alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-19 April 2, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remains

acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at the Quad Cities nuclear power

plant, located in Cordova, Illinois.

The review covers April 1 of last year through January 31.

Geoffrey Grant, NRC Region III Division Director, in a letter to Commonwealth Edison

Company, said, “Overall, performance at Quad Cities was acceptable. Reactor operations,

following restart of both units in May 1998, were conducted well, with an adequate safety focus.

Subsequently, both units incurred scrams within 10 hours of each other on June 27 and 28,

1998. The related Unit restarts and all subsequent Unit startups were performed well with good

communications and attention to operator activities.”

“Response to plant transients resulting from equipment problems was also good. Areas

of weakness continued to be configuration control problems, equipment failures, and out-ofservice problems,” Mr. Grant continued. “A refueling outage for Unit 1 was completed

December 5, 1998, in 28 days. This was the shortest refueling outage in ComEd history, and

subsequent good operating performance by Unit 1 indicates the outage work was performed

successfully.”

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region Ill

Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in

the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance

and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is utilizing to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment

program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide

quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection

findings. This program will be tested at eight sites beginning in June and will be extended to all

plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.
###
#### James McCormack, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Thomas McCormack, Deceased, Respondent, v. M. A. Henry Co., Inc., Appellant, and William E. Roschen et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of E. F. Timme *&*Son, et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY 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 Annual Report of EntreMed, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Dane R. Saglio, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to EntreMed, Inc. and will be retained by EntreMed, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or
used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by
law.

/s/ Dane R. SaglioAugust 12, 2003
    
    Dane R. SaglioChief Financial Officer
#### SCHMIDT, Respondent, v. POTTER et al, Appellants.

(190 N. W. 319.)

(File No. 5160.

Opinion filed October 27, 1922.)

Appeal and Error — Amendments—Briefs—Court Buies — Counsel Being Inexperienced, Permission to Amend Briefs So as to Comply with Buies Granted.

Where, on motion to strike appellant’s brief because of noncompliance with court rules relative to preparing assignments of error, preserving exceptions, and making references in the brief to the record; counsel excused himself on the grounds of his inexperience and requested permission to amend this brief so as to conform to the court rules, the defect not being jurisdictional, permission to amend will be granted.

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCook County; Hon. L. L. FrEEGER, Judge.

Action by Ed. J. Schmidt against E. B. Potter and another. On orders to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed and briefs stricken from the files.

Orders dismissed.

See also 44 S. D. 526, 184 N. W. 357.

*Jaimes R.. McGee,*of Salem, for Appellants.

*Kirby, Kirby & Kirby,*of Sioux Palls, and *H. Van Ruschen,*of 'Salem, for Respondent.

POELEY, J.

This matter is before the court upon two orders to show cause; one to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that no appeal bond, sufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal, has been filed. By the other order to show cause respondent seeks to have appellants’ brief sticken from the files on the ground that appellants have not complied with the rules of court in preparing their assignments of error, and in preserving their exceptions, and also in failing to make proper references in their printed brief to the settled record.

The matter involved in the order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed was disposed of by this court by an order entered herein on the 23d day of August, 1922, whereby appellants were given until the 1st day of September to file an amended bond. It is not claimed that an amended bond was not filed. Therefore said order-to show cause presents nothing for consideration.

*55The matters involved in the order to show cause why the brief should not be stricken are not jurisdictional and may be considered at this time. Appellants’ counsel admits that he has failed in some respects to comply with the rules of court in the preparation of his brief, but excuses himself on the ground of his inexperience, and asks permission to amend his brief so as to make it, so far as possible, to' conform to the rules. Whether any of the matters set forth in the brief are so presented that they can be considered need not be determined at this time. Under the circumstances of the case and because of counsel’s lack of experience in the preparation of records in 'this court, and in furtherance of justice, such permission will be granted and an order to that effect will be duly entered.

Both orders to> show cause will be dismissed.

GATES, P. J., not sitting.

