alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1507.9 Toy smoke devices and flitter devices. ( a ) Toy smoke devices shall be so constructed that they will neither burst nor produce external flame (excluding the fuse and firstfire upon ignition) during normal operation.
( b ) Toy smoke devices and flitter devices shall not be of such color and configuration so as to be confused with banned fireworks such as M-80 salutes, silver salutes, or cherry bombs.
( c ) Toy smoke devices shall not incorporate plastic as an exterior material if the pyrotechnic composition comes in direct contact with the plastic.
§ 12.206 Pre-decision conferences. ( a ) At any time after a summary decisional proceeding has been commenced pursuant to § 12.26(b), the Administrative Judge may, in their discretion, conduct one or more pre-decision conferences to be held in Washington, DC, or by telephone, with all parties, for the purposes of: ( 1 ) Discussing the advisability of electing the voluntary decisional procedure;
( 2 ) Encouraging settlement of the entire case, or any part thereof, (such discussions may be *ex parte* with the consent of all parties);
( 3 ) Simplifying or clarifying issues;
( 4 ) Obtaining stipulations, admissions of fact and of authenticity of documents;
( 5 ) Discussing amendments or supplements to the pleadings;
( 6 ) Encouraging an early settlement of disputes relating to discovery; and
( 7 ) Discussing any matters of relevance in the proceeding.
( b ) At or following the conclusion of such a conference, the Administrative Judge may serve a pre-decision memorandum and order setting forth the agreements, if any, reached by the parties, any procedural determinations made by the Administrative Judge, and the issues for resolution not disposed of by the admissions or agreements by the parties. Such order, when issued, shall control the subsequent course of the proceeding unless modified to prevent injustice.
[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 86 FR 64357, Nov. 18, 2021]
#### Anna Sushin v. Julius Miller.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.
September 22, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-15-0002 – PROPOSED 

UPDATES OF LICENSING POLICIES, RULES, AND GUIDANCE 

FOR FUTURE NEW REACTOR APPLICATIONS 

The Commission has approved the staff’s recommendation to confirm that the Commission's 

guidance given in the "Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future 

Designs and Existing Plants" and other Commission direction identified by staff apply to new 

10 CFR Part 50 power reactor applications in a manner consistent with 10 CFR Part 52 design 

and license applications. 

The Commission has approved revision of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 for new power 

reactor applications to more closely align with requirements in 10 CFR Part 52, incorporating the 

requirements identified by the staff in this paper. The Commission has also approved revision 

of 10 CFR Part 52 and supporting regulations, including 10 CFR Part 50, to reflect lessons 

learned from recent new reactor licensing activities. The priority and schedule for these updates 

should be evaluated in the context of Project Aim 2020 to ensure effective use of Agency 

resources. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
§ 682.4 Relation to other laws. Nothing in the rule in this part shall be construed: ( a ) To require a person to maintain or destroy any record pertaining to a consumer that is not imposed under other law; or
( b ) To alter or affect any requirement imposed under any other provision of law to maintain or destroy such a record.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**Certification**


**Pursuant
      to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the**


**United
      States Code as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**


**of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the filing of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biomass
      Processing Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended August 14,
      2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), the undersigned, Robert F. Kendall, CPA, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
                as
                applicable, 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.





Dated:  May
      9,
      2006


/s/
      Robert F. Kendall


Name:   
      Robert F. Kendall, CPA


Title: Chief
      Financial Officer


(principal financial officer)
#### Ackerman Mechanical Services, Inc., Appellant, v Michael K. Hayes, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[821 NYS2d 521]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R. Glownia, J.), entered November 23, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part plaintiffs motion for a protective order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the motion in its entirety and vacating the fourth and fifth ordering paragraphs and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Ackerman Mech. Servs., Inc. v Hayes*(32 AD3d 1307*[2006]).*Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1800)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Docket DOT-OST-1998-3305



### TNT AIRWAYS S.A. Summary of Passenger Manifest Information Collection Plan

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 243.13, the followi ng is a summary of TNT Airways S.A.’s (“TNT”) plan to collect the required passenger manifest information from passengers on all flight segments operated by TNT to or from the Un ited States and to transmit that information to the U.S. Department of State following an av iation disaster occurr ing on such flights:

1. TNT will collect, or cause to be collected, th e full name from each U.S. citizen traveling on its covered flights at the time his or her reservatio n is made or at the fli ght departure airport. This information will be collected from every such person aboard a covered flight segment irrespective of whether he or sh e paid for the trans portation, had a reservation, or occupied a seat, except the crew. Any U.S. citizen who re fuses to provide the required name information will be prohibited from boarding the flight.

2. TNT will solicit, or cause to be solicited, th e name and telephone number of a contact person not traveling on the covered flight from each passenger who is a U.S. citizen.

