alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCFire ProtectionRelated Information

# Generic Letters Related to Fire Protection

Generic letters address generic safety, safeguards, or the environmental issues by requesting that addressees perform analyses, propose corrective actions, submit technical information that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to perform its mission, or submit proposed changes to technical specifications or license commitments. Generic letters may also state new technical or policy-related staff positions or solicit voluntary participation in technical pilot programs. The following table lists (in chronological order) the generic letters that the NRC has issued regarding topics related to fire protection for licensed facilities and materials. The complete collection of NRC generic letters is available through the NRC Library.

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 8, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 10 CFR Part 50
          - Guidelines for FP in NPPs
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Procedures
          - Administrative Letters
          - Bulletins
          - Circulars
          - Generic Letters
          - Information Notices
          - Regulatory Issue Summaries
          - Regulatory Guides
          - Commission (SECY) Papers
          - Generic Issues
          - Staff-Prepared NUREGs
          - Contractor-Prepared NUREGs
          - Conference Proceedings
          - Brochures
          - FAQs About Fire Protection

#### 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 Monday, June 8, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22995-CIV-WILLIAMS

SILVA HARAPETI, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CBS TELEVISION STATIONS INC.,

Defendant.

______________________________/ 

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis’ Report 

and Recommendation (“Report”) on Plaintiff Silva Harapeti’s motion for conditional 

certification of collective action. (DE 63). In the Report, Judge Louis recommends that 

Plaintiff’s motion be denied. No objections to the Report were filed. Upon an independent 

review of the Report, the record, and applicable case law, it is ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Judge Louis’ Report (DE 63) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion is (DE 38) is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida this 5th day of February, 

2020.

Case 1:20-cv-22995-KMW Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 1 of 1
### §164. Index and digest of State legislation; preparation

The Librarian of Congress is authorized and directed to prepare biennially an index to the legislation of the States of the United States enacted during the biennium, together with a supplemental digest of the more important legislation of the period.

(Feb. 10, 1927, ch. 99, §1, 44 Stat. 1066; Feb. 28, 1929, ch. 367, §1, 45 Stat. 1398.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1929—Act Feb. 28, 1929, repealed provision that the Librarian of Congress report biennially to Congress an index and digest of State legislation.
EXHIBIT H 

Filed under Seal 

Case 1:20-cv-23391-JG Document 125-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### Marie Vaughan Siegel, Respondent, v. Henry Siegel, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### Westchester Mortgage Company, Respondent, v. Thomas B. McIntire, Inc., and Another, Defendants, Impleaded with William H. Foster, Appellant.

Appellant has filed an affidavit as to merits, as required by our order of April ninth. There is something to be said in favor of his contention. In addition, it appears that a proposed ease on appeal has been served, and that respondent has served amendments thereto. Motion denied on condition that appellant perfect his appeal, place the case on the May calendar and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED JUNE 30, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EASTERN AMERICAN
NATURAL GAS TRUST AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1998
<CASH>                                           2,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,579,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,581,209
<PP&E>                                      93,162,180
<DEPRECIATION>                              31,624,625 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,118,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,581,208
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,537,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,118,764
<SALES>                                      5,217,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,217,923
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  597,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               255,622
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,207,331
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,368,857
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                838,474
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,207,331
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88
        

</TABLE>
§ 351.11 Functions of committees. ( a ) The FRPCC shall assist FEMA in providing policy direction for the program of Federal assistance to State and local governments in their radiological emergency planning and preparedness activities. The FRPCC will establish subcommittees to aid in carrying out its functions; e.g., research, training, emergency instrumentation, transportation, information, education and Federal response. The FRPCC will assist FEMA in resolving issues relating to granting of final FEMA approval of a State plan. The FRPCC will coordinate research and study efforts of its member agencies related to State and local government radiological emergency preparedness to assure minimum duplication and maximum benefits to State and local governments. The FRPCC will also assure that the research efforts of its member agencies are coordinated with the Interagency Radiation Research Committee.
( b ) The RACs will assist State and local government officials in the development of their radiological emergency plans and will review these plans and observe exercises to evaluate adequacy of the plans. Each Federal agency member of the RACs will support the functions of these committees by becoming knowledgeable of Federal planning and guidance related to State and local radiological emergency plans, of their counterpart State organizations and personnel, where their agency can assist in improving the preparedness and by participating in RAC meetings.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

d0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

137573

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137573 COA: 287159 St. Clair CC: 07-002327-FH ROBERT LEE FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of February 24, 2009, the app lication for leave to appeal the September 29, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v Idziak (Docket No. 137301). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 31, 20 09, 484 Mich 549 (2009), the app lication is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not persuaded that the que stion presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-23230-CIV-CANNON/Otazo-Reyes

ANGELA MILNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TERI GALARDI,

Defendant.

