alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWSUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-05-004                                            February 1, 2005CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416       E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC ISSUES CONFIRMATORY ORDER TO USEC ON EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TRAINING AT GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT IN KENTUCKY

       The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Order to the United StatesEnrichment Corporation to confirm commitments from the company to ensure that training related toemployee protection at its Paducah, Ky, gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant will beadequately addressed.

       In December of 2002, the NRC initiated an investigation to determine whether a manager atUSEC’s Paducah facility was discriminated against by being suspended and later terminated forraising safety concerns.  The investigation was expanded in May of 2003 to determine whether thesame manager was discriminated against, in retaliation for the previously raised safety concerns, bynot being considered for a position with a contractor performing work for USEC at Paducah.  TheNRC did not substantiate that the manager was suspended or terminated because of raising safetyconcerns but expressed concern that discrimination may have occurred due to the manager’s not beinglater considered for a contract position.  

       In September of 2003, the NRC notified USEC of its concern and offered the company a choice ofeither attending a predecisional NRC enforcement conference or requesting alternative disputeresolution before a neutral mediator in order to reach agreement on resolving the concern.  Thecompany chose the dispute resolution alternative.  The NRC and USEC agreed that the NRC wouldissue a Confirmatory Order under which company actions will focus on safety conscious workenvironment training for managers of USEC contractors at Paducah and USEC managers who areprincipal points of contact for contractors at the plant.

       The NRC believes that its concerns can be resolved through effective implementation of USEC’scommitments.

       A copy of a January 27 letter and its enclosures, from the NRC to USEC, will be available on theNRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html .  The Adams Accession Number is ML050270260.

###
§ 1025.39 Orders requiring witnesses to testify or provide other information and granting immunity. ( a ) *Applicability to Flammable Fabrics Act only.* This section applies only to proceedings arising under the Flammable Fabrics Act.
( b ) *Procedure.* A party who desires the issuance of an order requiring a witness or deponent to testify or provide other information upon being granted immunity from prosecution under title 18, United States Code, section 6002, may make a motion to that effect. The motion shall be made and ruled on in accordance with § 1025.23 of these rules and shall include a showing: ( 1 ) That the testimony or other information sought from a witness or deponent, or prospective witness or deponent, may be necessary to the public interest; and
( 2 ) That such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide such information on the basis of that individual's privilege against self-incrimination.
( c ) *Approval of the Attorney General.* If the Presiding Officer determines that the witness' testimony appears necessary and that the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked, he/she may certify to the Commission a request that it obtain the approval of the Attorney General of the United States for the issuance of an order granting immunity.
( d ) *Issuance of order granting immunity.* Upon application to and approval by the Attorney General of the United States, and after the witness has invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, the Presiding Officer shall issue the order granting immunity unless he/she determines that the privilege was improperly invoked.
( e ) *Sanctions for failure to testify.* Failure of a witness to testify after a grant of immunity or after a denial of a motion for the issuance of an order granting immunity shall result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions as provided in § 1025.37 of these rules.
LICENSING BOARD ADMITS ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS REGARDING

MIXED-OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY LICENSE APPLICATION

A three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has concluded that opponents 

of an operating license application for the proposed Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 

Facility in South Carolina have offered acceptable additional arguments that should be 

considered in an eventual hearing regarding the application. The ASLB is the independent body 

within the NRC that presides over hearings where the public can challenge proposed licensing 

and enforcement actions.

In its 2-1 decision, the ASLB accepted for further review the arguments from Blue Ridge 

Environmental Defense League, Nuclear Watch South, and the Nuclear Information and 

Resource Service. The arguments revolve around the adequacy of aspects of the proposed 

facility’s procedures for controlling the plutonium and enriched uranium that the facility would 

combine to create MOX; the security-related focus of these matters means they cannot be 

discussed in detail. While the NRC technical staff have found the proposed procedures 

acceptable, the Board will now subject the facility’s procedures and the staff’s position to 

additional scrutiny.

The Board majority rejected objections from the applicant, Shaw Areva MOX Services, 

and NRC legal staff that the additional arguments were offered too late in the NRC’s hearing 

process. The Board’s dissenting judge noted that, regardless of the arguments’ timing, the Board

should take up the issues involved, given their importance. The majority agreed, and all 

concurred that NRC regulations would require the Board to seek Commission approval if that 

course of action were necessary.

Shaw Areva MOX Services submitted an operating license application for the facility in 

2006 and has updated the application since then. The NRC technical staff issued its safety 

evaluation report on the proposed facility in December 2010. The ASLB hearing must be 

concluded and the staff must verify the facility’s proper construction before any license could be 

issued.

Documents related to the license application are available on the NRC website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/mox/licensing.html. Documents pertaining to the 

ASLB proceeding are available in the agency’s Electronic Hearing Docket at:

http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/.

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. 11-061 April 1, 2011
More information about the ASLB can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html. 

