alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 922
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

§ 922.34 Permit amendments. ( a ) *Request for amendments.* Any person who has been issued a permit under this part (a permittee) may request to amend the permit at any time while that permit is valid. For purposes of this section, a permit time extension is treated as a permit amendment. A request for permit amendment must be submitted to the same NOAA office(s) as the original permit and include sufficient information to describe the requested amendment and any additional supporting information.
( b ) *Review of amendment requests.* After receiving the permittee's request for amendment, the Director will: ( 1 ) Review all reports submitted by the permittee as required by the permit terms and conditions; and
( 2 ) Request such additional information as may be necessary to evaluate the request.
( c ) *Denial of amendment request.* The Director may deny a permit amendment request, in whole or in part, if it is determined that: ( 1 ) The proposed activity does not meet the review criteria specified in this subpart or the relevant subpart of any national marine sanctuary in which the proposed activity is to take place;
( 2 ) The permittee or applicant has acted in violation of the terms or conditions of a permit issued under this subpart or the relevant subpart of any national marine sanctuary in which the proposed activity is to take place;
( 3 ) The permittee or applicant has acted in violation of any regulation set forth in this subpart, the NMSA, or the FKNMSPA;
( 4 ) The proposed activity has resulted in unforeseen adverse impacts to Sanctuary resources or qualities; or
( 5 ) For other good cause.
No: IV-13-021 July 24, 2013

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 NRC Will Hold an Open House on Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Performance 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold an open house Aug. 5 to discuss the agency’s 

assessment of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station’s 2012 safety performance. The plant is located in Port Gibson, Miss.

During the open house, which is scheduled for 12-1:30 p.m. at the Clairborne County Administration 

Building, 501 Main St., in Port Gibson, attendees will have an opportunity to hold one-on-one discussions with NRC 

staff members about the plant’s 2012 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. NRC staff on hand will 

include the inspectors assigned to the plant on a full-time basis, and staff from the Region IV office in Arlington, 

Texas.

The assessment letter sent from the NRC to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during 

2012 and will serve as the basis for the discussion. 

Overall, the Grand Gulf plant operated safely during 2012. At the conclusion of last year, all performance 

indicators and inspection findings for the facility were green, or of very low risk.

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of Grand Gulf and the nation’s other commercial nuclear 

power plants,” NRC Region IV Administrator Arthur T. Howell said. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for 

a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents 

who live near the plant.”

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant 

performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow, or red, commensurate with the safety 

significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical measurements of plant and equipment 

performance. 

In addition to the normal level of inspection for plants that are operating well, Grand Gulf will receive a 

supplemental inspection this year because of a white performance indicator it received following four unplanned 

reactor shutdowns.

Inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialist inspectors 

from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

The most current assessment for Grand Gulf is available on the NRC website.
OPENING REMARKS BY NRC CHAIRMAN, GREGORY B. JACZKO AT THE 

COMMISSION BRIEFING ON LICENSE RENEWAL AND TEST REACTORS

Good morning. We’re meeting today to talk about the license renewal status of research 

and test training reactors. It's an important issue as we work to deal with what has been a 

significant backlog of renewals for RTR licenses. I am pleased to hear that we have made 

considerable progress in this area since the last meeting we had on this issue in August 2009, 

almost three years ago. 

As I look at today's meeting agenda, I think this will be an important opportunity to 

strengthen the continued partnership we have had with the research and test reactor community 

in looking at the issues of license renewal. I think there will still be challenges on both sides as 

we work through this backlog, but it should be very interesting hearing about the progress we 

have made in the last two years. There has been a lot of very good work on the part of the staff to 

get us in a place where we have the resources necessary to faithfully process these applications to 

reduce this backlog. There has also been a lot of work on the part of the RTR community to 

improve their license renewal applications and submittals. I look forward to hearing about the

progress and challenges with this renewal process today. 

###

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 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. 12-031 March 27, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

))))))))))))))))))))))))

No. 97-30866 ))))))))))))))))))))))))

PHYLLIS ROMAGUERA; ET AL

Plaintiffs,

V.

PHYLLIS ROMAGUERA

Plaintiff -Appellee,

v.

JON GEGENHEIMER, Clerk of Court, 24th Judicial District, Court Ex
Officio Recorder of Mortgages and Conveyances, Parish of Jefferson,
State of Louisiana; ET AL

Defendants

JON GEGENHEIMER, Clerk of Court, 24th Judicial District Court, Ex
Officio Recorder of Mortgages and Conveyances, Parish of Jefferson,
State of Louisiana

Defendant - Appellant

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
March 5, 1999

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion 12/24/98, 5 Cir., ________, ________ F.3d ________)

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc BY APPELLANT JON

GEGENHEIMER as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, the Petition for

Panel Rehearing is DENIED. No member of the Panel nor judge in regular active service of the court having requested that the court
be polled on Rehearing En Banc (FED.R.APP.P. and 5 th CIR. R.35), the petition for Rehearing En Banc by BY APPELLANT JOH GEGENHEIMER is

DENIED.

