alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: IV-14-019 August 6, 2014

CONTACT: Victor Dricks 817- 200-1128

Lara Uselding 817- 200-1519

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Performance of Waterford 3 Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will host an open house on Aug. 20 in Hahnville, La., to 

discuss the agency’s annual safety assessment of the Waterford 3 nuclear plant. Waterford 3, operated 

by Entergy Operations, Inc., is located in Killona, La.

The open house is informal and will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. in the St. Charles Parish 

Emergency Operations Center, 15026 River Road, Hahnville, La. There are no formal presentations at 

the meeting but attendees will have an opportunity to speak directly with the inspectors assigned to the 

plant on a full-time basis, as well as staff from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas.

“The NRC continually reviews the safety performance of Waterford 3 and each of the nation’s 

commercial nuclear power plants,” said Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas. “Meetings like this 

provide members of the public with an opportunity to speak directly with the NRC staff who help 

ensure the plant’s safety on a day-to-day basis.”

A letter was sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials March 4 summarizing the 

NRC’s 2013 safety assessment.

Overall, Waterford 3 operated safely during 2013, but is receiving additional NRC oversight 

based on an inspection finding of low to moderate safety significance and a violation issued March 31, 

2014, for failing to ensure the operability of an exhaust fan in a room housing the plant’s emergency 

diesel generators. Inspections are performed by resident inspectors stationed at the plant and by 

specialists from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas.

Current performance information for Waterford 3 is available on the NRC website.
§ 1203.16 Dynamic strength of retention system test. ( a ) *Test equipment.* ( 1 ) ISO headforms without the lower chin portion shall be used.
( 2 ) The retention system strength test equipment shall consist of a dynamic impact apparatus that allows a 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight to slide in a guided free fall to impact a rigid stop anvil (see Figure 8 of this part). Two cylindrical rollers that spin freely, with a diameter of 12.5±0.5 mm (0.49 in.±0.02 in.) and a center-to-center distance of 76.0±1 mm (3.0±0.04 in.), shall make up a stirrup that represents the bone structure of the lower jaw. The entire dynamic test apparatus hangs freely on the retention system. The entire mass of the support assembly, including the 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight, shall be 11 kg±0.5 kg (24.2 lb±1.1 lb).
( b ) *Test procedure.* ( 1 ) Place the helmet on the appropriate size headform on the test device according to the HPI. Fasten the strap of the retention system under the stirrup.
( 2 ) Mark the pre-test position of the retention system, with the entire dynamic test apparatus hanging freely on the retention system.
( 3 ) Raise the 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight to a height of 0.6 m (2 ft) from the stop anvil and release it, so that it impacts the stop anvil.
( 4 ) Record the maximum elongation of the retention system during the impact. A marker system or a displacement transducer, as shown in Figure 8 of this part, are two methods of measuring the elongation.
### Part A—Formula Grants to States
#### Herman J. Single, Respondent, v. Edward S. Whitmore, Jr., Appellant.

—-Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Vaughan and Piper, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal and for dismissal of the complaint in the following memorandum: The release in question was drawn by plaintiff’s attorney and executed by plaintiff. The release after reciting the agreement on February 18, 1950, which is the instrument containing the setback restrictions, then provided: “And whereas said parties now desire to release each other from any future liability arising from said agreement.” It then goes on to “release each other * * * of and from all future liability”. We think this instrument relieved both parties from any further liability under the agreement of February 18, 1950, including the setback restrictions. “If a demand falls fairly within the terms of the release it is discharged thereby, whether or not it was contemplated by the parties, and whether or not they were aware of its existence.” (76 C. J. S., Release, § 52, p. 699; see, also, *Rector of St. James Church*v. *City of New York,*261 App. Div. 614; *People ex rel. McDonough*V. *Board of Managers of Buffalo Asylum,*96 N. Y. 640, and *Kirchner*v. *New Home Sewing Mach. Co., 135 N.*Y. 182.) Where, as is the case here, the language of the release is not ambiguous we cannot, in the absence of fraud, go behind the clear statement of the instrument to look for the intent of the parties. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an iniunetion action.) Present —MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3


                 [Letterhead of Commerce & Finance Law Offices]


                                                                   June 12, 2003

NetEase.com, Inc.
15/F, North Tower
Beijing Kerry Center
No. 1 Guang Hua Road
Chao Yang District
Beijing, People's Republic of China


                Re: Consent of People's Republic of China counsel

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Enforcement
of Civil Liabilities" in the annual report on Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof.