###

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

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

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.
B.C.D. 03-80 OCT 2 9 2003

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Properties, Inc.

Montour Railroad Company

This is the determination ofthe Railroad Retirement Board concerning

the continuing status ofPittsburgh & Lake Erie Properties, Inc. (P&LE)

(B.A. No. 1222) and Montour Railroad Company (MRC) (B.A. No.

2233) as employers under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231,

et seq.) (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45

U.S.C. § 351, et seq.) (RUIA). P&LE and MRC have been employers

under the RRA and RUIA with service creditable from January 31,1965

(P&LE) and September 10, 1897 (MRC), respectively.

P&LE filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 ofthe

Bankruptcy Code on March 22, 1996. As ofJuly 31, 2003, all assets of

P&LE were liquidated and P&LE operations ceased. P&LE employees

involved in the winding down operations were last compensated on

July 31, 2003, having filed articles of dissolution in Delaware and 

Pennsylvania. P&LE was officially dissolved as a corporate entity on

July 31, 2003. P&LE received its discharge in bankruptcy on July 31,

2003.

MRC was owned by P&LE and was included as an asset in the P&LE

bankruptcy inasmuch as MRC real property still existed, even though

MRC itself was abandoned as an operating carrier in 1988. MRC

employees were last compensated in 1993. All ofMRC’s remaining real 

property was liquidated as ofJuly 31, 2003. MRC is now dissolved.

Section 202.11 ofthe Board’s regulations provides that:

The employer status of any company or person shall

terminate whenever such company or person loses any ofthe

characteristics essential to the existence of an employer

status.

.1

BA#2233
-2-

Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Properties, Inc.

Montour Railroad Company

Based on the information summarized above, it is determined that

Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Properties, Inc. and Montour Railroad Company

ceased being employers under the RRA and the RUIA on July 31, 2003, 

the date on which they ceased to exist.

Michael S. Schwartz

V. M. Speakman, Jr.
No: 13-062 July 24, 2013

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Announces Hearing Opportunity on License Renewal Application

for Byron and Braidwood Nuclear Plants in Illinois

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is announcing the opportunity to request an adjudicatory 

hearing on an application to renew the operating licenses of the Byron and Braidwood nuclear power 

plants in Illinois.

Exelon Generation Co. filed the application, dated May 29, seeking to renew the operating 

licenses for an additional 20 years of operation. The Braidwood Nuclear Station, located 20 miles 

southwest of Joliet, and the Byron Nuclear Station, located 17 miles southwest of Rockford, each have 

two pressurized-water reactors. The current operating licenses for Braidwood expire on Oct. 17, 2026, 

for Unit 1 and Dec. 18, 2027, for Unit 2. The licenses for Byron expire Oct. 31, 2024, for Unit 1 and 

Nov. 6, 2026, for Unit 2. 

Exelon, in submitting a single application to cover both plants, cited extensive similarities in the 

systems, structures and components of each that are analyzed in a license renewal review. The NRC 

staff has determined the application is sufficiently complete to allow the staff to formally docket the 

application, and begin its detailed technical and environmental reviews. Docketing the application does 

not preclude requesting additional information as the review proceeds; nor does it indicate whether the 

Commission will grant the application.

Requests for a hearing must be filed by Sept. 23, following publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register. The notice includes detailed instructions for requesting a hearing through the NRC’s E-filing 

system’s electronic submittal page at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. For specific 

guidance and instructions on public involvement in hearings visit: http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html.

The application and information about the license renewal process are available on the 

NRC website. Copies of the application are also available at the Byron Public Library, 100 S. 

Washington St., in Byron, and the Fossil Ridge Public Library at 386 W. Kennedy Road in Braidwood.
### **CHAPTER 109—WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH**

Sec.
10301.
Congressional findings and declarations.
10302.
Congressional declaration of purpose.
10303.
Water resources research and technology institutes.
10304.
Research concerning water resource-related problems deemed to be in national interest.
10305.
Development of water-related technology.
10306.
Administrative costs.
10307.
Types of research and development.
10308.
Patent policy.
10309.
New spending authority; amounts provided in advance.
10310.
Produced water research and development.
### Part B—Nurse Practitioners, Nurse Midwives, Nurse Anesthetists, and Other Advanced Education Nurses

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part B related to assistance to nursing students and consisted of sections 297 to 297n, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–392.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00456-CV

JACKIE RUSSELL KEETER,

Appellant

v.

SANDY GATELY,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. COT-11-40758

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jackie Russell Keeter appeals from the trial court’s denial of his “Petition to Take 

Deposition to Investigate Potential Claim.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 202. In his brief filed on 

May 18, 2012, Keeter admitted that he was “well aware, that the denial of the taking of a 

deposition, is enforceable by mandamus only.” 

