alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: II-15-014 March 31, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC to Increase Oversight of Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant 

The Vogtle nuclear power plant will receive additional oversight, including a follow-up 

inspection, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after a violation related to the company’s failure to 

use the proper shipping container for radioactive waste. 

The Vogtle plant is located near Waynesboro, Ga., about 26 miles southeast of Augusta, and is 

operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Co.

The violation and increased oversight resulted from the discovery that employees at the Vogtle 

plant loaded radioactive waste into a container approved and tested for waste with lower radiation 

levels, but not for the material that was actually loaded. After reviewing that initial report and 

additional information provided by the company that received the waste shipment from the Vogtle 

plant, the NRC staff determined that the issue was a violation and should be classified as white, 

meaning it has low to moderate safety significance. 

“The Vogtle plant continues to be operated safely and there was no additional exposure from 

the use of the improper container,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “However, the 

NRC container regulations are based on the potential hazard to the public and we expect plants to 

follow those regulations.” 

The additional NRC inspection will provide assurance that the causes of the issue are 

understood and corrective actions are sufficient to prevent recurrence. The additional inspection has not 

yet been scheduled.

The NRC evaluates safety performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a color-coded 

system which classifies issues as green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of safety significance. 

As the significance increases, the NRC heightens the level of oversight for that plant. If a plant takes 

appropriate corrective actions and improves safety performance, the agency returns to its normal, but 

still extensive, inspection schedule.
No: II-14-013 March 25, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Meeting April 3 to Discuss Agency’s 

Assessment of Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting for April 3 to discuss the 

agency’s assessment of the Watts Bar nuclear power plant’s Unit 1 during 2013. The plant, operated by

the Tennessee Valley Authority, is located near Spring City, Tenn., about 60 miles southwest of 

Knoxville.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Quality Inn, Exit 60 off I-75 in Sweetwater, 

Tenn. 

NRC staff members will make a brief presentation and be available to answer questions on the

performance of the Watts Bar plant’s Unit 1, as well as the overall NRC role in ensuring safe plant 

operations. Watts Bar Unit 2, which is still under construction, will be the subject of a later NRC 

meeting. Details of that meeting will be announced next week.

A letter sent from the NRC Region II office to plant officials addresses the performance of 

Watts Bar Unit 1 during 2013 and will serve as the basis for the discussion. 

 During the latter part of 2013, Watts Bar Unit 1 was subject to increased NRC oversight and 

inspection, but NRC inspections found that TVA had appropriately addressed the issues resulting in 

that increased oversight. The plant will receive the NRC’s normal detailed inspections in 2014.

“Our resident and region-based inspectors spend many hours monitoring plant activities to 

ensure that the plant operates safely,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We hold 

these meetings every year to make our staff available to people who live close to the plant and answer 

questions about our oversight.”

Current performance information for Watts Bar Unit 1 is available on the NRC website.
#### Andrea Marshall, Respondent, v Roger Marshall, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 510]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered May 26, 2005 in a divorce action. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, limited the award of maintenance and counsel fees to defendant.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment that, inter alia, granted plaintiff a divorce and awarded defendant maintenance in the amount of $1,000 per month “until the earliest of’ the death of either party, defendant’s remarriage or cohabitation within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 248, or a period of one year. Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the award of maintenance to, at most, a period of one year *(see generally Schultz v Schultz,*309 AD2d 849 [2003]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award defendant the full amount of counsel fees sought *(see*
      *1323
      *DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
### Part D—Assistance in State Workers' Compensation Proceedings
#### § 1501.5 Enforcement procedure.

The Commission will enforce this regulation, unless it determines that an emergency situation exists, only in accordance with Chapter 2, Guide 2.05—Letter of Advice/Notices of Noncompliance of the CPSC Enforcement Policy and Procedural Guides, issued in January 1990 and available from the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207. Under the procedure described in this chapter, firms must be informed by letter that they or their products may be the subject of enforcement action and must be provided ten days within which to submit evidence and arguments that the products are not violative or are not covered by the regulation, prior to the initiation of enforcement action by the Commission or by its delegated staff member. The function of approving such enforcement actions is currently delegated by the Commission to the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Enforcement (copies of the existing delegation documents are also available from the CPSC's Office of the Secretary).