                                        Very truly yours,
                                        Commerce & Finance Law Offices




                                        /s/ Commerce & Finance Law Offices
                                        ----------------------------------------
#### Property Repair Corp., Appellant, v. Kingston Trust Company, Individually and as Substituted Trustee under the Will of Frederick W. Gross, Deceased, Respondent.

Judgment dismissing complaint on the merits at the close of plaintiff’s case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. It was improper to exclude testimony by the assignee of the conversation constituting the alleged oral assignment. *(Robinson*v. *Chinese Charitable Assn.,*35 App. Div. 439; *Epstein*V. *U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co.,*29 Mise. 295; *Barnett*V. *Prudential Insurance Co.,*91 App. Div. 435; *Sheridan*v. *Mayor,*68 N. Y. 30; *Bisley*V. *Phenix Bank of City of New York,*83 N. Y. 318; ef. *National Foundry Go. of New York*V. *Kaufman,*190 App. Div. 956.) The ease of *Worrall*v. *Parmelee*(1 N. Y. 519) does not hold to the contrary. There the testimony to which objection was taken was that of strangers to the transaction, who testified to statements made by the assignor at times subsequent to the assignment. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.
409 P.2d 134

#### The STATE of New Mexico ex rel. John R. JOYCE II and Elizabeth P. Joyce, Petitioners, v. DISTRICT COURT OF the FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of New Mexico WITHIN AND FOR EDDY COUNTY, New Mexico and the Honorable Kermit E. Nash, District Judge, Respondents.

No. 8053.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 20, 1965.

Ordered that the petition for writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.
### Part B—Transitional Living Grant Program
#### BENNETT v. BATES et al.

Where respondent serves- and files an additional abstract, which conflicts with appellant’s abstract in substantial respects, so that the case cannot he properly considered without referring to the original *216record, and such record has not been transmitted to the Supreme Court, appellant’s assignments of error are unsupported, and the presumption in favor of the regularity of the trial court’s proceedings must .prevail, and the judgment be affirmed.

(Opinion filed, October 4, 1910.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brown County. lion. J. H. McCoy, Judge.

Action by J. M. Bennett against C. B. Bates and J. H. Kempthorne. There was a directed verdict for plaintiff, and defendant Kempthorne appeals.

Affirmed.

*Jorgenson & McNaghten,*for appellant. *Campbell & Taylor,*for respondent.

EIANEY, J.

This action was instituted to recover the value of certain merchandise alleged to have been-sold and delivered to the defendants, as partners doing business under the firm name and 'style of C. E. Bates. Defendant Kempthorne answered, denying each and every allegation of the complaint. The sale and delivery of the goods to Bates was clearly established; the only controversy being as to whether Kempthorne was liable as a member of the alleged partnership. At the close of all the evidence, the court, on motion of the plaintiff, directed a verdict in his favor for the amount claimed. Defendant Kempthorne appealed from the judgment entered thereon.

Respondent having served and filed an additional abstract, which conflicts with the appellant’s abstract in numerous substantial respects, this cause cannot be properly considered without referring to the original record. Such record not having been received by the clerk of this court, appellant’s assignments of error stand unsupported, and the presumption in favor of the regularity of a trial court’s proceedings must prevail.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

McCOY, J., taking no- part in this decision.
GRAPHIC

Exhibit 99.9

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To
the Board of Directors
Leitch Technology Corporation

We
consent to the use of (i) our audit report dated June 4, 2004, on the consolidated balance sheets of Leitch Technology Corporation as at April 30, 2004 and 2003 and the
consolidated statements of earnings, retained earnings (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended April 30, 2004, and (ii) our Comments by Auditors for
U.S. Readers on Canada-U.S. Reporting Difference dated June 4, 2004, included in this annual report on Form 40-F.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Chartered
Accountants
Toronto, Canada
June 4, 2004

---



QuickLinks
Disposition Comments 

Directorate ID: 20 '2-NE-31 

Originating Office Tracking No.: £P0335/EN-E 

Next Step: ·Jll. FRAN 0 SNPRM 

0 These comments are in 

response to an SNPRM 

~ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received -If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required. 

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9. 