However, to clarify the opinion, we are substituting the last paragraph on page 6 with the following paragraph.

We hold that the district court’s acknowledgment of
Romaguera’s request served to notify opposing counsel of

the request, thereby satisfying Congress’ intended

purpose under Rul e 54(d)(2). Had the district court
refrained from giving the impression that a hearing would

be scheduled by the court, Romaguera would have been required to file the motion under Rule 54(d)(2). As a

consequence of the court’s acknowledgment of the request, together with its indication in its order that a hearing would be held thereon, however, a filing was not needed and the subsequent filing by Romaguera simply served as

a reminder to the court that it had failed to set a hearing date.
### §40742. Grants to States to implement DNA arrestee collection processes

#### (a) In general

The Attorney General shall, subject to amounts made available pursuant to section 40744 of this title, carry out a grant program for the purpose of assisting States with the costs associated with the implementation of DNA arrestee collection processes.

#### (b) Applications

#### (1) In general

To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, in addition to any other requirements specified by the Attorney General, a State shall submit to the Attorney General an application that demonstrates that it has statutory authorization for the implementation of a DNA arrestee collection process.

#### (2) Non-supplanting funds

An application submitted under paragraph (1) by a State shall include assurances that the amounts received under the grant under this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, State funds that would otherwise be available for the purpose described in subsection (a).

#### (3) Other requirements

The Attorney General shall require a State seeking a grant under this section to document how such State will use the grant to meet expenses associated with a State's implementation or planned implementation of a DNA arrestee collection process.

#### (c) Grant allocation

#### (1) In general

The amount available to a State under this section shall be based on the projected costs that will be incurred by the State to implement a DNA arrestee collection process. Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall retain discretion to determine the amount of each such grant awarded to an eligible State.

#### (2) Maximum grant allocation

In the case of a State seeking a grant under this section with respect to the implementation of a DNA arrestee collection process, such State shall be eligible for a grant under this section that is equal to no more than 100 percent of the first year costs to the State of implementing such process.

#### (d) Grant conditions

As a condition of receiving a grant under this section, a State shall have a procedure in place to—

(1) provide written notification of expungement provisions and instructions for requesting expungement to all persons who submit a DNA profile or DNA data for inclusion in the index;

(2) provide the eligibility criteria for expungement and instructions for requesting expungement on an appropriate public Web site; and

(3) make a determination on all expungement requests not later than 90 days after receipt and provide a written response of the determination to the requesting party.

(Pub. L. 112–253, §3, Jan. 10, 2013, 126 Stat. 2408.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14137a of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
OPENING REMARKS OF NRC CHAIRMAN GREGORY B. JACZKO AT THE 

MEETING TO DISCUSS SAFETY CHALLENGES OF THE BROWN’S FERRY 

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Good morning. The Commission meets today to discuss the safety challenges 

experienced by the Brown’s Ferry nuclear power plant and the steps being taken to strengthen 

the safety of the plant.

In May 2011, Brown’s Ferry Unit 1 was placed in Column 4 of the Reactor Oversight 

Process (ROP) Action Matrix after it received a red finding when a reactor-core cooling valve 

failed. Under the ROP, the NRC will place a plant in Column 4 only after identifying highly 

safety significant issues. That designation triggers heightened NRC inspections to ensure that the 

needed remedial measures are taken.

This is not the only significant issue the Brown’s Ferry plant has experienced in recent 

years. In 2009, all three units at Brown’s Ferry were placed in Column 3 after receiving a yellow 

finding for fire protection issues. Given this recent history of issues, I’m sure that we can all 

agree that we want to see the plant perform more safely. To achieve that, there needs to be a 

strong commitment from the licensee’s entire organization—from its senior leadership to its 

front-line engineers—to do what needs to be done for safety.

Less than two weeks ago, I visited the Brown’s Ferry plant with Senator Lamar 

Alexander to assess the plant’s progress in addressing its equipment reliability issues. While 

some steps have been taken, there still remains a great deal of work for the licensee to perform. 

In the presentations from the staff and the licensees, we will hear in greater detail about exactly 

what needs to be done. It is important that we stay on top of this issue in order to ensure this 

matter is not indicative of broader issues at the plant.

###

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 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. 11-200

October 18, 2011
### [§3463. Vacant]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Prior to renumbering of sections 1651 to 1693 of this chapter as sections 3451 to 3493 by Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406, section 1663 of this chapter, added Pub. L. 89–358, §2, Mar. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 15; and amended Pub. L. 94–502, title II, §211(4), Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2388; Pub. L. 95–202, title III, §302(a), Nov. 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 1440; Pub. L. 99–576, title III, §312, Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3273; Pub. L. 101–237, title IV, §423(b)(1)(A), Dec. 18, 1989, 103 Stat. 2092, which related to educational and vocational counseling, was repealed by Pub. L. 102–16, §2(b)(1)(A), Mar. 22, 1991, 105 Stat. 49.
## U.S. EPA Contaminated Site Cleanup Information (CLU-IN)

