alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 12, 2016

2012-2014 Pesticide General Permit Annual Report Da ta

The spreadsheet titled 2012-2014 PGP Annual Report Data is a compilation of data from Pesticide General Permit (PGP) notices of intent (N OIs) and annual reports required under the 2011 PGP for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. The information was obtained through multiple data exports from the U.S. EPA’s electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) d atabase. Annual Report data is also publically avai lable via EPA’s eNOI ( http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-applications-3 ). The exported data included permit numbers, size of treatment area, pesticide p roduct name, EPA Registration Number, quantity applied and the calendar year when the pesticide wa s applied. The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIS) along with the Pesticide Pr oduct Label System (PPLS) were used to associate active ingredients to the EPA pesticide registratio n number provided by permittees in their Annual Reports. If an EPA pesticide registration number wa s incorrectly typed or missing, then the pesticide product name, listed in the Annual Reports, was ent ered in the NPIS and PPLS search tools. This information is presented in Tab 1 of the spreadshee t.

From the Annual Report data, the U.S. EPA summariz ed by year, the top pesticides applied from 2012-2014 (Tab 2 of the spreadsheet). Each year was further broken out by liquid pesticides (gallons) or non-liquid pesticides (lbs.). A summary of pesticid e product names were then summarized by permittee in Tab 3 of the spreadsheet.

During the same time frame, separate eNOI data expo rts were performed to collect information from NOI forms submitted by Decision-makers. From t his information, the pesticide use pattern (e.g. weed and algae pest control) was obtained. If an ad juvant or surfactant was listed as a type of pestic ide, the pesticide use pattern was changed to “other.” I f a soil fumigant, used to control soil-borne nematodes, fungi or germinating weed seeds was list ed as a pesticide, the pesticide use pattern was changed to “weed and algae; animal” to distinguish these pesticides from those applied to control the four pesticide use patterns associated with the 201 1 PGP. The total number of pesticide applications used to treat each pesticide use pattern is totaled by year in the Tab 4 of the spreadsheet.
§ 1025.53 Appeal from initial decision. ( a ) *Who may file notice of intention.* Any party may appeal an Initial Decision to the Commission, provided that within ten (10) days after issuance of the Initial Decision such party files and serves a notice of intention to appeal.
( b ) *Appeal brief.* An appeal is perfected by filing a brief within forty (40) days after service of the Initial Decision. The appeal brief must be served upon all parties. The appeal brief shall contain, in the order indicated, the following: ( 1 ) A subject index of the matters in the brief, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabetically arranged), textbooks, statutes, and other material cited, with page references thereto;
( 2 ) A concise statement of the case;
( 3 ) A statement containing the reasons why the party believes the Initial Decision is incorrect;
( 4 ) The argument, presenting clearly the points of fact and law relied upon to support each reason why the Initial Decision is incorrect, with specific page references to the record and the legal or other material relied upon; and
( 5 ) A proposed form of order for the Commission's consideration in lieu of the order contained in the Initial Decision.
( c ) *Answering brief.* Within thirty (30) days after service of the appeal brief upon all parties, any party may file an answering brief which shall contain a subject index, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabetically arranged), textbooks, statutes, and other material cited, with page references thereto. Such brief shall present clearly the points of fact and law relied upon in support of the reasons the party has for each position urged, with specific page references to the record and legal or other materials relied upon.
( d ) *Participant's brief.* Within thirty (30) days after service of the appeal brief upon all parties, any participant may file a brief on appeal, presenting clearly the position urged.
( e ) *Cross appeal.* If a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file a notice of cross appeal within ten (10) days of the date on which the first notice of appeal was filed. Cross appeals shall be included in the answering brief and shall conform to the requirements for form, content, and filing specified in paragraph (b) of this section for an appeal brief. If an appeal is noticed but not perfected, no cross appeal shall be permitted and the notice of cross appeal shall be deemed void.
( f ) *Reply brief.* A reply brief shall be limited to rebuttal of matters presented in answering briefs, including matters raised in cross-appeals. A reply brief shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days after service of an answering brief, or on the day preceding the oral argument, whichever comes first.
( g ) *Oral argument.* The purpose of an oral argument is to emphasize and clarify the issues. The Commission may order oral argument upon request of any party or upon its own initiative. A transcript of oral arguments shall be prepared. A Commissioner absent from an oral argument may participate in the consideration of and decision on the appeal.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3584 

