alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Christopher Hannon, Petitioner, against Donald C. Wagner, as City Manager of the City of Long Beach, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner, a former police officer of the police department of the city of Long Beach, by this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, transferred to this court under section 1296 of that act, seeks to set aside the *820determination of the police commissioner of that city, made after hearing, finding petitioner guilty as charged and dismissing him from the police force of that city. The prayer of the petition is denied, the determination so reviewed is unanimously sustained, and the petition dismissed, without costs. In our opinion there was evidence adduced upon the hearing sufficient to sustain the determination and that determination should not be disturbed by the courts. *(People ex rel. Guiney*V. *Valentine,*274 N. Y. 331; *People ex rel. Brown*V. *Greene,*106 App. Div. 230, affd. 184 N. Y. 565.) Under the city charter (L. 1922, ch. 636), as amended by Local Laws, 1943, No. 5, of the City of Long Beach (charter, §§ 20, 44), the City Manager was constituted the commissioner of police; and in any event held that office *de facto,*if not *de jure. (Wilcox*v. *Smith,*5 Wend. 231, 234; *Matter of Sherrill*v. *O’Brien,*188 N. Y. 185.) Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See *post,*p. 868.]
#### Kathleen Nelles, as Administratrix of the Estate of Roy Nelles, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v. Roger G. Ramsdell, Sr., et al., Respondents. Hanna Hansen, as Administratrix of the Estate of Roy Hansen, Deceased, Appellant, v. Roger G. Ramsdell, Sr., et al., Respondents.

Motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ. [See 272 App. Div. 1075.]
AFS-11-097-E 

Jan 13 2011 

 Exemption No. 9835A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-13066 

Colonel Deborah A. Richardson 

U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency 

Department of the Army 

9325 Gunston Road, Suite N319 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5582 

Dear Colonel Richardson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9835. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated December 7, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of the Department of the Army (Army) for an extension of Exemption No. 9835. 

That exemption from § 91.209(a)(1) and (2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) allows the Army to permit operations at night without the use of aircraft position lights. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the Army. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9835 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9835 to March 31, 2013 unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9835, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9835. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.3021 Goods classifiable as goods put up in sets. Notwithstanding the specific rules set forth in General Note 34, HTSUS, goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3, HTSUS, will not be considered to be originating goods unless: ( a ) Each of the goods in the set is an originating good; or
( b ) The total value of the non-originating goods in the set does not exceed; ( 1 ) In the case of textile or apparel goods, 10 percent of the adjusted value of the set; or
( 2 ) In the case of a good other than a textile or apparel good, 15 percent of the adjusted value of the set.
<page>                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

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 Dean Witter World
Currency Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey D. Hahn,
Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, 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:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:  /s/Jeffrey D. Hahn

Name:	   Jeffrey D. Hahn
Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date:	May 17, 2004
§ 351.28 The Department of Commerce. ( a ) Assist State and local governments in determining their requirements for meteorological and hydrological services for radiological emergencies and assist State and local governments in preparing to meet these requirements within the limits of available resources.
( b ) Assist FEMA in developing and promulgating guidance to State and local governments for the preparation of radiological emergency plans.
( c ) Participate with FEMA in assisting State and local governments in developing their radiological emergency plans, evaluating exercises to test plans and evaluating the plans and preparedness.
( d ) Assist FEMA with the development, implementation and presentation to the extent that resources permit of technical training for State and local officials in the use of meterological information in responding to radiological emergencies.
( e ) Provide representation to and support for the FRPCC and the RACs.
( f ) Assist FEMA in the development of guidance for State and local governments on the exposure and location of emergency instrumentation systems for radiation detection and measurement.
( g ) The Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research will, consistent with the provisions of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-62, serve as the coordinating agent for any multiagency meteorological aspects of assisting State and local governments in their radiological emergency planning and preparedness.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Roland Roscoe COOPER, Appellant.

No. 11501.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 25, 1955.

Decided June 16, 1955.

