alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 19-065 December 30, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Proposes $14,500 Civil Penalty to Western Nuclear, Inc.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a civil penalty of $14,500 against Western 

Nuclear, Inc., of Golden, Colo., for providing incomplete and inaccurate information regarding 

groundwater flow at the company’s Split Rock uranium mill tailings site near Jeffrey City, Wyo.

An NRC investigation determined that in May 2015, Western Nuclear submitted information in 

a technical report to the Commission on groundwater flow at the Split Rock site that was not complete 

and accurate in all material aspects. 

After a pre-decisional enforcement conference, the NRC determined that the violation, 

determined to be “non-willful,” merited escalated enforcement as a Severity Level III violation under 

the agency’s enforcement policy.

The NRC’s regulatory program requires timely reports and materially accurate and complete 

information from applicants and licensees. Western Nuclear’s submission of inaccurate and incomplete 

information inhibited the NRC’s effective regulatory oversight of a site possessing a significant amount 

of radioactive material. This violation negatively impacted the NRC’s ability to ensure adequate 

protection of public health and safety.

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was issued Dec. 19 by the 

NRC’s Office of Enforcement. Western Nuclear has 30 days to pay the civil penalty or contest the 

notice of violation. If the company does not respond, the agency will issue an order imposing the civil 

penalty.

Wyoming became an NRC Agreement State in October 2018, and Western Nuclear’s license is 

now administered by the state.
# ILSI R ESEARCH 

# F OUNDATION

International Life Sciences Institute

1156 Fifteenth Street, NW, Second Floor, Washington, DC 20005

- 1743

Phone: (202) 659

- 3306 Fax: (202) 659

- 3617 E

- mail: rsi@ilsi.org Internet: www.ilsi.org ®

®

November 17, 2009 Document Processing Center (Mail Code 7407M), Room 6428

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20 460

Attn: AR 226

Document Processing Center, E PA/OPPT :

The ILSI Research Foundation is the Panel Administrator for the Fluorotelomer

- Based Product Biodegradation Testing Supplemental Environmental Project (“Biodegradation SEP”) which E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) has agreed to perform p ursuant to the Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) entered into between DuPont and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Peer Consultation Panel, to be convened by the ILSI Research Foundation, will be charged with review and e valuation of data from analytical characterization and biodegradation studies and will provide input to EPA on an advisory basis.

Nominations to the Panel have been sought by publication of a Request for Nominations on EPA’s Administrative
Record 226 (AR 226) and on the ILSI Research Foundation Biodegradation SEP Panel Administrator website, and by distribution of the Request for Nominations to professional societies, public interest groups , trade publications, and industry associations.

A pool of candida tes for the Peer Consultation Panel has been developed and is now posted on the ILSI Research Foundation Biodegradation SEP Panel Administrator website ( www.ilsi.org/ResearchFoundation ) with links to t he

candidates’ Cu rriculum Vitae. Comments submitted to SEP_Panel@ilsi.org will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. (ET)
on December 8, 2009.

Please post this information on AR 226 as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Stephen S. Olin, Ph.D. Deputy Director
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Admiral Samuel Paparo, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, to Visit Thailand August 18-21, 2022 

Embassy & Consulates in Thailand

U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Thailand -- Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (PACFLT), Admiral Samuel Paparo will visit Thailand August 18-21 to meet with senior leaders and counterparts in the Royal Thai Navy. This will be Admiral Paparo’s first visit to the Kingdom of Thailand since assuming his command of PACFLT. His visit is part of our regular and ongoing engagements to strengthen the U.S.-Thai alliance and advance a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.Admiral Paparo, a native of Morton, Pennsylvania, was commissioned in the Navy in 1987. He is the son of a former enlisted Marine and the grandson of a World War II enlisted Sailor. A U.S. Naval Aviator, he is a TOPGUN graduate and has flown over 6,000 hours and has 1,100 carrier landings. Admiral Paparo graduated from Villanova University and earned a Master of Arts in International Studies from Old Dominion University, and a Master of Science in Systems Analysis from the Naval Postgraduate School. As Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet – the world’s largest fleet command – Admiral Paparo is responsible for over 200 ships/submarines, 1,200 aircraft, and more than 130,000 Sailors and civilians. Full bio: https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Leaders/Article/2628260/admiral-samuel-j-paparo/U.S. Pacific Fleet works with allies and partners to advance Indo-Pacific maritime security and enhance regional stability. For more information, visit: https://www.cpf.navy.mil/ 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1694 