/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Statement of Reasonable Costs 

and Fees (the “Statement”) [ECF No. 117], filed on September 15, 2021. The Statement was 

submitted pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Second Motion for Sanctions 

and Dismissing Certain Plaintiffs [ECF No. 113 p. 4]. Under the Court’s Scheduling Order 

[ECF No. 38], this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes for a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”). On October 19, 2021, Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes issued an 

R&R [ECF No. 128] recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s total requested amount of 

$1,435.00 as compensation for the costs incurred in filing its Second Motion for Sanctions 

[ECF No. 106]. The R&R also instructs the parties to file any objections within fourteen days of 

the R&R [ECF No. 128]. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R or to the underlying 

Statement itself.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R [ECF No. 128], Defendant’s 

Statement [ECF No. 117], and the full record in this case. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 

1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to 

Case 1:20-cv-23230-AMC Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 1 of 2
 CASE NO. 20-23230-CIV-CANNON/Otazo-Reyes

2

be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the R&R and 

concludes that Defendant’s total requested amount of $1,435.00 should be GRANTED for the 

reasons set forth therein.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The R&R [ECF No. 128] is ADOPTED.

2. Defendant’s requested amount of $1,435.00 in the Statement of Reasonable Costs 

and Fees [ECF No. 117] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall pay the full amount within 

thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order.

3. Plaintiffs shall submit a Notice of Compliance with this Order in the Court record 

within five (5) days of payment to Defendant.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 4th day of November 

2021.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-23230-AMC Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2021 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 21, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00249

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Chase Wesley VERNER

, Appellee

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10182

- CR

Honorable Tully Shahan , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED. We order counsel to immediately notify the

appellee, in writing, that any brief appellee wishes to file is due by July 21, 2021 . We further

order counsel to file a copy of that written notice with the court clerk by June 28, 2021

.

It is so ORDERED on June 21, 2021

.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23278-GAYLES/GOODMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ALL RIGHT TO AND INTEREST IN PNC

CORPORATE PLAZA HOLDINGS LLC HELD, 

CONTROLLED, OR ACQUIRED, DIRECTLY OR 

INDIRECTLY, BY OPTIMA CBD INVESTMENTS

LLC AND/OR CBD 500 LLC, INCLUDING ANY 

INTEREST HELD IN OR SECURED BY THE REAL

PROPERTY AND APPURTENANCES LOCATED AT

500 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, LOUISVILLE, KY

40202, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report 

and Recommendations (the “Report”), [ECF No. 164], regarding Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss 

the Verified Complaint (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 78]. On May 25, 2022, the Court referred the 

Motion to Judge Goodman for a ruling, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 132]. 

Following a hearing, Judge Goodman issued his Report on September 28, 2022, recommending 

that the Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion. Objections and responses were timely 

filed. [ECF Nos. 167, 168, 178, 179].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

objections are made are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

Case 1:20-cv-23278-DPG Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Goodman’s

well-reasoned analysis and conclusions that abstention is not warranted here, the Complaint was 

timely filed, the Government did not properly name the in rem defendant, and the Government 

should be granted leave to amend its Complaint. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendations, [ECF No. 164], is 

AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss the Verified Complaint, [ECF No. 78], is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Complaint is dismissed without 

prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of December, 

2022.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23278-DPG Document 185 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA-2013-0688

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM221AD

HONEYWELL TPE331-72-2190 --- 12/21/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# 02/09/2001 SUMMARY OF MEETING WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING OPERATOR LICENSING ISSUES