To authorize the United States Postal Service to co-locate post offices at 

retail facilities and municipal buildings, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. OWENS (for himself, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, and Mr. DEUTCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To authorize the United States Postal Service to co-locate 

post offices at retail facilities and municipal buildings, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Postal 

5 Service Preservation and Cost Savings Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CO-LOCATION OF POST OFFICES AT RETAIL FACILI7 TIES AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404(d) of title 39, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3584 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2)(A)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause 

3 (iv); and 

4 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(vi) whether such post office should 

6 be co-located at a retail facility or a munic7 ipal building, consistent with the require8 ments of paragraph (7); and’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(7) With respect to any post office being con11 sidered for closure or consolidation under this sub12 section, the Postal Service shall review and consider 

13 whether such post office should, in lieu of closure or 

14 consolidation, be co-located at a retail facility or mu15 nicipal building within 1 mile of such post office.’’. 

16 (b) POST OFFICES CLOSED OR CONSOLIDATED BE17 TWEEN JANUARY 1, 2011, AND DATE OF ENACTMENT.— 

18 With respect to any post office closed or consolidated 

19 under section 404 of title 39, United States Code, between 

20 January 1, 2011, and the date of enactment of this sec21 tion, the Postal Service shall review and consider whether 

22 such closed or consolidated post office should be reestab23 lished and co-located at a retail facility or municipal build24 ing within 1 mile of such former post office. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-15-0045:  Issuance of Generic Letter 2015-01, "Treatment of Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel Cycle Facilities

Accession Number: ML15036A141

Date Released: Monday, April 13, 2015

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.
    - ML15035A389 - SECY-15-0045:  Issuance of a Generic Letter 2015-01, "Treatment of Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel Cycle Facilities" (3 page(s), 3/27/2015)
    - ML15086A515 - SECY-15-0045: Enclosure 1, NRC Generic Letter 2015-01:  Treatment of Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel Cycle Facilities (11 page(s), 3/27/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
## Accepted: RTR Bins 1 and 2 -- EPA / OMB Meeting - 9/14 Tue 09/14/2010 9:30 AM - 11:30 AM Location: Conference Line -- (919) 541-4248 RTP Conf Rm -- D201
"Higgins, Cortney" has accepted this meeting invitation
Required: A nn Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, A nne Pope/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brenda Shine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, chiggins@OMB.eop.gov, Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Eric Ginsburg/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan
No: II-15-005 March 5, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Returns NFS Facility in Erwin, Tenn., to Normal Agency Oversight and Inspection 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the Licensee Performance Review for the Nuclear Fuel 

Services facility in Erwin, Tenn., and the recent performance documented in that review has led the agency to 

return NFS to the normal level of oversight and inspection for NRC-licensed facilities of the same type.

In 2004, the NRC increased its oversight of the facility, including the addition of a second resident 

inspector, based on the facility’s performance and ongoing changes. Since that time, the agency has kept that 

increased level, but sustained improvement over the past several years, verified by NRC inspections, led to the 

conclusion that a return to the normal or core oversight level is warranted. 

The recent closure of the Safety Culture Confirmatory Order and the results of the review covering the 

period from January 2013 to December 2014 further demonstrate the improvement at the NFS facility. 

“Our most recent review of NFS found no areas needing improvement and we believe the management 

and staff of the facility now have the appropriate focus on safety and environmental protection required by the 

NRC,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree.

As part of the NFS facility’s return to normal oversight, there will no longer be a second resident 

inspector at the site, but the facility will continue to have a senior resident inspector whose inspections will be 

supplemented by region-based inspectors from the NRC offices in Atlanta.

A public meeting to discuss the results of the review as well as NRC oversight and inspection activities 

at NFS will be held in Erwin on April 23. Further details of that meeting will be provided later.