By letter dated July 20, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Keeter that pursuant 

to Rules 42.3 and 44.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this case was subject to 

dismissal because it appeared the order which was the subject of the appeal was 
Keeter v. Gately Page 2

interlocutory and not appealable. See In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008) 

(“Presuit deposition orders are appealable only if sought from someone against whom 

suit is not anticipated; when sought from an anticipated defendant (as here), such 

orders have been considered ancillary to the subsequent suit, and thus neither final nor 

appealable.”). The Clerk further warned Keeter that the Court would dismiss this 

appeal unless, within 21 days from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing 

grounds for continuing the appeal. More than 21 days have passed and no response 

has been received. 

This appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 44.3.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 23, 2012

[CV06]
### **CHAPTER 106—COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM**

Sec.
9901.
Purposes and goals.
9902.
Definitions.
9903.
Authorization of appropriations.
9904.
Establishment of block grant program.
9905.
Distribution to territories.
9906.
Allotments and payments to States.
9907.
Uses of funds.
9908.
Application and plan.
9909.
Designation and redesignation of eligible entities in unserved areas.
9910.
Tripartite boards.
9911.
Payments to Indian tribes.
9912.
Office of Community Services.
9913.
Training, technical assistance, and other activities.
9914.
Monitoring of eligible entities.
9915.
Corrective action; termination and reduction of funding.
9916.
Fiscal controls, audits, and withholding.
9917.
Accountability and reporting requirements.
9918.
Limitations on use of funds.
9919.
Drug and child support services and referrals.
9920.
Operational rule.
9921.
Discretionary authority of Secretary.
9922.
Community food and nutrition programs.
9923.
National or regional programs designed to provide instructional activities for low-income youth.
9924.
References.
9925.
Demonstration partnership agreements addressing needs of poor.
9926.
Projects to expand the number of job opportunities available to certain low-income individuals.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The Community Services Block Grant Act, comprising this chapter, was originally enacted by subtitle B of Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 511, and amended by Pub. L. 97–115, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1595; Pub. L. 98–288, May 21, 1984, 98 Stat. 189; Pub. L. 98–558, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2878; Pub. L. 99–425, Sept. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 966; Pub. L. 101–501, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1222; Pub. L. 101–624, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3359; Pub. L. 103–94, Oct. 6, 1993, 107 Stat. 1001; Pub. L. 103–171, Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1988; Pub. L. 103–252, May 18, 1994, 108 Stat. 623. The Community Services Block Grant Act is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 105–285, title II, §201, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2728, without reference to those intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of that Act by Pub. L. 105–285.
EXHIBIT 32

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Security
With Advanced Technology, Inc., (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30,
2008, the undersigned Jeffrey G. McGonegal, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:

| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                      |                                                                                                      
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 | By: /s/ Jeffrey G. McGonegal
Jeffrey G. McGonegal
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

*   *   *
COMMISSION APPROVES EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REGULATIONS FOR

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, OTHER FACILITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today affirmed their votes to approve changes to 

the emergency preparedness regulations that would enhance emergency preparedness 

requirements for existing nuclear power plants, for those that might be licensed and built in the

future, and for research and test reactors. 

Among the changes in the rule are limitations on the duties of a plant’s onsite emergency 

responders to ensure they are not overburdened during an emergency event and requirements to 

incorporate hostile-action-based scenarios in the drills and exercise programs. New requirements 

for back-up measures for alerting and notification systems are also included in the proposed rule.

In addition, the new rule requires nuclear power plants to update their evacuation time 

estimates after every U.S. Census or when changes in population would increase the estimate by 

either 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. 

“Although there are likely to be lessons learned from Japan that will apply to emergency 

preparedness, I do not think that we need to wait to implement the many enhancements that this 

rule will provide,” said Chairman Gregory Jaczko. “This rule represents good work on the part of 

NRC staff members, who have spent several years working on the rule in coordination with other 

federal agencies and various stakeholders.”

NRC staff members, working closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

had gathered public comments through multiple meetings held throughout the country in 2009 

and 2010 and through a lengthy public comment period. The rule was first put before the 

Commission in 2006.

The rule will be published in the Federal Register and become effective in 30 days.

###

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. 11-162 August 30, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67941-67942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Association for Information and Image 
Management

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Association for Information 
and Image Management (``AIIM'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Association 
for Information and

[[Page 67942]]

Image Management, Silver Spring, MD. The nature and scope of AIIM's 
standards development activities are: Standardization of terminology, 
definitions, sizes, formats, quality, methods of measurement, 
apparatuses and procedures for the production, use and storage, and 
retrieval of information images and related source data. Standards, 
recommended practices, and technical reports prepared in accordance 
with AIIM's policies and procedures are intended to have broad national 
acceptance, as well as provide the basis upon which to achieve 
international accord in the development of ISO standards.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25844 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 15, 2016

NO. 03-14-00440-CV

Nancy Marie Peck, Appellant

v.

Wayne Cody Peck, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the decree signed by the trial court on May 8, 2014. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s decree. The appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MELVIN QUEVEDO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-3074 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed February 9, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Deno Economou, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan Picart, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cornelius C. Demps, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.