alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 67.6 Basis of appeal. ( a ) The sole basis of appeal under this part shall be the possession of knowledge or information indicating that the elevations proposed by FEMA are scientifically or technically incorrect. Because scientific and technical correctness is often a matter of degree rather than absolute (except where mathematical or measurement error or changed physical conditions can be demonstrated), appellants are required to demonstrate that alternative methods or applications result in more correct estimates of base flood elevations, thus demonstrating that FEMA's estimates are incorrect.
( b ) *Data requirements.* ( 1 ) If an appellant believes the proposed base flood elevations are technically incorrect due to a mathematical or measurement error or changed physical conditions, then the specific source of the error must be identified. Supporting data must be furnished to FEMA including certifications by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor, of the new data necessary for FEMA to conduct a reanalysis.
( 2 ) If an appellant believes that the proposed base flood elevations are technically incorrect due to error in application of hydrologic, hydraulic or other methods or use of inferior data in applying such methods, the appeal must demonstrate technical incorrectness by: ( i ) Identifying the purported error in the application or the inferior data.
( ii ) Supporting why the application is incorrect or data is inferior.
( iii ) Providing an application of the same basic methods utilized by FEMA but with the changes itemized.
( iv ) Providing background technical support for the changes indicating why the appellant's application should be accepted as more correct.
( v ) Providing certification of correctness of any alternate data utilized or measurements made (such as topographic information) by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor, and
( vi ) Providing documentation of all locations where the appellant's base flood elevations are different from FEMA's.
( 3 ) If any appellant believes the proposed base flood elevations are scientifically incorrect, the appeal must demonstrate scientific incorrectness by: ( i ) Identifying the methods, or assumptions purported to be scientifically incorrect.
( ii ) Supporting why the methods, or assumptions are scientifically incorrect.
( iii ) Providing an alternative analysis utilizing methods, or assumptions purported to be correct.
( iv ) Providing technical support indicating why the appellant's methods should be accepted as more correct and
( v ) Providing documentation of all locations where the appellant's base flood elevations are different from FEMA's.
[48 FR 31644, July 1, 1983]
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. 98-173 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, September 22, 1998)

COMMISSION ORDERS HALT TO PROCEEDINGS

IN SEABROOK LICENSE AMENDMENT CASE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered an NRC Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board to halt all proceedings in a case involving a proposed operating license

amendment for the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire, pending further

direction from the Commission.

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation seeks to amend the Seabrook license

to permit inspection of the plant’s steam generator tubes at 24-month, rather than 18-

month, intervals. The request is before an NRC Licensing Board because intervening

parties have asked for a hearing.

In an order issued Thursday (September 17), the Commission said it is taking

jurisdiction now because one matter in the case is a novel issue that could benefit from

early Commission review. This question is whether the utility can bring about a major

operational change, such as a lengthened fuel cycle, through several incremental

license amendments, rather than a single licensing action. The Seacoast Anti-Pollution

League (SAPL), intervenor in the case, contends that, without reviewing the change as

a whole, NRC may not be able to assess the safety implications accurately.

The Commission also has taken review of the Licensing Board’s rulings as to

who may intervene in the proceeding. The Licensing Board recently admitted SAPL as

an intervenor and denied intervention to the New England Coalition on Nuclear

Pollution.

All parties -- the utility, the parties seeking intervention, and the NRC staff -- are

now free to file briefs with the Commission supporting or opposing any aspect of that

Licensing Board ruling. Initial briefs are due no later than October 7. Reply briefs to

any party’s pleadings are due no later than October 14.

Under its Rules of Procedure and a new policy statement issued in July, the

Commission has inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of legal proceedings.
###

EDITORS: The text of the Commission order will be posted on the NRC Internet web

page.
----

**Telstra Corporation Limited**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Telstra Corporation Limited, an Australian public limited liability company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  September 30, 2002

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

**Telstra Corporation Limited**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Telstra Corporation Limited, an Australian public limited liability company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  September 27, 2002

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### §§2861 to 2864. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–128, title V, §511(a), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1705

Section 2861, Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §131, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 982, authorized allotments for workforce investment activities for adults and dislocated workers. See section 3171 of this title.

Section 2862, Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §132, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 983; Pub. L. 107–210, div. A, title II, §203(d), Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 969, related to State allotments. See section 3172 of this title.