[56 FR 46986, Sept. 17, 1991]
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Little Sioux Corn Processors,L.L.C. (the “Company”) for the three month fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Douglas Lansink, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   /s/   Douglas Lansink |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Douglas Lansink                                  |
|   | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer            |
|   | Dated:  May 17, 2004                        |

 

----
From: Don_Shepherd@nps.gov

To: John Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Date: 10/30/2012 10:47 AM

Subject: Fw: Can you provide current reagent costs?

as requested

From: Aaron Worstell <Worstell.Aaron@epamail.epa.gov>

To: Don_Shepherd@nps.gov

Date:07/09/2012 03:06 PM

Subject: Re: Can you provide current reagent costs?

Sure. It is in the Montana docket and already available for public review.

Aaron J. Worstell

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8

Air Program - Mail Code 8P-AR

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202

Phone: 303-312-6073

Fax: 303-312-6064

From: Don_Shepherd@nps.gov

To: Aaron Worstell/R8/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/09/2012 03:05 PM

Subject: Re: Can you provide current reagent costs?

Aaron,

Can i send this info to Vicki Stamper (who is working on WY cost estimates for 

Enviro groups)?

From: Hanif Suchwani <HSuchwani@ftek.com>

To: Aaron Worstell/R8/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/02/2012 11:38 AM

Subject: Re: Can you provide current reagent costs?

Hi Aaron,

I lucked out and got a call back from the supplier today. Here are the prices 

(delivered) including some revisions to what I gave you yesterday:

Dry Urea= $ 500/ton, 50% Urea solution = $ 350/ton.

Anhydrous NH3 = $ 600/ton, 29% aqueous NH3 = $ 240/ton and 19% aqueous NH3 = $ 

200/ton.

Let me know in case of any other questions I can assist with.

Best regards,

Hanif Suchwani

Director Business Development & Sales Operations

Fuel Tech, Inc.

27601 Bella Vista Parkway

Warrenville, IL 60555

W: 630-845-4498

C: 630-946-3867

Hsuchwani@ftek.com
Exhibit 32

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Dale G. Rettinger, the Chief Financial Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, the managing general partner of PDC 2002-A Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"),  hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

__ /s/ Dale G. Rettinger                  

Name: Dale G. Rettinger

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: ___August 7, 2003_________
No: 15-018 March 23, 2015

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-418-8200 

NRC Proposes to Amend Licensing, Inspection, and Annual Fees Regulations

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks public comments on proposed changes to its 

regulations for the licensing, inspection, and annual fees it charges applicants and licensees for fiscal 

year (FY) 2015. The proposed fee rule, published today in the Federal Register, includes fees required 

by law to recover approximately 90 percent of the agency’s budget authority. 

In order to ensure timely publication of this rulemaking, this proposed fee rule is based on the 

NRC’s FY 2015 President’s budget and adjustments were not made to reflect NRC’s FY 2015 

appropriations. However, because the enacted budget represents a $44.2 million reduction from the 

President’s budget, the NRC will reduce the hourly rate and some fees in the final rule. All figures in 

the final rule will be updated based on the NRC’s appropriation (an estimate has been included in the 

proposed rule). 

For the FY 2015 proposed fee rule, the NRC’s estimated required fee recovery amount is 

approximately $935.3 million, with an estimate of $895.5 million for the final FY 2015 rule. 

Approximately 36 percent of the fees would recover the cost of specific services to identifiable 

applicants and licensees under 10 CFR Part 170. The remaining 64 percent would be billed as annual 

fees under 10 CFR Part 171. By law, the NRC is required to collect all fees by Sept. 30, 2015.

The proposed rule includes several changes affecting licensees and applicants. First, the NRC 

would slightly lower the current hourly rate from $279 to $277 for FY 2015 (with an estimated $268 

hourly rate in the final rule). Second, the NRC would revise the flat rate license application fees in 

10 CFR 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect the new hourly rate. Compared with the FY 2014 annual fees, the 

FY 2015 fees in the proposed rule would increase for operating reactors, fuel facilities, spent fuel 

storage and reactor decommissioning, research and test reactors, some materials users, DOE 

transportation activities, and most uranium recovery licensees. However, the NRC estimates the FY 

2015 fees for operating reactors would decrease in the final rule.

