alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

March 31, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – MEETING WITH THE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE ON THE MEDICAL USES OF ISOTOPES, 9:30 

A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2016, COMMISSIONERS’ 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed on a variety of medical issues by representatives from the 

Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). The topics discussed included 

an overview of ACMUI activities; ACMUI’s comments on the NRC’s Patient Release Project; 

Patients’ Rights Advocate’s comments on the NRC’s Patient Release Project; ACMUI’s 

comments on the training and experience requirements for authorized users of alpha and beta 

emitters; decommissioning funding plan requirements for the medical use of germanium68/gallium-68 generators; and enhancing ACMUI communications. 

There were no requirements identified for staff action. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-16-0041:  Closure of Fukushima Tier 3 Recommendations Related to Containment Vents, Hydrogen Control, and Enhanced Instrumentation

Accession Number: ML16049A079

Date Released: Tuesday, April 19, 2016

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.
    - ML16049A088 - SECY-16-0041:  Closure of Fukushima Tier 3 Recommendations Related to Containment Vents, Hydrogen Control and Enhanced Instrumentation (6 page(s), 3/31/2016)
    - ML16049A291 - SECY-16-0041:  Enclosure 1 - Closure of Fukushima Tier 3 Recommendations Related to Containment Vents, Hydrogen Control and Enhanced Instrumentation (30 page(s), 3/31/2016)
    - ML16049A295 - SECY-16-0041: Enclosure 2 - Closure of Tier 3 Additional Recommendation Related to Enhanced Reactor and Containment Instrumentation for Beyond-Design-Basis Conditions. (20 page(s), 3/31/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
```

[115th Congress Public Law 388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5171]]

Public Law 115-388
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, as the ``Postmaster 
 Frazier B. Baker Post Office''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 7230]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. POSTMASTER FRAZIER B. BAKER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Postmaster 
Frazier B. Baker Post Office''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 7230:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Dec. 11, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Bar Association of Nassau County, N. Y., Inc. Charles W. Ellsworth, Jr., an Attorney.

Application to discipline an attorney. Respondent failed to appear before petitioner’s grievance committee and failed to appear in this court or to submit any papers in opposition to the petition. The petition charges respondent with acts of professional misconduct in violation of the provisions of section 90 of the Judiciary Law. On his default, respondent is disbarred and his name ordered to be struck from the roll of attorneys. Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ.
#### § 1018.12 Statutory advisory committees.

The Commission has one statutory advisory committee subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Toxicological Advisory Board was established by the Commission on December 22, 1978, pursuant to section 20 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, as amended (Pub. L. 95-631, 92 Stat. 3747, 15 U.S.C. 1275).

[46 FR 63248, Dec. 31, 1981]
Contact Us

#   Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act

Section 812 of the 1990 Amendments (Public Law 101-549) requires EPA conduct scientifically reviewed studies of the impact of the Clean Air Act on the public health, economy and environment of the United States. These studies ask:

*How do the overall health, welfare, ecological, and economic benefits of Clean Air Act programs compare to the costs of these programs?*

More than forty years of experience with the Clean Air Act has shown that America can build its economy and create jobs while cutting pollution to protect the health of our citizens and our workforce.

----

****

## The Studies:

                - **Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990: Retrospective study**  - On October 15, 1997, EPA issued the first in this series of reports, entitled "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990," following completion of a six-year process of study development and outside expert review. The report shows that the public health protection and environmental benefits of the Clean Air Act exceeded the costs of its programs by a large margin.  		 
                - **Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010: First prospective study**  - On November 15, 1999, EPA issued the second in this series of reports, "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010" This second study, the first of an ongoing series of prospective analyses, was also issued after a six-year process of study development and outside expert review. This first prospective study also finds that the benefits of the programs and standards required by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly exceed costs.  		 
                - Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2020: Second prospective study  - On March 1, 2011, EPA issued the third in this series of reports, "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2020." This third study updates and expands the First Prospective Study by using new and better data and modeling tools. The new study also looks further out into the future by evaluating the costs and benefits of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment programs through the year 2020. The second prospective study also finds that the benefits of the programs and standards required by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments significantly exceed costs.  		 

          -  Clean Air Act Overview Home 
          -  Progress Cleaning the Air 
          -  Air Pollution Challenges 
          -  Requirements and History 
          -  Role of Science and Technology 
          -  Roles of State, Local, Tribal and Federal Governments 