Section 2863, Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §133, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 987, related to allocation within States of funds under this subchapter. See section 3173 of this title.

Section 2864, Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §134, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 990; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title VIII, §401(5)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–411; Pub. L. 109–270, §2(h)(6), Aug. 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 748, related to use of funds for employment and training activities. See section 3174 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal 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 an Effective Date note under section 3101 of this title.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-22778-UU

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

AZTECA RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC.

a foreign for-profit corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, VICTOR ARIZA ("Plaintiff"), and Defendant, AZTECA RESTAURANT 

ENTERPRISES, INC. ("Defendant") (Plaintiff and Defendant are collectively, the "Parties"), by 

and through their respective undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby file a dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims in the action 

with prejudice. A resolution of all matters in dispute among all Parties in this action has been made. 

The Parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. All Parties consent to the form 

and content of the Dismissal.

Dated: August 13, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

8751 W. Broward Blvd., Suite 303 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Plantation, FL 33324 4640 N.W. 7th Street

T. 954/362-3800 Miami, FL 33126-2309

954/362-3779 (Facsimile) T. 305/266-9780 

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com 305/269-8311 (Facsimile)

Case 1:20-cv-22778-UU Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 1 of 2
Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com 

By____s/ Roderick V. Hannah __ By ___s/ Pelayo M. Duran ______

RODERICK V. HANNAH PELAYO M. DURAN

Fla. Bar No. 435384 Fla. Bar No. 0146595

Vernis & Bowling of Miami, P.A. 

Counsel for the Defendant 

1680 N.E. 135th Street 

Miami, FL 33181 

E-Mails: egreenstone@florida-law.com, 

egkfiling@florida-law.com

egutierrez@florida-law.com

By /s/ Evelyn Greenstone Kammet 

EVELYN GREENSTONE KAMMET

Florida Bar No. 0044060

Case 1:20-cv-22778-UU Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020 Page 2 of 2
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-102 September 3, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TERMINATES LICENSE OF SCHOTT GLASS TECHNOLOGIES

At the request of Schott Glass Technologies, the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission has terminated the radioactive materials

license the agency issued to the company for possession of

nuclear materials at its facility in Duryea, Pa. NRC acted after

confirming the cleanup of residual radioactive material at the

site to levels that meet NRC-approved criteria for unrestricted

use.

The Schott facility was used for manufacturing special

optical glass. Some of the glass manufactured by Schott

contained thorium, a naturally-occurring radioactive material.

The contamination at the site was the result of the disposal of

small pieces of the glass containing thorium, along with soil and

other non-radioactive glass fragments, in a company landfill from

1969 through 1980.

Decommissioning work began in August 1996, two months after

NRC had approved Schott's plan. Final cleanup was completed in

May 1998. Based on its review and confirmatory surveys, the NRC

has determined that remediation of residual radioactive

contamination has been successfully completed and that the site

meets NRC criteria for unrestricted use.

#
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

Walnut Creek Field Office

1450 Maria Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5378

CONTACT: Mark Hammond Nov.

28, 1997

RIV 97-71

NRC, ENTERGY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

AT RIVER BEND NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional enforcement

conference Tuesday, December 2, with officials of Entergy Operations Inc., operator of the

River Bend nuclear power plant near St. Francisville, Louisiana, to discuss two apparent

violations of NRC requirements.

The conference will begin at 1:00 p.m. at NRC Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas.

The meeting will be open to public observation; NRC officials will be available afterward for

questions.

The apparent violations occurred on September 13 and October 4, and both involved

the loss of shutdown cooling to the reactor fuel. Fuel in the reactor vessel continues to generate

heat, called decay heat, after the reactor has been shut down, although at a much reduced

level.

On September 13, while the plant was shut down for refueling, operators removed the

shutdown cooling system from service while preparing to start the newly installed Alternate

Decay Heat Removal system. A delay in starting the system allowed reactor water temperature

to increase during a planned system test to more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit in violation of

the plant technical specifications.

On October 4, a second instance of shutdown cooling loss occurred due to errors while

performing a system lineup. Reactor water temperature increased from 97 to 100 degrees

Fahrenheit during this incident.