      - Technologies
      -          - Remediation
        - Characterization and Monitoring 
      - Contaminants
      -          - Arsenic
        - Chlorinated Solvents
        - Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)
        - Chromium VI
        - Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs)
        - 1,4-Dioxane
        - Dioxins
        - Mercury
        - Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
        - Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
        - Perchlorate
        - Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
        - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
        - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
        - Radionuclides
        - Trichloroethylene (TCE) 
      - Issues
      -          - Ecological Land Reuse
        - Fractured Rock
        - Global Efforts to Advance Remediation at Contaminated Sites
        - Green Remediation
        - High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)
        - Mining Sites
        - Sediments
        - Triad: A Smarter Solution to Site Cleanup
        - Vapor Intrusion
        - Wood Treater Sites 
      - Strategies & Initiatives
      -          - Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
        - Triad: A Smarter Solution to Site Cleanup
        - Green Remediation
        - High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)
        - Measurement and Monitoring Technologies for the 21st Century (21M2)
        - Optimizing Site Cleanups
        - Technical and Technology Support Services 
      - Technology Developer Tools
      -          - Market Analysis
        - Business Planning & Funding
        - Research & Development
        - Demonstration & Testing
        - Permitting & Regulatory Assistance
        - Commercialization & Contracts 
      - Training & Events
      -          - Upcoming Internet Seminars
        - Archived Internet Seminars & Podcasts
        - The Training Exchange (Trainex)
        - Upcoming Courses and Conferences 
      - Additional Resources
      -          - Recent Additions
        - Popular Additions
        - Upcoming Live Web Events
        - Archived Internet Seminars & Podcasts
        - News Feed (RSS)
        - TechDirect and Newsletters
        - Upcoming Courses and Conferences
        - Documents
        - Videos
        - Databases
        - Software and Tools 

****CLU-IN

Contact Us

Site Map

Site Tour

Disclaimer, Privacy, and Security NoticeSite MapAbout CLU-INContact Us				    U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology InnovationAssistanceAyudaمساعدة帮助 (简体版)幫助 (繁體版)AideAsistans지원AssistênciaПомощьTulongTrợ Giúp
§ 930.121 Consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Act. A federal license or permit activity, or a federal assistance activity, is “consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Act” if it satisfies each of the following three requirements: ( a ) The activity furthers the national interest as articulated in § 302 or § 303 of the Act, in a significant or substantial manner,
( b ) The national interest furthered by the activity outweighs the activity's adverse coastal effects, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively.
( c ) There is no reasonable alternative available which would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program. The Secretary may consider but is not limited to considering previous appeal decisions, alternatives described in state objection letters and alternatives and other information submitted during the appeal. The Secretary shall not consider an alternative unless the State agency submits a statement, in a brief or other supporting material, to the Secretary that the alternative would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program.
[65 FR 77154, Dec. 8, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 829, Jan. 5, 2006]
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Beeston Enterprises Ltd, a Nevada corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael Upham,
President/Treasurer/CEO/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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 result of operations of the
Company.     /s/ Michael
Upham Michael Upham, President, Treasurer,
CEO, CFO Dated:
 August 13, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.2  Section 1350 Certification  In connection with the Annual Report of Gold Horse International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended, and
  2.
        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Adam Wasserman Name: Adam Wasserman Title: Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer  Dated: October 6, 2008  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Part B—Carbon Capture and Sequestration Assessment and Framework
No: 13-047 June 5, 2013

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Order Designating 10 Facilities 

Eligible for Weapons Pre-Emption Authority

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today issued an Order designating 10 nuclear facilities in 

New York, Maryland, Virginia and California as eligible to apply for authority to permit their security 

forces to possess and use firearms and related devices despite local, state or federal laws and 

regulations restricting their use.

The designated facilities are the Indian Point, James A. FitzPatrick, Nine Mile Point and R.E. 

Ginna nuclear power plants in New York; the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants in 

California; the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Maryland; and the Babcock & Wilcox nuclear fuel 

fabrication facility in Virginia. The spent fuel storage installations at Diablo Canyon and Calvert Cliffs, 

which are licensed separately, are also included.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the NRC authority to permit security forces at NRClicensed facilities to possess and use firearms, ammunition and large-capacity ammunition feeding 

devices in the performance of their official duties regardless of local, state or federal restrictions on 

their use. This “pre-emption authority” became effective with the 2009 publication of guidelines on the 

use of firearms at NRC-licensed facilities, which were approved by the NRC and the Department of 

Justice. 

Today’s Order spells out how the designated facilities would apply for pre-emption authority, 

should they desire to do so, and how the NRC would review any applications. It also requires the 

designated facilities to perform background checks to verify their security personnel are not prohibited 

from carrying firearms by state law. 

Pre-emption authority, if granted, would ensure the designated facilities can maintain 

capabilities described in their current NRC-approved security plans. The Order does not grant preemption authority to any NRC-licensed facility. It simply designates the class of facilities eligible to 

apply to the NRC for pre-emption authority. 

The Order will be published soon in the Federal Register. It will be available in the NRC’s 

online ADAMS document database at ML13038A114.