Note — Reported in 190 N.' W. 319. See American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and Error, Key-No. 766, 3 C. J. Sec. 1599, 2 R. C. L.- 176.
June 15, 2011 

Mr. James Wayne 

Flight Department Safety Officer 

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation 

One Hornet Way XE6D50/D2 

El Segundo, CA 90245-2804 

Dear Mr. Wayne: 

This is in response to your April 26, 2011 letter (public docket No. FAA-2011-0447) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Northrop Grumman Systems 

Corporation (Northrop) for an exemption from § 61.57(b) and (e)(3)(ii) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would exempt Northrop 

company pilots from night currency requirements in its single-pilot type certificated 

Beechcraft 1900D aircraft. 

On May 18, 2011, the FAA contacted Northrop to gain further clarification regarding its 

petition. The FAA confirmed that Northrop holds a part 135 operating certificate (Certificate 

No. NOZA). Additionally, Northrop confirmed that company crewmembers are qualified 

and current under the part 135 certificate, and company policies are in accordance with Part 

135 regulations. Section 61.57(e)(2) states, “This section does not apply to a pilot in 

command who is employed by an air carrier certificated under part 121 or 135 and is 

engaged in a flight operation under part 91, 121, or 135 for that air carrier if the pilot is in 

compliance with §§121.437 and 121.439, or §§135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter, as 

appropriate.” Therefore, relief from § 61.47(b) is not required. 
2

Furthermore, since the BE-1900D is not type certificated for more than one pilot 

crewmember per Type Certificate Datasheet A24CE, relief from § 61.57(e)(3)(ii) is not 

required. As a result, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division
Regulato•1· Evaluation 

'lOtc;; ... r f ,o ( Cf, AD 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

.·/d,/th< 1,-,,rk hcllli'.'· flill"l\ OJ\/. aild num/•,-r (1/ ( · .. 'i. l"('.!.i'l.'r\.1 J>roJuc l' 111 t!r.· uhh· />,·Ina. II /i_,n .l'tl/1 ar< 

Jini,·!Jt•d. did·: on/lie "{ j>da~c• Fi.-1:1 ~ .. f' III/OII lu l/lltJii ll ll c·,tf~r.fill infh,·fuhd\. 

Update Fields ~ 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g .. aircraft. engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller. appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Tota l Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

c:ondition cosls here access, testing. (@S851h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

11> ):_t I• • r.._lr\:!r, 

\.·:~.. . 

AFM/AFMS 

Limitation 0.5 0 324 insertion 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

The known number of products in compliance: .. 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: Sl3,770 

Costs covered under warranty (if f..?Wlm) s 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g .. Inspection. (include access, (@S85/hour) 

replacement) testing. and closeup) 

Inspection 

8 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain m~\·tlling in the Estimated Costs tahle 

llrat ll'as assumed or might not be ohl'ious. This field can also he used to explain ll'arranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a ··significant regulatory action"? 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

~ 

Is the AD signiticant? ~ 

*Explanation: 

Regula tory Flexibility Act: 

@ 

YES* 0 NO 181 

YES* 0 NO 181 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. @ 

YES 0 NO I8J 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? @ 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation: 

9
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-207 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, September 28, 1999)

NRC SENDS LETTERS TO UTILITIES TO FOLLOW UP Y2K READINESS

AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent letters to those utilities with nuclear

power plants that are scheduled to be “Y2K ready” after September 30 to verify the status of

readiness and the dates when plants will be fully Y2K ready.

There are no Y2K-related problems affecting the performance of safety systems needed

to safely operate or shut down at any of the 103 nuclear power plants. By September 30, 91 of

these plants are scheduled to have completed all remaining Y2K work for their computer

systems that support plant operation. In addition, they will have contingency plans in place.

The remaining 12 plants have additional work to complete on a few non-safety systems or

devices, to be fully Y2K ready. These plants are continuing to progress toward Y2K readiness.

As a follow-up to July 1 Y2K readiness reports from licensees, the NRC has sent letters

to these 12 plants to ensure that all deficiencies are repaired before the Y2K transition. In order

to schedule NRC inspections, licensees were asked to provide any changes to the scope of

remaining Y2K work or to the projected completion date (previously provided to NRC July 1).