Michael Hahalyak, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

W. Wendell Stanton, Asst. U. S. Atty., John W. Mcllvaine, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHDIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for refusal to submit to induction in the Armed Services. 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 462(a) (1952). The appellant claims lack of “procedural due process” in the steps that were taken, or failed to be taken, leading up to his order for induction. On all this we find nothing which is grounds for appeal under our decision in United States v. Hagaman, 3 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 86. So far as the appellant’s case as outlined in his brief is concerned we should unanimously affirm.

But since the judgment of the district court was entered and the appeal was taken and briefs filed in this case, the Supreme Court has decided a group of cases dealing with liability of accused persons who have refused to be inducted in the Armed Services. The decision in point here is Gonzales v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 407, 75 S.Ct. 409, 410. In that case the majority of the Supreme Court decided the question whether the petitioner “was entitled to receive a copy of the recommendation made by the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board under the provisions of § 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 612, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. § 456 (j).”

The majority decided that question in the affirmative. What Gonzales was entitled to, Cooper was entitled to. He did not receive the report above described. He is, therefore, according to this last ruling by the Supreme Court, improperly-convicted.

The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded with directions to order judgment for the defendant.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of                           ( print page 61866)                        business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. The nature and scope of ASTM's standards development activities are: ASTM International's Interlaboratory Crosscheck Programs provide participating laboratories with a statistical quality assurance (SQA) tool, enabling them to compare their performance in the use of ASTM methods against other laboratories worldwide. ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants sponsors the programs and more than 600 published standards.

                    For additional information, please contact Thomas B. O'Brien, Jr., General Counsel, at the above address, telephone # (610) 832-9597, e-mail address                     *tobrien@astm.org.*

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-23509  Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No: 23-051 August 22, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Seeks Public Input on Latest Results of

Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Project

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is seeking public comments on the latest set of 

results from a multi-year project to fully analyze risk at a two-reactor nuclear power plant site.

This state-of-the-art analysis can provide valuable insights into the risks associated with 

accidents involving one or more reactors at a site, as well as other radioactive material, such as 

spent fuel in pools and dry storage casks. The work can also inform regulatory, policy, and 

technical issues related to advanced and new reactors.

The NRC’s full-scope site Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Analysis project, which began in 

2012, updates risk insights obtained from work done more than 30 years ago. The project 

examines a typical site with two large pressurized-water reactors and their associated spent fuel. 

The Level 3 PRA project builds on Level 1 (possible reactor core damage scenarios) and Level 2 

(possible radioactive material release scenarios) analyses to estimate potential health effects and 

economic impacts. 

The NRC combines PRA results with traditional engineering methods when regulating 

nuclear power plants and other civilian uses of radioactive material. The NRC uses PRA insights 

to focus its efforts on the issues most important to safety. The agency also uses PRA to confirm 

that new or revised rules are rigorous enough to cover uncertainties – or to justify new 

requirements. Nuclear power plants use PRA to discover and correct vulnerabilities, such as in 

fire protection, significantly improving reactor safety. 

This set of results, covering earthquakes, internal fires and high winds while the reactors 

are at full power, make up Volume 4 of the project’s eventual final report. This volume’s 

analysis, considering the reference site’s design and location, demonstrates how risks of a reactor 

accident fall below the NRC’s safety regulations. The staff expects to continue releasing portions 

of the project through the middle of 2024 for review by the public and the agency’s independent 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 

Written comments on Volume 4 (and other background material) can be submitted 

through October 20 via regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2023-0140. They also can be 

mailed to the Office of Administration, Mail Stop TWFN 7 A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 97

**Question 97:**10 CFR 20.1201 (b) refers to "doses received during accidents, emergencies, and . . . ." Is there any difference between an "accident" and an "emergency"?

**Answer:** Yes. An accident is an unexpected and undesirable event. An emergency is a situation or occurrence of a serious nature, developing suddenly and unexpectedly, and demanding immediate action. Thus an accident usually results in an emergency, but it is possible to have an emergency without an accident (e.g., action taken in an emergency may prevent an accident). In either case, licensees must account for doses received in excess of the annual limits in either an accident or an emergency, or both, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1201 (b).