To require additional entities to be subject to the requirements of section 

552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom 

of Information Act), and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. DESANTIS, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. DUNCAN of 

Tennessee, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. COMER, Mr. BLUM, and 

Mr. ISSA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require additional entities to be subject to the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code 

(commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information 

Act), 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 ‘‘Fannie and Freddie 

5 Open Records Act of 2017’’. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1694 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF FOIA. 

2 (a) AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF AGENCY.—Sec3 tion 552(f)(1) of title 5, United States Code (commonly 

4 referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), is amend5 ed by striking ‘‘or other establishment in the executive 

6 branch of the Government (including the Executive Office 

7 of the President), or any independent regulatory agency’’ 

8 and inserting the following: ‘‘any other establishment in 

9 the executive branch of the Government (including the Ex10 ecutive Office of the President), any independent regu11 latory agency, and the Federal National Mortgage Asso12 ciation or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 

13 during any period such enterprise is under conservatorship 

14 or receivership pursuant to section 1367 of the Federal 

15 Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act 

16 of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4617)’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.—The amend18 ment made by subsection (a) shall be effective on the date 

19 of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect 

20 to any request filed under section 552(a)(3) of title 5, 

21 United States Code, on or after such effective date, relat22 ing to any record created before, on, or after the date of 

23 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
No. 82-1210.

#### Giacomino *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-5924.

#### Scott *v.*Maggio, Warden, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Legault, Respondent, vs. City of Owen, Appellant.

*September 12*—

October *8, 1940.*

*677For the appellant there was a brief by *Robert J. Cunningham*of Janesville and *Richard F. Gaffney*of Owen, and oral argument by *Mr. Cunningham.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Rush, Devos & Skroch*of Neillsville, and oral argument by *A. L. Devos.*

Fairchild, J.

A county adopting the county system of relief “assumes complete responsibility” for relief and support of the poor. *Washburn v. Bayfield County, ante,*p. 215, 292 N. W. 912. It is considered that case rules this.

The objection that the adoption of the county system of poor relief was not legal was properly disposed of by the trial court. We agree with the conclusion in its memorandum decision “that the county of Clark, within which the said city of Owen is located, at the time the hospitalization and the surgical and medical treatment was furnished was on the county system of pauper relief.” The county board of that county on May 25, 1938, according to the records of its county clerk, decided that on June 1, 1938, that county would “go entirely on the county system of relief.” The resolution was adopted by a clear majority of the members of the board and placed the county under the county system of poor relief.

The application of sec. 49.18, Stats., relied upon by the respondent, is determined by the system of poor relief in existence. The mayor of the city of Owen could not, by his act, place an obligation on that city which under the *678law could be the obligation only of Clark county. The chairman of the county board after investigation refused to recognize the claim as a proper one. The conclusion that any claim which might exist would be against Clark county takes out of the case any basis for liability on the part of the city. Sec. 49.18 merely authorizes the proper executive officer to act for the governmental unit he represents when that unit has a liability to discharge.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1963]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (15 CFR 400.2(c)) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of zones;                

*Whereas,*                     the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 93, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ Docket B-66-2014, docketed 09-23-2014) for authority to expand the service area of the zone to include Sampson County, as described in the application, adjacent to the Raleigh-Durham Customs and Border Protection port of entry;                

*Whereas,*                     notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (79 FR 58318, 09-29-2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;                

*Now, therefore,*                     the Board hereby orders:                

The application to reorganize FTZ 93 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of January 2015.

Paul Piquado,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

ATTEST:

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-01229 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 178 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 178

To require the country of origin of certain special immigrant religious 
workers to extend reciprocal immigration treatment to nationals of the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

 Mr. King of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the country of origin of certain special immigrant religious 
workers to extend reciprocal immigration treatment to nationals of the 
                             United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Religious Worker Visa Reciprocity 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING RECIPROCAL IMMIGRATION TREATMENT.