Comments on the proposed rule are due by April 22 and may be submitted through the federal 

rulemaking website at www.regulations.gov, using Docket ID NRC-2014-0200, or by e-mail to 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. They may also be mailed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
Exhibit 13.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Linx (the “Company”), do hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The annual report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: May 15, 2020 | Linx S.A.                     
|------------------ | ------------------------------
|                   |                               
|                   | /s/ Alberto Menache           
|                   | Name:  Alberto Menache        
|                   | Title: Chief Executive Officer





|Date: May 15, 2020 | Linx S.A.                                
|------------------ | -----------------------------------------
|                   |                                          
|                   | /s/ Antonio Ramatis Fernandes Rodrigues  
|                   | Name: Antonio Ramatis Fernandes Rodrigues
|                   | Title: Chief Financial Officer
### SUBCHAPTER XXIII—PREVENTION OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME
### §10603b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10603b was editorially reclassified as section 20105 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### subpart i—general grant provisions
No: IV-15-025 August 20, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

NRC To Hold Public Meeting on Arkansas Nuclear One

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Russellville, Ark., on Sept. 17 with 

representatives of Entergy Operations to discuss preparations for a comprehensive inspection to be 

conducted in early 2016 at Arkansas Nuclear One. The plant is located in Russellville.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in the Lakepoint 

Conference Center, 61 Lake Point Lane. Entergy officials will brief the NRC on preparations they are 

making for the comprehensive inspection being conducted because of significant performance issues 

that warrant the highest level of NRC oversight of operating plants.

Inspectors will devote about 3,000 hours of effort to independently assess the adequacy of 

Entergy programs and processes used to identify, evaluate and correct performance issues; provide 

insights into the causes of performance deficiencies; and evaluate the adequacy of a third-party safety 

culture assessment conducted at the site.

The public is invited to observe the meeting and will have an opportunity to ask questions or 

comment after the business portion is conducted.

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. The NRC’s action matrix reflects overall plant performance and 

agency response. There are five columns in the matrix with Column 1 requiring a baseline level of 

inspections; plants in Column 5 are not permitted to operate. The NRC increases the level of oversight 

and inspection as plant performance deteriorates.

In June 2014, the NRC issued yellow findings to Arkansas Nuclear One in connection with a 

2013 heavy equipment handling incident at the plant. In January 2015, the NRC issued yellow findings 

associated with flood protection at the plant. The cumulative effect of these violations moved the plant 

into Column 4, and it is receiving the highest level of NRC oversight of operating plants. 

Inspections will be performed by three NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant, inspection 

specialists from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, and specialists from the agency’s 

headquarters in Rockville, Md., as well as other regional offices, as needed.

Information about the plant’s current performance is available on the NRC web site.
#### Betty R. Heims, Appellant, v. Meyer Heims, Respondent.

Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur. (Appeal from part of an order of Erie Special Term, after a hearing before Clarence MacGregor, Official Referee, reducing the payments which defendant is required to make for the support of an infant child, on a motion to amend a divorce decree by reducing alimony, and denying plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to furnish a bond as security for support of child.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER X—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT
### §13351. Additional clean coal technology solicitations

#### (a) Program design

Additional clean coal technology solicitations described in subsection (b) shall be designed to ensure the timely development of cost-effective technologies or energy production processes or systems utilizing coal that achieve greater efficiency in the conversion of coal to useful energy when compared to currently commercially available technology for the use of coal and the control of emissions from the combustion of coal. Such program shall be designed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, the availability for commercial use of such technologies by the year 2010.

#### (b) Additional solicitations

In conducting the Clean Coal Program established by Public Law 98–473, the Secretary shall consider the potential benefits of conducting additional solicitations pursuant to such program and, based on the results of that consideration, may carry out such additional solicitations, which shall be similar in scope and percentage of Federal cost sharing as that provided by Public Law 101–121.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1321, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2976.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Public Law 98–473, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 98–473, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1837. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Public Law 101–121, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 101–121, Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 701. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES



|                                        |  |                             
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name:                                   |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|1. Endeavour Operating Corporation      |  | Delaware                    
|2. Endeavour Energy UK Limited          |  | England and Wales           
|3. Endeavour Energy Norge AS            |  | Norway                      
|4. Endeavour Energy Netherlands B.V.    |  | The Netherlands             
|5. Endeavour International Holding B.V. |  | The Netherlands             
|6. Endeavour Energy New Ventures, Inc.  |  | Delaware                    
|7. END Management Company               |  | Delaware                    
|8. Endeavour North Sea Limited          |  | England and Wales           
|9. Endeavour Energy Luxembourg S.a.r.l. |  | Luxembourg
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3556 Received in Senate (RDS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3556

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2012

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the new United States courthouse in Buffalo, New York, as 
          the ``Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse at 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, New York 
shall be known and designated as the ``Robert H. Jackson United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert H. 
Jackson United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```