          -  Developing Programs Through Dialogue 
          -  Flexibility with Accountability 
          -  The Clean Air Act and the Economy 

Contact Us
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3892 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3892

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 29, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 8771 Auburn Folsom Road in Roseville, California, as the ``Lance 
                 Corporal Victor A. Dew Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL VICTOR A. DEW POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8771 Auburn Folsom Road in Roseville, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lance Corporal Victor A. Dew Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance 
Corporal Victor A. Dew Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 28, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
November 30, 2015 

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Lowey: 

 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your 

letter of October 20, 2015, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the NRC 

expressing continuing concern with Spectra Energy Partners’ proposed pipeline project in the 

vicinity of the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, New York. 

 I assure you that the NRC conducted a rigorous independent confirmatory analysis of 

Entergy’s hazard analysis using software fully capable of supporting the analysis. Our analysis 

made conservative assumptions that resulted in an outcome more severe than could reasonably 

be expected to occur if there were a real pipeline rupture. The analysis included modeling a 

pipe break at the location closest to plant structures using ALOHA software and accounting for a 

limitation in the software by doubling the predicted gas release from the upstream side of a pipe 

break to account for flow escaping from both sides of the break. The NRC’s independent 

analysis concluded that a potential rupture of the proposed pipeline would pose no threat to the 

safe operation or the safe shutdown of the plant. 

 Your letter urged us to require the conduct of an independent transient analysis. 

However, the bounding analysis prepared by the NRC staff postulates more severe results than 

a transient analysis would estimate because it assumed that the maximum gas release rate was 

sustained and did not decrease with time in the manner that a transient analysis would predict. 

This conservative assumption causes more gas to be available to explode than would be the 

case in a transient analysis which produces results that bound those that a more detailed 

analysis would yield. Therefore, we do not believe a separate transient analysis would provide 

any insight beyond the analysis already completed by the NRC. 

 Finally, the staff completed its responses to Mr. Blanch’s 39 questions and sent a letter 

transmitting those answers to Mr. Blanch on November 6, 2015. A copy of that response is 

enclosed for your information. In addition, I met personally with Mr. Blanch and, based on his 

concerns, ensured that the NRC staff had performed a thorough analysis of the issues raised by 

Mr. Blanch. I also ensured that the staff was following appropriate NRC processes for 

responding to his concerns. 

 
- 2 - 

 Please know that the NRC shares your interest in ensuring the safety of Indian Point. If 

you need more information, please contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of 

Congressional Affairs, at (301) 415-1776. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosure: 

As stated 
Identical letter sent to: 

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515
### §15601. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15601 was editorially reclassified as section 30301 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### The Board of Supervisors of Schenectady County, Respondent, v. Franklin H. Smith and Henrietta Montanye, as Administrators, etc., of William J. Montanye, Deceased, Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, -with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
§ 437.9 Outstanding orders; preemption. ( a ) A business opportunity required by prior FTC or court order to follow the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR part 436, may petition the Commission to amend the order or to stipulate to an amendment of the court order so that the business opportunity may follow the provisions of this part.
( b ) The FTC does not intend to preempt the business opportunity sales practices laws of any state or local government, except to the extent of any conflict with this part. A law is not in conflict with this Rule if it affords prospective purchasers equal or greater protection, such as registration of disclosure documents or more extensive disclosures. All such disclosures, however, must be made in a separate state disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 of Rincon  Resources,
Inc. on Form 10- QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Graeme
Scott,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  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 my 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 result of operations of the Company.


         /s/    Bryan E. Rhodes
         Bryan E. Rhodes
         Secretary/Treasurer, C.F.O., and Director
         (Principal Financial Officer)


         November 12, 2004


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.
### §13791. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13791 was editorially reclassified as section 12161 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
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 of Edgewater Foods International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending November 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I,
Michael Boswell, Acting Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
and for the periods indicated.








Date:
March 9, 2009





/s/  Michael
Boswell


Michael
Boswell,


Acting
Chief Accounting Officer