The NRC’s letter detailing the review of the NFS facility will be available on the NRC website by 

searching for ML15064A006.

###
§ 1505.51 Hot surfaces. ( a ) *Test probe.* Section 1505.6(g)(2) defines accessibility, for certain paragraphs, as the ability to reach a heated surface with a 1 ⁄ 4-inch-diameter rod 3 inches long. To test for accessibility using this test probe, it shall be inserted no more than 3 inches into any opening in the toy. Unless the probe contacts a surface within 3 inches of the plane of the toy's opening, that surface is not accessible.
( b ) *Accessibility of Type C and C-marked surfaces.* Under § 1505.6(g)(2) (iii) and (iv), touching by casual contact or without employing the aid of a common household tool shall be determined by use of the accessibility test probe described in §§ 1505.6(g)(2) and 1505.51(a).
[51 FR 34199, Sept. 26, 1986]
### SUBCHAPTER I—EARTH SCIENCE
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-15-0120 - Annual Review of the Lessons-Learned Program.

Accession Number: ML15246A203

Date Released: Tuesday, October 13, 2015

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.
    - ML15246A207 - SECY-15-0120:  Annual Report on the Lessons-Learned Program (6 page(s), 9/24/2015)
    - ML15246A209 - SECY-15-0120: Enclosure 1 - Potential Lessons-Learned Items Presented to the Lessons-Learned Oversight Board October 2014 - September 2015. (1 page(s), 9/24/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael A. Arends, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Marchex, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Marchex, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|Date: August 7, 2009 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    MICHAEL A. ARENDS
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Michael A. Arends       
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1507.8 Wheel devices.

Drivers in fireworks devices commonly known as “wheels” shall be securely attached to the device so that they will not come loose in transportation, handling, and normal operation. Wheel devices intended to operate in a fixed location shall be designed in such a manner that the axle remains attached to the device during normal operation.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice to delete systems of records.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Air Force is deleting a system of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

# DATES:

This proposed actions will be effective without further notice on December 27, 2004, unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Manager, Office of the Chief Information Officer, AF-CIO/P, 1155 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mrs. Anne Rollins at (703) 696-6280. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Department of the Air Force systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                 

The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. 

Dated: November 19, 2004. 

Jeannette Owings-Ballard, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

## F061 AFMC A 

### System name: 

Aeromedical Research Data (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 31793). 

*Reason:*                         Records are now being maintained under the system of records F044 AF SG E, entitled “Medical Record System” last published in the                         **Federal Register**                         December 9, 2003, 68 FR 68609.                     

[FR Doc. 04-26110 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### In the Matter of Jennifer L.B., Appellant, v Jared R.B., Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 711]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered January 18, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, denied the petition seeking to modify the custody and visitation provisions in the judgment of divorce by permitting the children to relocate with petitioner-respondent to Illinois, granted the cross petition and awarded custody of the children to respondent-petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the cross petition and vacating the third through eighth ordering paragraphs and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The parties were married in 1996 and, pursuant to an oral stipulation that was incorporated but not merged in their judgment of divorce in 2001, they agreed to joint legal custody and “shared physical custody” of their two children. Petitioner-respondent (petitioner) appeals from an order deny*1175ing her petition pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act seeking to modify the custody and visitation provisions in the judgment of divorce by permitting the children to relocate with her to Illinois and granting the cross petition of respondent-petitioner (respondent) to modify the judgment of divorce by awarding him primary physical custody of the children.

In order to establish her entitlement to an order permitting the children to relocate with her, petitioner was required to establish “by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] proposed relocation would serve the child[ren]’s best interests” *(Matter of Tropea v Tropea,*87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]). Family Court’s determination that the proposed relocation would not be in the children’s best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record and thus will not be disturbed *(see generally Matter of Battaglia v Hopkins,*280 AD2d 953, 954 [2001]; *White v White,*209 AD2d 949 [1994], *lv dismissed*85 NY2d 924 [1995]).