    Section 204(a)(1)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(G)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(iii) Beginning on October 1, 2017, no petition may be approved 
for classification of an alien as a special immigrant under section 
101(a)(27)(C) if the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that 
the country of the alien's nationality--
            ``(I) is identified as a `Country of Particular Concern' or 
        a country where religious freedom is of significant interest in 
        the 2013 International Religious Freedom Report; or
            ``(II) does not extend reciprocal immigration treatment to 
        nationals of the United States who are seeking resident status 
        in order to work in a religious vocation or occupation.''.
                                 <all>
```
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008Page 68 of 22605/29/2009 10:01:12

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: FitzPatrick Docket (050- 00333)

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 

125

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR146 - Evaluation LTA S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 

148 - Action not yet started or untimely M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

250

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering G - Design 

125

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 4
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). N E D / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA L I P S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74619 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 424- 559 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D al i p S i ng h, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order s um m ar i l y a ff i rm i ng an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and 

# FI LED

JU L 15 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74619 2 pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , S i dh u v . I NS , 220 F . 3d 1 0 8 5 , 1 0 8 8 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) , an dd e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on base d o n b oth the i ncon si st encybetw ee n S i ng h’ s t es t i m on y and the m edi ca l doc um e nt s r e gar di ng the r e a s ons f orhi s hos pi t a l i z a t i ons , and the om i s s i on f r om S in g h ’s w if

e ’s f ir s t a f f id a v it o f h is D e c e m b e r1 9 9 7 arr e s t an dd e te n tio n . See G oel v. G on zales , 490 F . 3d 735, 739 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n t e s t i m ony and d ocum ent ary e vi dence s up po rtan advers e c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng w here i nc ons i s t e nc i e s go t o the he artof the c l a i m ) . S i ngh’ s e xpl ana t i on f orthe om i s s i on f r o m h is w if

e ’s a f f id a v it d o e s n o t c o m p e l ac o n tr aryc o n c lu s io n . Se e La ta v . I NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , in th e ab s e n c e o f c r e d ib le te s tim o n y , S in g h ’s a s y lu m an dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. See Farah v. A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). B e c aus e S i ngh’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on the s a m e e vi de nc e the I Jf ound not cr edi bl e, and n o o ther e vi dence i n the re cord com pel s afi nd i ng thati ti s m ore lik e lyth an n o t S in g h w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif r e tu rn e dto I n d ia , S in g h ’s C A T c la im a ls o f a ils . Se e i d. a t1157. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 31,214 9 JOSEPH TRAEGER, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 12 George P. Eichwald, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Joseph Traeger 17 Plantation, FL 18 Pro Se Appellant 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 VANZI, Judge. 212 Defendant appeals, pro se, from a district court order denying his motion for 1 early release from probation. We issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss. 2 Defendant has responded witha memorandum in opposition. We dismiss the appeal. 3 As indicated, Defendant is appealing from a district court order denying his 4 motion for early release from probation and clarifying the status of his probationary 5 term. The order was filed on February 16, 2011. [RP 339] The notice of appeal was 6 filed late, on March 24, 2011. [RP 341] As our Supreme Court has observed, “[o]nly 7 the most unusual circumstances beyond the c ontrol of the parties—such as error on 8 the part of the court—will warrantoverlooking procedural defects.” Trujillo v. 9 Serrano , 117 N.M. 273, 278, 871 P.2d 369, 374 (1994) . Our calendar notice observed 10 that Defendant’s circumstances were not exceptional because he had plenty of time 11 to file a timely notice of appeal. In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant points 12 out that he received a copy of the order justdays before the notice of appeal was due. 13 However, he could either ha ve quickly filed his appeal, or requested an extension of 14 time pursuant Rule 12-201(E)(1) or (2) NMR A. As such, the circumstances were not 15 beyond his control, and we dismiss the appeal. See Govich v. North Am. Sys., Inc. , 16 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 (1991) (compliance with notice of appeal time 17 and place requirements are mandatory pr econditions to exercise of appellate 18 jurisdiction). 193 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

_________________________________ 5 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 8