An NRC special inspection conducted September 22 through October 17 reviewed the

procedures, training and human performance which led to the apparent failures to adequately

monitor and maintain control of reactor plant temperature. The September 13 incident was

found to be especially significant because boiling occurred in the reactor vessel while the

primary coolant system, drywell and containment boundaries were not intact.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that NRC

has made a final determination that violations did occur or that enforcement action, such as a

monetary fine, will be taken. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the apparent violations,

their causes and safety significance, and to provide Entergy officials with an opportunity to point
out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report and present corrective

actions that have been taken.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action will be

made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later time.

###
**Exhibit32.0**

 

**CertificationsPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The certification setforth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 27, 2004 (the “Report”) for thepurpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

Anthony J. Cuti, theChief Executive Officer and John K. Henry, the Chief Financial Officer of DuaneReade Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.                                       theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.                                       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Duane Reade Inc.

 

 
|                    |   | /s/ Anthony J. Cuti     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Anthony J. Cuti         |   |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |   |                    |   |
|                    |   |                    |   |
|                    |   | /s/ John K. Henry       |   |
|                    |   | John K. Henry           |
| Date:  May 6, 2004 |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Duane ReadeInc. and will be retained by Duane Reade Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
§ 19.505 Employment criteria. A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless: ( a ) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
( b ) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsContamination removal using various solvents and methodologiesCritical and non-critical bonding surfaces must be kept free of contamination that may cause potential unbonds. For example, an aft-dome section of a redesigned solid rocket motor that had been contaminated with hydraulic oil did not appear to be sufficiently cleaned when inspected by the optically stimulated electron emission process (Con Scan) after it had been cleaned using a hand double wipe cleaning method. As a result, current and new cleaning methodologies as well as solvent capability in removing various contaminant materials were reviewed and testing was performed. Bonding studies were also done to verify that the cleaning methods used in removing contaminants provide an acceptable bonding surface. The removal of contaminants from a metal surface and the strength of subsequent bonds were tested using the Martin Marietta and double-wipe cleaning methods. Results are reported.Document ID19900004336Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsJeppsen, J. C.*(Morton Thiokol Brigham City, UT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1989Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:183747TWR-18445-REV-ANASA-CR-183747Accession Number90N13652Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-30490Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900004336.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
§ 333.22 Examples of assistance. ( a ) While special priorities assistance may be provided for any reason in support of this part, it is usually provided in situations where: ( 1 ) A person is experiencing difficulty in obtaining delivery against a rated order by the required delivery date; or
( 2 ) A person cannot locate a supplier for an item needed to fill a rated order.
( b ) Other examples of special priorities assistance include: ( 1 ) Ensuring that rated orders receive preferential treatment by suppliers;
( 2 ) Resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders;
( 3 ) Assisting in placing rated orders with suppliers;
( 4 ) Verifying the urgency of rated orders; and
( 5 ) Determining the validity of rated orders.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      25,946,492
<SECURITIES>                                20,011,850
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,455,277
<PP&E>                                       2,046,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                 603,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,300,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,505,205
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       122,297
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,906,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,300,778
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,426,040
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,839,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,424,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,424,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,424,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-34 May 22, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF FINDS IMPROVEMENTS TO FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM

AND PROCEDURES SUFFICIENT FOR RESTART OF QUAD CITIES PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that

Commonwealth Edison Company has made sufficient improvements in

the fire protection system and procedures at the Quad Cities

Nuclear Power Station for the plant to resume operations. The

two-reactor facility is located near Cordova, Illinois.

The utility plans to begin startup activities for Unit 2

immediately with Unit 1 startup to follow in about a week.

Unit 2 was shut down in September of last year, and Unit 1

was shut down in December after the utility found deficiencies in

the procedures and equipment which would be used to safely shut

the plant down in the event of a fire.

The NRC staff issued a Confirmatory Action Letter on January

16, documenting the utility's agreement to make necessary

improvements to the plant and shutdown procedures and to meet

with the NRC prior to resuming operation.

The NRC staff and utility representatives held bi-weekly

public meetings to review the status of improvement activities.

The final meeting was May 13.

NRC inspectors reviewed the plant's fire protection system

and procedure improvements earlier this month with a followup

inspection this week.

Based on the information presented in the meetings, the

inspection findings, and additional actions by the utility, the

NRC staff determined that the issues had been sufficiently

addressed for the plant to return to operation. The utility has

committed to complete additional reviews and modifications later

this year and during the next refueling outages for each unit.

The NRC staff's letter closing the Confirmatory Action letter is

on the NRC's internet web site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports

#####