .-/—_---,-,__,:c Date: (I 

t Ler.% DwP•orr beeT -2 ,03 -Pdolei
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         293,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                    697,966
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               324,076
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,022,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,492,591
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (470,549)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,022,042
<SALES>                                        850,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        (569,580)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               684,627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (42,641)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,708)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0153. WILHY HARPO v. BROADSTONE MAPLE, LLC.

On September 28, 2016, the superior court entered an order dismissing the

appeal of “Leslie Onna and all other occupants” from a magistrate court default

judgment in this dispossessory action. On October 27, 2016, Wilhy Harpo filed this

application for discretionary appeal. Appeals from judgments in dispossessory

actions, however, must be filed within seven days of the date the judgment was

entered. See OCGA § 44-7-56; Radio Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Allen Road Joint

Venture, 311 Ga. App. 334, 335-336 (715 SE2d 752) (2011). Harpo filed this

application 29 days after entry of the superior court order he wishes to appeal.

Accordingly, the application is untimely, and it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/28/2016

November 28, 2016