Accession Number: ML010720244

Date Released: Tuesday, March 13, 2001

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML010720194 - 02/09/2001 Summary of Meeting with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Regarding Operator Licensing Issues (12 page(s), 3/13/2001)
    - ML010590143 - 02/09/2001 Summary of  Meeting with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Regarding Operator Licensing Issues (6 page(s), 3/13/2001)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY 3, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JULY 3, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1998
<CASH>                                          15,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,636)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,285
<PP&E>                                          40,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (23,547)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         55
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,040
<SALES>                                        293,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,226
<CGS>                                           50,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               106,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,895
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,490)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (51.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (51.59)
        

</TABLE>
### §385. Default of contestee

The failure of contestee to answer the notice of contest or to otherwise defend as provided by this chapter shall not be deemed an admission of the truth of the averments in the notice of contest. Notwithstanding such failure, the burden is upon contestant to prove that the election results entitle him to contestee's seat.

(Pub. L. 91–138, §6, Dec. 5, 1969, 83 Stat. 286.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to any general or special election for Representative in, or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States occurring after Dec. 5, 1969, see section 19 of Pub. L. 91–138, set out as a note under section 381 of this title.
EPICENTER 

MAGNITUDE 6.4 

50 mi 

100 mi 

150 mi 

200 mi 

250 mi 

✈

✈

✈

✈

✈

CANARY 

ISLANDS 

Lanzarate 

Fuerteventura 

Rabat 

Al Hoceima 

Tétouan 

El Jadida 

Essaouira 

Kenitra 

Safi 

Tangier 

Azilal 

Taounate 

Fès 

Meknès Khemisset 

Beni Mellal 

Khenifra 

Marrakech 

Chechaouene 

Settat 

Taza 

Ben Slimane 

Khouribga 

El Kelaa 

des Srarhna 

Boulemane 

Nador 

Oujda 

Figuig 

Casablanca 

Agadir 

Tan-Tan 

Tiznit 

Tata 

Ouarzazate 

Er Rachidia 

Larache 

Cadiz 

Bou Arfa 

Aïn 

El Bayadh 

Oran 

Mostaganem 

Asilah 

Berkane 

Ouezzane 

Málaga 

Sidi Slimane 

Azrou Berrechid 

Souk el Arba du Rharb 

Kasba Tadla 

Boujad Midelt 

Taourirt 

Naama 

Fkih Ben Salah 

Azemmour 

Mohammedia 

Salé 

Inezgane 

Youssoufia 

Sidi Bennour 

Sidi Ifni 

Sidi Bel 

Tlemcen Abbès

Béchar 

Abadla 

Tarfaya 

SPAIN 

Western Sahara 

ALGERIA 

Gibraltar (U.K.) 

Cap Sim 

Cap Rhir 

Cap Juby 

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

Oued Drâa

Oued Drâa

O. Sous

Oued Dades

O. Tensift

Strait of Gibraltar

M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a

MOROCCO

0 

0 75 150 225 km 

75 150 mi 

MOROCCO 

EARTHQUAKE - FEBRUARY 24, 2004 

2/25/04 

The boundaries and names shown and the designations 

used on this map do not imply official endorsement or 

acceptance by the United Nations. 

Map created by the Geographic Information Unit (GIU 

Original Map Courtesy of the UN Cartographic Section 

Sefra
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 1, 2021

No. 04-21-00272-CR, 04-21-00273-CR, 04-21-00274-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Marco Antonio GLORIA,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-02-07981-MCRAJA, 19-02-07982-MCRAJA, 19-02-07984-MCRAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 9, 2021, appellant the State of Texas filed a notice of appeal stating its intent to 

appeal an “order granting a mistrial/new trial in these cause numbers.” The clerk’s record, which 

was filed on July 30, 2021, does not contain any written orders. A trial court’s oral 

announcement of its decision in open court is not final and appealable until the trial judge signs a 

written order. State v. Kibler, 874 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, no pet.). 

We therefore ORDER appellant to file in this court by October 1, 2021, a response 

showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If appellant fails 

to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(c). If a supplemental clerk’s record is required to establish this court’s jurisdiction, 

appellant must ask the trial court clerk to prepare one and must notify the clerk of this court that 

such a request was made. All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the 

court.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of September, 2021.
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court