3. All of the collected information will be maintained by TNT until all passengers have disembarked from the covered flight segment.

4. The contact information will be kept confidentia l and released only to the U.S. Department of State, the National Transportation Safety Board (upon NTSB’s request), and the U.S. Department of Transportation. TNT will use this contact information only for notification of family members or listed contacts following an av iation disaster and will not use the information for commercial or marketing purposes.

5. In the event that a disaster occurs on TNT flight segment to or from the United States, a complete and accurate compilation of the collected information will be sent immediately to TNT's Flight Operations Center, which will be responsible for transmitting this information as quickly as possible but not later than three hours after TNT learns of such disaster to the U.S. Department of State.

6. The name and telephone number of the contac t person at TNT who will be available at any time TNT operates a covered flight segment and who can be consulted concerning the collected information described will be provided to the ap propriate Department officials under separate

cover.
----

----

| (1) | The      Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended      September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission      on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Registrant. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      Michael V. Shustek                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael      V. Shustek                                   |
| Chief      Executive Officer and Director of the Manager* |
| of      Vestin Mortgage, Inc., Manager of theRegistrant   |

| /s/Rocio      Revollo                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Rocio      Revollo                                      |
| Chief      Financial Officer of the Manager*            |
| of      Vestin Mortgage, Inc., Manager of theRegistrant |
#### Harris C. Cohen, Appellant, v. Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

Memorandum: The plaintiff, an insured under two policies of insurance, each in the face amount of $25,000, brings this action to recover total permanent disability benefits provided for by said policies. The defendant by its answer denied liability for disability benefits and interposed two counterclaims. In the first counterclaim, defendant seeks repayment of all disability payments made since July 1, 1939, under policy Ho. *888470659, together with interest on each monthly payment and in the second counterclaim, defendant seeks payment of all premium payments mistakenly waived on both policies since July 1, 1939, together with interest thereon from the original due date thereof. The trial court found for the defendant, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and awarded the relief sought by the defendant in both counterclaims. The judgment, insofar as it adjudged that the defendant recover the sum of $19,500 representing disability payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff under said policy No. 470659 since July 1, 1939, together with the sum of $6,711.25 interest thereon, created the relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties. The son and daughter of the insured, the named beneficiaries under policy No. 470659, are “ entitled to the proceeds and avails of such policy as against the creditors ” of the insured (Insurance Law, § 166, subd. 1). That portion of the judgment which directs that policy No. 470659 shall lapse within thirty-one days from service of a copy of the judgment upon the plaintiff unless the plaintiff shall, within that time, pay in full to the defendant the sums paid as disability payments, is clearly in violation of said section 166 of the Insurance Law. The judgment entered herein should be modified by striking from the third ordering paragraph thereof the following words: “ in full to the defendant the amount adjudged above, and, shall also pay within that time ” and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant on a directed verdict in an action for disability payments under a rider on an insurance policy, and awards judgment in favor of defendant on its counterclaim.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
#### In the Matter of John T. Young, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[818 NYS2d 872]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of eannabinoids. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court as the petition raised an issue of substantial evidence *(see*CPLR 7804 [g]; *Matter of Hamilton v Selsky,*13 AD3d 844, 845 [2004], *lv denied*5 NY3d 704 [2005]). Upon reviewing the record, we find that the misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Burgos-Morales v Goord,*22 AD3d 999, 1000 [2005]; *Matter of Wigfall v Goord,*20 AD3d 799, 800 [2005]). Petitioner’s defense that he did not provide a urine sample on the date in question and that the sample tested belonged to another inmate with the same last name presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Jude v Goord,*277 AD2d 535, 535 [2000]). Moreover, petitioner was not improperly denied documentary evidence establishing that he was randomly selected for the drug test inasmuch as the requested document was not available *(see Matter of Burse v Goord,*274 AD2d 678, 679 [2000]), and he was provided with another document containing the same information *(see Matter of Benton v Coombe,*242 AD2d 763, 764 [1997]). His remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Antonio Paolozzi, Respondent, v. John Viscosi, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
### §14611. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14611 was editorially reclassified as section 40311 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 923.32 Lakeward or seaward boundary. ( a ) ( 1 ) For states adjoining the Great Lakes, the lakeward boundary of the State's coastal zone is the international boundary with Canada or the boundaries with adjacent states. For states adjacent to the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico, the seaward boundary is the outer limit of state title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act (48 U.S.C. 1301 *et seq.*), the Act of March 2, 1917 (48 U.S.C. 749), the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, as approved by the Act of March 24, 1976 (48 U.S.C. 1681 note) or section 1 of the Act of November 10, 1963, (48 U.S.C. 1705, as applicable).
( 2 ) The requirement for defining the seaward boundary of a State's coastal zone can be met by a simple restatement of the limits defined in this section, unless there are water areas which require a more exact delineation because of site specific policies associated with these areas. Where States have site specific policies for particular water areas, these shall be mapped, described or referenced so that their location can be determined reasonably easily by any party affected by the policies.
( b ) The seaward limits, as defined in this section, are for purposes of this program only and represent the area within which the State's management program may be authorized and financed. These limits are irrespective of any other claims States may have by virtue of other laws.
§ 680.25 Reasonable and simple methods of opting out. ( a ) *In general.* You must not use eligibility information about a consumer that you receive from an affiliate to make a solicitation to the consumer about your products or services, unless the consumer is provided a reasonable and simple method to opt out, as required by § 680.21(a)(1)(ii) of this part.
( b ) *Examples* — ( 1 ) *Reasonable and simple opt-out methods.* Reasonable and simple methods for exercising the opt-out right include— ( i ) Designating a check-off box in a prominent position on the opt-out form;
( ii ) Including a reply form and a self-addressed envelope together with the opt-out notice;
( iii ) Providing an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be electronically mailed or processed at an Internet Web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information;
( iv ) Providing a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out; or
( v ) Allowing consumers to exercise all of their opt-out rights described in a consolidated opt-out notice that includes the privacy opt-out under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. 6801 *et seq.,* the affiliate sharing opt-out under the Act, and the affiliate marketing opt-out under the Act, by a single method, such as by calling a single toll-free telephone number.
( 2 ) *Opt-out methods that are not reasonable and simple.* Reasonable and simple methods for exercising an opt-out right *do not* include— ( i ) Requiring the consumer to write his or her own letter;
( ii ) Requiring the consumer to call or write to obtain a form for opting out, rather than including the form with the opt-out notice;
( iii ) Requiring the consumer who receives the opt-out notice in electronic form only, such as through posting at an Internet Web site, to opt out solely by paper mail or by visiting a different Web site without providing a link to that site.
( c ) *Specific opt-out means.* Each consumer may be required to opt out through a specific means, as long as that means is reasonable and simple for that consumer.
### §12904. Eligible activities