#### § 1460.1 Scope and application.

In accordance with the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, portable gasoline containers must comply with the requirements specified in § 1460.3, which are considered to be a consumer product safety rule.
#### Sarah Kamp, Respondent, v. Syracuse Transit Corporation et al., Appellants. Julius Kamp, Respondent, v. Syracuse Transit Corporation et al., Appellants.

Motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See 284 App. Div. 1028.]
No: I-14-023 May 16, 2014

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC to Meet With Entergy May 28 to Discuss

Performance of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting May 28 to discuss the agency’s 

annual review of safety performance at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, which is located 

Vernon (Windham County), Vt.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium at Brattleboro Union High 

School, at 131 Fairground Road in Brattleboro, Vt. It will include a brief presentation on the 

decommissioning process followed by a formal question-and-answer session regarding plant 

performance and regulatory oversight topics. There will be a security bag search at the entrance to the 

meeting.

Overall, the Vermont Yankee plant, which is owned and operated by Entergy Nuclear 

Operations Inc., operated safely during 2013, with no findings exceeding very low safety significance. 

As a result, Vermont Yankee will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight for the 

remainder of 2014, barring any changes.

The normal level of oversight consists of a detailed regime entailing thousands of hours of 

inspection. In 2013, the NRC devoted approximately 5,940 hours of inspection at Vermont Yankee, a 

boiling-water reactor that began operations in 1972 and that is scheduled to permanently cease 

operations in late 2014.

“We take very seriously the task of stepping back on a regular basis to size up plant 

performance. These comprehensive evaluations help guide our reviews for the year ahead, though we 

maintain flexibility should conditions change,” NRC Region I Administrator Bill Dean said. “Vermont 

Yankee, by virtue of its performance in 2013, will receive our routine – though still substantial –

battery of inspections.”

The NRC issues reports on performance at each plant twice a year: during the mid-cycle, or 

mid-point, of the year, and at the conclusion of the year. Inspection findings and performance indicators 

are also updated on a quarterly basis on the agency’s website. Following the release of the annual 

assessment letters each March, the NRC meets with the public in vicinity of each plant to discuss the 

results.
Page | 2

Normal inspections are carried out by the two Resident Inspectors assigned to Vermont Yankee. 

Reviews are also performed at the site by specialist inspectors assigned to the agency’s Region I office 

in King of Prussia, Pa. Among the areas to be inspected this year at Vermont Yankee are emergency 

preparedness, radiological protection and control room operator training.

The annual assessment letter for Vermont Yankee, as well as the notice for the May 28 public 

meeting, are available on the NRC website. Current performance information is also available for 

Vermont Yankee.
#### § 141.12 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs.

Charges may be assessed for interest, penalties, and administrative costs in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 4 CFR 102.13.
June 12, 2015

Mr. Nicholas Ogle 2403 Royal Palm Court Leagye City, TX 77573

Dear Mr. Ogle:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 1, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2020), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
### §12839. Termination of existing housing programs

#### (a) In general

Except with respect to projects and programs for which binding commitments have been entered into prior to October 1, 1991, no new grants or loans shall be made after October 1, 1991, under—

(1) section 17 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. 1437o];

(2) section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 1452b];

(3) title VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987;

(4) section 8(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. 1437f(e)(2)], except for funds allocated under such section for single room occupancy dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. 11360 et seq.]; and

(5) section 810 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [12 U.S.C. 1706e].

#### (b) Repeals

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), effective on October 1, 1991, the provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are repealed.

#### (2) No effect on SRO program

The provision of law referred to in subsection (a)(4) shall remain in effect with respect to single room occupancy dwellings as authorized by title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. 11360 et seq.].

#### (c) Disposition of repayments

Any amounts received on or after October 1, 1991, as repayments or recaptures in connection with the programs referred to in subsection (a) and any other amounts for such programs that remain or become unobligated on or after such date, shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §289, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4128; Pub. L. 106–400, §2, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1675.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Title VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 [Pub. L. 100–242], referred to in subsec. (a)(3), is set out as a note under section 1715l of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, referred to in subsecs. (a)(4) and (b)(2), is Pub. L. 100–77, July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 482. Title IV of the Act is classified generally to subchapter IV (§11360 et seq.) of chapter 119 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 11301 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2000—Subsecs. (a)(4), (b)(2). Pub. L. 106–400 substituted "McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act" for "Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act".