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1201 (b)).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, December 15, 2017
May 22, 2015

Mr. Paul Miller 9286 Rolling Greens Trail Miamisburg, OH 45342

Dear Mr. Paul Miller:

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 April 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0981), but we are unable to pr ocess 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 granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 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
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-58 June 13, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $16,000 FINE AGAINST

CONAM INSPECTION FOR RADIATION SAFETY VIOLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$16,000 fine against Conam Inspection, Itasca, Illinois, for

violations associated with a radiographer receiving an

occupational radiation dose in excess of annual federal limits.

The violations were identified in an NRC inspection and

investigation beginning in April of last year as a result of an

event in which a radiographer received a radiation dose in the

range between 6 to 9 rems because of failing to follow

procedures. NRC's annual occupational dose limit is 5 rems.

(Five rems is the same as 5,000 millirems. For comparison,

the average person in the United States receives about 300

millirems per year from natural background radiation.)

Radioactive sealed sources are used in industrial testing

processes for such things as finding flaws in steel parts or

welds. Radiation generated by the radioisotope is used to

produce an x-ray like image.

In February of last year, the radiographer, upon completion

of a radiographic exposure at a job site, retracted the

radioactive source into the camera. However, he failed to follow

Conam's procedures to securely lock the radioactive source in the

shielded position. The source apparently did not fully retract

and engage the automatic locking mechanism. Therefore, as he

changed film cassettes, the radiographer was exposed to the

unshielded source for approximately four minutes.

After retracting the source, the radiographer also did not,

as required under an NRC license, complete a radiation survey to

check that the source had returned to its shielded position.

In a letter to the company, NRC's Regional Administrator, A.

Bill Beach said:

"...based on the Office of Investigations findings, the NRC

concludes that the radiographer's failure to lock the

radiographic exposure device is willful in that his actions

demonstrated careless disregard for NRC requirements."
Conam restricted the radiographer from further involvement

with the company's radioactive material for the remainder of

year. The company also issued a memorandum to all radiation

safety supervisory personnel about the event and the proper

procedures.

Conam Inspection has until July 8 to pay the fine or to

protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by

the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing.

####
### §3341. Privacy

#### (a) Section 1232g of title 20

Nothing in this Act (including the amendments made by this Act) shall be construed to supersede the privacy protections afforded parents and students under section 1232g of title 20.

#### (b) Prohibition on development of national database

#### (1) In general

Nothing in this Act (including the amendments made by this Act) shall be construed to permit the development of a national database of personally identifiable information on individuals receiving services under subchapter I or under the amendments made by title IV.

#### (2) Limitation

Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to prevent the proper administration of national programs under parts C and D of subchapter I, or the amendments made by title IV (as the case may be), or to carry out program management activities consistent with subchapter I or the amendments made by title IV (as the case may be).

(Pub. L. 113–128, title V, §501, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1700.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b)(1), is Pub. L. 113–128, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1425, known as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which enacted this chapter, repealed chapter 30 (§2801 et seq.) of this title and chapter 73 (§9201 et seq.) of Title 20, Education, and made amendments to numerous other sections and notes in the Code. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.

The amendments made by title IV, referred to in subsec. (b), mean the amendments made by title IV of Pub. L. 113–128, which primarily amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93–112, which is classified generally to chapter 16 (§701 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of title IV of Pub. L. 113–128 to the Code, see Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113–128, set out as a note under section 3101 of this title.
#### § 61.2 Definitions.

The definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter are applicable to this part.
#### Max Feingold et al., Appellants, v. Joseph E. Marx Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

■ Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondents Joseph Paríante, Elvira Castellano and Martha Márchese. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of ARAMARK Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Joseph Neubauer, Chief Executive 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, based on my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ JOSEPH NEUBAUERJoseph Neubauer
#### James Edwards, Respondent, v. Reginald H. Morgan, Jr., as Treasurer, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.