Grants allocated under this chapter shall be available only for approved activities to carry out strategies designed to prevent homelessness among eligible persons. Approved activities shall include activities that—

(1) enable public and nonprofit organizations or agencies to provide housing information to such persons and coordinate efforts to expand housing assistance resources for such persons under section 12906 of this title;

(2) facilitate the development and operation of shelter and services for such persons under section 12907 of this title;

(3) provide rental assistance to such persons under section 12908 of this title;

(4) facilitate (through project-based rental assistance or other means) the moderate rehabilitation of single room occupancy dwellings (SROs) that would be made available only to such persons under section 12909 of this title;

(5) facilitate the development of community residences for eligible persons under section 12910 of this title;

(6) carry out other activities that the Secretary develops in cooperation with eligible States and localities, except that activities developed under this paragraph may be assisted only with amounts provided under section 12903(c)(3) 1 of this title.

The Secretary shall establish standards and guidelines for approved activities. The Secretary shall permit grantees to refine and adapt such standards and guidelines for individual projects, where such refinements and adaptations are made necessary by local circumstances.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title VIII, §855, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4378; Pub. L. 102–550, title VI, §606(e), (h)(2), (j)(3), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3808, 3810.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 12903(c)(3) of this title, referred to in par. (6), was redesignated section 12903(c)(5) of this title by Pub. L. 114–201, title VII, §701(a)(1), July 29, 2016, 130 Stat. 812.

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–550, §606(j)(3)(A), in introductory provisions, substituted "eligible persons" for "such persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome".

Par. (3). Pub. L. 102–550, §606(h)(2), struck out "short-term" after "provide".

Par. (5). Pub. L. 102–550, §606(j)(3)(B), struck out "with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome" after "persons".

Par. (6). Pub. L. 102–550, §606(e), inserted before period at end ", except that activities developed under this paragraph may be assisted only with amounts provided under section 12903(c)(3) of this title".

1 See References in Text note below.
No: II-14-012 March 24, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Meeting April 2 to Discuss Agency’s 

Assessment of Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting for April 2 to discuss the 

agency’s assessment of the Sequoyah nuclear power plant during 2013. The plant, operated by the Tennessee 

Valley Authority, is located near Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., about 18 miles northeast of Chattanooga.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. in the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 

Training Center Auditorium, 2440 Igou Ferry Road in Soddy-Daisy.

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

performance of the Sequoyah plant, as well as the overall NRC role in ensuring safe plant operations.

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

Sequoyah units during 2013 and will serve as the basis for the discussion. 

 During the latter part of 2013, both Sequoyah units were 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 Sequoyah Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC website.