The NRC sent letters to the following plants:

Plant Name Nearest City Y2K Ready Date

Comanche Peak Unit 1 Glen Rose, TX 11/30/99

Comanche Peak Unit 2 Glen Rose, TX 10/30/99

Cook Units 1 & 2 Bridgman, MI 10/30/99

Hope Creek Hancocks Bridge, NJ 10/29/99

Farley Unit 2 Columbia, AL 12/16/99

Peach Bottom Unit 3 Delta, PA 10/31/99

Salem Unit 1 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 11/6/99

Salem Unit 2 Hancocks, Bridge, NJ 10/29/99

South Texas Units 1 & 2 Bay City, TX 10/31/99

Three Mile Island Unit 1 Middletown, PA 10/21/99

Typically, the remaining work will be completed in conjunction with a scheduled plant

outage or when a replacement component is delivered. The NRC will continue to monitor and

verify completion of Y2K activities at these plants.
Details of the remaining work are provided in an NRC report, NUREG 1706, “Year 2000

Readiness in U.S. Nuclear Power Plants.” It is available on the NRC’s Y2K web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NEWS/year2000.html.

The “Y2K” problem refers to a computer’s potential inability to recognize dates

beginning with January 1, 2000, and beyond. It arises from computer programs that use twodigit numbers to represent a calendar year (such as “98" for 1998). For example, a computer

system could read “00" as 1900, rather than 2000, potentially causing a computer system to

malfunction. “Y2K ready” means that functions provided by a computer will be carried out

successfully with the coming of the Year 2000.

#
Exhibit
32(a)





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Rocky Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike
Brooks, Chairman and 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:




(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/ Mike BrooksMike
      Brooks, Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerOctober
      28, 2010
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


DESCRIPTION OF CARDIFF LEXINGTON,
CORP COMMON STOCK


 


 


General


 


Cardiff Lexington Corp. (the “Company”)
is authorized to issue an aggregate of seven billion five hundred million (7,500,000,000) shares of common stock, $0.001 par value
per share and one billion (1,000,000,000) shares of preferred stock, $0.001 par value per share, in one or more series and to fix
the voting powers, preferences and other rights and limitations of the preferred stock.


 


Each share of Common Stock shall have
one (1) vote per share. The Company’s Common Stock does not provide a preemptive, subscription or conversion rights and there
are no redemption or sinking fund provisions or rights. The Company’s common stockholders are not entitled to cumulative
voting for election of Board of Directors.


 


Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation
Plans


 


There were no equity compensation
plans formally approved by the shareholders of the Company as of the date of this filing.


 


Preferred Stock


 


The Company has authorized 1,000,000,000
shares of preferred stock with a $0.001 par value. The board of directors has the authority to issue these shares and to set dividends,
voting and conversion rights, redemption provisions, liquidation preferences, and other rights and restrictions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          36,071
<SECURITIES>                                    14,470
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,285
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,482
<PP&E>                                          38,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,997
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           496
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,780
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,410
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (905)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,225
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        


</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA finite difference treatment of Stokes-type flows: Preliminary reportThe equations Laplacian operator omega = 0, (1.1a) and omega = Laplacian operator Chi, (1.1b) describe, in suitable units, 2-D Stokes flow of an incompressible fluid occupying a domain D in which omega is the vorticity and Chi is the stream function. The flow is uniquely determined by specifying the velocity on the boundary B of D, a condition which leads to specifying the stream function Chi and its normal derivative Chi sub n on B. A mathematically similar problem arises in describing the equilibrium of a flat plate in structural mechanics where a related 1-D problem by finite difference or finite element methods is to introduce effective methods for imposing the boundary conditions through which (1.1a) is coupled to (1.1b). These models thus provide a simple starting point for examining the general treatment of boundary conditions for more general time dependent Navier-Stokes incompressible flows. For the purpose of discussion it is assumed that D is a square domain. A standard finite difference method to solve (1.1) is to introduce a uniform grid and then use standard five point finite difference operators to express each equation in (1.1). At any point on the boundary B a value of Chi is specified by the boundary conditions but a value of omega at the same boundary mesh point will also be required to complete the computation. Methods are discussed which overcome the difficulty in solving these problems.Document ID19900018654Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsRose, M. E.*(North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State Univ. Greensboro, NC, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 16, 1989Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186480NAS 1.26:186480Accession Number90N27970Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-812Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900018654.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §1506. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 101–649, title VIII, §801, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5087, which related to educational assistance and training, was transferred to section 2920 of this title, and subsequently transferred to section 3293 of this title.