We agree with petitioner, however, that the court erred in granting respondent’s cross petition. “It is well established that alteration of an established custody arrangement will be ordered only upon a showing of a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interests] of the child[ren]” (Ma*tter of Irwin v Neyland,*213 AD2d 773, 773 [1995]; *see Fuss v Fuss,*15 AD3d 949 [2005]; *Matter of Di Fiore v Scott,*2 AD3d 1417 [2003]). The sole change in circumstances established by the evidence in the record is petitioner’s proposed relocation to Illinois, and that proposed relocation does not by itself justify altering the existing custody arrangement inasmuch as petitioner agreed to remain in the area in the event that her petition is denied *(see Matter of Glaser v McFadden,*287 AD2d 902, 905 [2001]). Consequently, we modify the order by denying respondent’s cross petition and vacating the visitation and physical custody provisions. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Green, JJ.
§ 1205.5 Walk-behind rotary power mower controls. ( a ) *Blade control systems* — ( 1 ) *Requirements for blade control.* A walk-behind rotary power mower shall have a blade control system that will perform the following functions: ( i ) Prevent the blade from operating unless the operator actuates the control.
( ii ) Require continuous contact with the control in order for the blade to continue to be driven.
( iii ) Cause the blade motion in the normal direction of travel to come to a complete stop within 3.0 seconds after release of the control.
( iv ) For a mower with an engine and with only manual starting controls, this blade control shall stop the blade without stopping the engine, unless: ( A ) The engine starting controls for the lawn mower are located within 24 inches from the top of the mower's handles, or
( B ) The mower has a protective foot shield which extends 360 degrees around the mower housing (see § 1205.4 (b)(1)(ii)(B)).[1]
( 2 ) All walk-behind rotary power mowers shall have, in addition to any blade control required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, another means which must be manually actuated before a stopped blade can be restarted. This additional means may be either a control which is separate from the control required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or may be incorporated into the control required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section as a double-action device requiring two distinct actions to restart the blade.
( b ) *Blade stopping test* — ( 1 ) *General.* Any test method that will determine the time between the release of the blade control and the complete stop of the blade motion in the normal direction of travel may be used.
( 2 ) *Conditions.* ( i ) The mower shall be operated at maximum operating speed for at least 6 minutes immediately prior to the test.
( ii ) The blade must be at maximum operating speed when the blade control is released.
( c ) *Starting controls location.* Walk-behind mowers with blades that begin operation when the power source starts shall have their normal starting means located within the operating control zone unless the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) (A) or (B) of this section apply to the mowers.
[44 FR 10024, Feb. 15, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 54934, Nov. 5, 1978] Footnotes -
1205.5
[1] Paragraphs (A) and (B) of § 1205.5(a)(1)(iv), permitting mowers that stop the blade by stopping the engine but that do not have power restart, were added to the standard as directed by Sec. 1212 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357.
No: 13-103 December 13, 2013

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

South Texas Project Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS) for the proposed renewal of the operating licenses for the South Texas Project nuclear 

power plant, Units 1 and 2. The report concludes there are no environmental impacts that would 

preclude renewing the plant’s licenses.

The South Texas Project is two pressurized water reactors located in Bay City, about 90 miles 

southwest of Houston. The current licenses expire on Aug. 20, 2027, for Unit 1 and Dec. 15, 2028, for 

Unit 2.

The licensee, STP Nuclear Operating Co., filed its renewal application on Oct. 25, 2010, 

seeking to extend the operating licenses for an additional 20 years, to 2047 for Unit 1 and 2048 for Unit 

2. 

The license renewal review process proceeds along two tracks – one for review of safety issues 

and another for environmental issues. As part of its environmental review of the application, the NRC 

held public meetings near the plant to discuss the review process and the draft version of the 

environmental impact statement. Comments were received and considered from members of the public, 

local officials, and representatives of state and federal agencies.

The NRC published a safety evaluation report with open items in February. However, the safety 

review has been paused until 2014 at the applicant’s request.

The final supplemental environmental impact statement for the South Texas Project license 

renewal (NUREG-1437, Supplement 48), as well as the license renewal application and other 

information on the review, can be found on the NRC website.