alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument Collections

# OMB Exhibit 300s

The NRC OMB Exhibit 300's are business cases that provide a high level summary of the major IT investments active within the NRC agency. The Exhibit 300's provide justification on why an investment should continue by addressing the following areas: project planning, benefit cost analysis, alternative analysis, acquisition planning, risk management planning, human resources planning, enterprise architecture and security. For new investments, this information is used by OMB to determine whether the investment should continue to be funded. For steady-state investments, this information is used to determine the health of the investment and whether or not it meets expectations.

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes
          - Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials
          - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
          - Agreement State Action Items
          - Agreement State Communications
          - ASLBP
          - Commission Documents
          - Congressional Documents
          - Electronic Government (E-Gov) Documents
          - Enforcement Documents
          - Enforcement Petition (2.206)
          - Events, Reports Associated with
          - Fact Sheets & Brochures
          - Federal Register Notices (NRC)
          - Forms (NRC)
          - For the Record
          - Generic Communications
          - Generic Issues
          - Government Information Locator Service (GILS)
          - Human Factors Information System
          - Inspection Manual
          - OIG Reports
          - IMPEP Reviews of NRC Programs
          - Interim Staff Guidance
          - Management Directives
          - Memoranda of Understanding
          - News Releases
          - NMSS Procedures
          - NRC Datasets
          - NRC Infographics
          - NRC Maps
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - OMB Exhibit 300s
          - Personal Identity Verification
          - Previous Site Additions
          - Regulations (NRC, 10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides (by Division)
          - Research Information Letters
          - Rulemaking Documents
          - Technical Letter Reports

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 2, 2020
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Cal Kantonen, Chief 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:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 14thday of November, 2008.                                                                                                                
|   

CAL KANTONENCal KantonenChief Financial Officer





















---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 19 (Thursday, January 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01687]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056; FXES11130900000-156-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-AY46


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revision to the 
Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican 
Wolf; Correction

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule 
in the Federal Register on January 16, 2015, that revises the 
regulations for the nonessential experimental population of the Mexican 
wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). In that rule, we made an error in our 
description of Phase 2 by stating that dispersal and occupancy of 
Mexican wolves west of Interstate 17 will be limited to the area west 
of Highway 89 in Arizona. We intended to state that dispersal and 
occupancy of Mexican wolves west of Interstate 17 will be limited to 
the area east of Highway 89. With this document, we correct our error.

DATES: This correction is effective February 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Barrett, (505) 761-4704.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final rule that published in the 
Federal Register on January 16, 2015, at 80 FR 2512, the following 
correction is made:


Sec.  17.84  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 2564, in the third column, the fourth sentence of Sec.  
17.84(k)(9)(iv)(B) is amended by removing the words ``west of Highway 
89'' and adding in their place the words ``east of Highway 89.''

    Dated: January 26, 2015.

    Signed:
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management.
[FR Doc. 2015-01687 Filed 1-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffStrategic Plan (NUREG-1614)

# Strategic  Plan: Fiscal Years 2008–2013 (Updated) (NUREG-1614, Volume 5)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1614, Volume 5 (Updated) (PDF - 1.65 KB)
        Updated FY 2008-2013 Strategic Plan Comment Resolution Matrix
Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2008-2013 At-A-Glance (PDF - 431.90 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: February 2012**Date Published**: February 2012

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2008 - 2013 describes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s mission and defines the strategic goals and outcomes the agency intends to pursue.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsEnforcement Petition (2.206)Director's Decisions on Completed 2.206 Petitions

# Director's Decisions on Completed Petitions         for 1997

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 3, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001003130
<NAME> LCA-VISION INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                        97
<INVENTORY>                                        123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,490
<PP&E>                                          23,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,711
<BONDS>                                          3,496
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,522
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,262
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,209
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,565)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (28)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,593)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### Cheshire v. Atkinson.

Tuesday, November 24, 1807.

Supersedeas — To Stay Proceedings on Judgment of County Court. — A supersedeas awarded by this Court was decided to have been improvidently granted, because it went to stay proceedings on the judgment of a County Court, and not of any of the Superior Courts of Law or Eciuity.

Wickham moved to quash the superse-deas which had been awarded, in this case, to the sheriff of Cumberland County on the second day of the last term, (ante, p. 210,) because it had been improperly issued, and, as he supposed, without a view of the whole case.

It appeared, from the record, that there had been an injunction in the High Court of Chancery to a judgment of the County Court of Cumberland; that the injunction had been dissolved, and afterwards the bill of the complainant dismissed; from which decree of dismission an appeal was granted, in vacation, by the present Judge of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District; but no supersedeas was awarded by him. The supersedeas awarded by this Court at the last term, being directed to the sheriff of Cumberland and restraining him from further proceedings on the judgment at law of that Court, was in effect, Mr. Wickham contended, the granting of a new injunction by this Court; because it tied up the sheriff’s hands, and prevented him from levying the execution. All that the supersedeas could have reached were the costs of the suit in Chancery, which were decreed against the complainant, upon dismissing his bill; the injunction having been previously dissolved, the judgment at law, of the Court of Cumberland was left free to operate.

* JUDGE TUCKER was of opinion that the supersedeas had been improperly awarded, not only for the reasons stated by Mr. Wickham, but because he did not conceive the Supreme Court of Appeals had power to award such a writ to stay proceedings on a judgment or decree of a County Court; that being the province of the Superior Courts of Common Law and Chancery, within their respective jurisdictions. He was therefore of opinion that the supersedeas be quashed.

JUDGE ROANE concurred in the opinion that the supersedeas had been improvidently awarded. He remarked that the attention of the Court had been drawn to a mere pcint of practice, whether a supersedeas-which was merely auxiliary to the proceedings of this Court, could be awarded in open Court, notwithstanding the act of the last session. The record was not opened at the last term, and the process, of course, had been awarded without due consideration.

JUDGE EEEMING concurred.

By the whole Court (JUDGE LYONS being absent, occasioned by indisposition), the supersedeas was quashed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License (COL) for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG-2179)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 5781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01973]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[DR.5B711.IA000815]


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This publishes notice of the extension of the Class III gaming 
compact between the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the State of South 
Dakota.

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 25 CFR Sec.  293.5, an extension 
to an existing tribal-state Class III gaming compact does not require 
approval by the Secretary if the extension does not include any 
amendment to the terms of the compact. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and 
the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the 
expiration of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to 
June 29, 2015. This publishes notice of the new expiration date of the 
compact.

    Dated: January 22, 2015.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-01973 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Loss of Control of Cesium-137 Well Logging Source Resulting in Radiation Exposures to Members of the Public (NUREG-1794)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1794 (PDF 3.73 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2004**Date Published:** October 2004

**Prepared by:** D. Boal, R. Brown, R. Leonardi, M. Shaffer, S. Sherbini

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, TX 76011-4005

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report describes the events that occurred on a drill rig in Montana on May 21, 2002, that led to the unplanned radiation exposure of 31 rig workers. These workers were not radiation workers, and were therefore considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be subject to the Agency's dose limit for members of the public, which is 0.1 centisitevert (cSv) (0.1 rem) per year. The doses assessed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have been received by the workers as a result of this incident were, for most of the exposed workers, above the dose limit for members of the public, but in all cases was far below the dose limit for radiation workers of 5 cSv (5 rem) per year. Although the doses received are relatively low and are not expected to cause any clinical effects, they are in violation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations.

Included in the report is a detailed description of the sequence of events, the root and other causes for the event, a detailed description of the methods used to assess the worker's doses, and a discussion of the biological dosimetry undertaken for some of the exposed workers to support and verify the dose assessments. A discussion of the less than adequate state of biological dosimetry in the United States is also included.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
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 Speedus Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas M.
Finn, Treasurer and Chief 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: (1)
The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange of 1934, amended; and(2)
The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:
August 14,
 2007By:
/s/ Thomas
 M. FinnName:
Thomas M.
 FinnTitle:
Treasurer
 and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer 21
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Format and Content of a License Application for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (NUREG-1199, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1199, Revision 2 (PDF – 1.92 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** January 1991**Date Published:** January 1991

Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document has been developed as a guide to prospective applicants for licenses to dispose of low level radioactive waste pursuant to 10 CFR Part 61. The document identifies information that should be provided in the Safety Analysis Report and establishes a uniform format for presenting the information necessary to fulfill the licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste called for in 10 CFR Part 61.

The uniform format will (1) help ensure that the Safety Analysis Report contains the information required by 10 CFR Part 61, (2) aid the applicant and NRC staff in ensuring that the information is complete, (3) help persons reading the Safety Analysis Report to locate information, and (4) contribute to shortening the time needed for the review process.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### THOMAS WEBB *vs.*MOSES CHAMBERS.

June 1843

Where a merchant renders an account to one of his customers, and the latter it without making objection to any of its items, the jury may infer an admission of its correctness and a promise to pay the balance.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Person County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit brought to recover the amount of a store account contracted from the year 1830 to 1833. Pleas, General issue and statute of limitations. On the trial the plaintiff introduced a witness, who proved that on the 19th of October, 1840, the defendant was at the plaintiff’s store, and the parties had a conversation for some time by themselves in relation to the account, when they came into the witness’ presence and the defendant, in reply to a proposition of the plaintiff that he should close his account by bond, said he would come up at any day that might be named and settle the account, and would pay it off as soon as he could sell his toba.eco, that the defendant then had the account in his hand, but the witness did not see him read it over nor did he hear it read in the defendant’s presence. The plaintiff then introduced a son of the defendant, who testified that his father traded at the plaintiff’s store during the years mentioned in the account, but he could not state that any particular article therein mentioned had been purchased by his father. The counsel for the defendant contended that the testimony was not sufficient to prove the account, and that, if it were, there was no such acknowledgment or promise to pay as would take the case *375out of the operation of the statute of limitations. But the court instructed the jury, that, if they believed the testimony, they might find for the plaintiff, which they did. Judgment being rendered pursuant to the verdict, the defendant0 appealed,

*Norioood*for the plaintiff.

*Kerr*for the defendant.

RuffiN, C. J.

There can be no doubt of the correctness of the opinion given to the jury. It is the ordinary evidence of the justice of a merchant’s account, when he renders it to his customer and the latter keeps it without objection to any of its items. Without a denial of it *in toto*or of some part of it, the jury may infer an admission of its correctness and a promise to pay the balance. Upon that part of the case alone, therefore, the court might have left it to the jury on both points, that is, as proof of the delivery of the articles and of a mere promise to pay. But in addition to those inferences, here the defendant, with the account in his hand, and after perusing it or opportunity of perusing it, expressly promised to settle the account and pay it. A promise could not be more direct or precise, for there was nothing left to uncertainty, as the account fixed the debt, which the defendant agreed to pay.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.