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don't agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

Page 1 of3 
If NO, we don't agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here 

Page 2 of3 
Signature Section 

Signature indicates concurrence with this action. 

Originating Office Tracking No. : SP03357EN-E 

ASE 

- -;:- ~L?~ Printed Name: FrederickZfrik 

/ ./.::: ;/; J 

Date 

j\ ___ 

Branch Manager -- ------- Date 

Page 3 of3
§ 1112.25 What are a third party conformity assessment body's recordkeeping responsibilities? ( a ) The third party conformity assessment body must maintain the following records, which must be legible: ( 1 ) All test reports and technical records related to tests conducted for purposes of section 14 of the CPSA must be maintained for a period of at least five years from the date the test was conducted;
( 2 ) In the case of a test report for a test conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body acting as a subcontractor, the prime contractor's test report must clearly identify which test(s) was performed by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body acting as a subcontractor(s), and the test report from the CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body acting as a subcontractor must be available upon request by CPSC.
( 3 ) Where a report, for purposes of section 14 of the CPSA, provided by the third party conformity assessment body to a customer is different from the test record, the third party conformity assessment body also must retain the report provided to the customer for a period of at least five years from the date the test was conducted.
( 4 ) Any and all third party conformity assessment body internal documents describing testing protocols and procedures (such as instructions, standards, manuals, guides, and reference data) that have applied to a test conducted for purposes of section 14 of the CPSA must be retained for a period of at least five years from the date such test was conducted.
( b ) Upon request by the CPSC, the third party conformity assessment body must make any and all of the records required by this section available for inspection, either in hard copy or electronically, such as through an Internet Web site. If the records are not in the English language, the third party conformity assessment body must make copies of the original (non-English language) available to the CPSC within 48 hours, and they must make an English translation of the records available to the CPSC within 30 calendar days of the date the CPSC requested an English translation.
§ 1120.4 Standards incorporated by reference. ( a ) The standards required in this part are incorporated by reference (“IBR”) into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect all approved material at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html*.
( b ) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA, telephone: 610-832-9585; *http://www2.astm.org/*. ( 1 ) ASTM F 1816-97, *Standard Safety Specification for Drawstrings on Children's Upper Outerwear,* approved June 10, 1997, published August 1998 (“ASTM F 1816-97”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(b).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) Underwriters Laboratories, Inc (“UL”), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062 or through UL's Web site: *www.UL.com*. ( 1 ) UL 588, *Standard for Safety for Seasonal and Holiday Decorative Products,* 18th Edition, approved August 21, 2000 (“UL 588”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(c).
( 2 ) UL 859, *Standard for Safety for Household Electric Personal Grooming Appliances,* 10th Edition, approved August 30, 2002, and revised through June 3, 2010 (“UL 859”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(a).
( 3 ) UL 1727, *Standard for Safety for Commercial Electric Personal Grooming Appliances,* 4th Edition, approved March 25, 1999, and revised through June 25, 2010 (“UL 1727”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(a).
( 4 ) UL 817, *Standard for Cord Sets and Power-Supply Cords,* 11th Edition, dated March 16, 2001, as revised through February 3, 2014 (“UL 817”), IBR approved for § 1120.3(d).
( d ) Window Covering Manufacturers Association, Inc., 355 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017. Telephone: 212.297.2122. *http://wcmanet.com .* ( 1 ) ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018. American National Standard For Safety Of Corded Window Covering Products, approved January 8, 2018. IBR approved for §§ 1120.2 and 1120.3.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[80 FR 25226, May 4, 2015, as amended at 80 FR 44269, July 27, 2015; 87 FR 72886, Nov. 28, 2022]
### §10602. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10602 was editorially reclassified as section 20102 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### SUBCHAPTER III—ELIGIBILITY; COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
### Part D—United States Public Health Sciences Track
§ 1025.37 Sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders. If a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the Presiding Officer may take such action as is just, including but not limited to the following: ( a ) Infer that the admission, testimony, document or other evidence would have been adverse to the party;
( b ) Order that for the purposes of the proceedings, the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
( c ) Order that the party withholding discovery not introduce into evidence or otherwise rely, in support of any claim or defense, upon the documents or other evidence withheld;
( d ) Order that the party withholding discovery not introduce into evidence, or otherwise use at the hearing, information obtained in discovery;
( e ) Order that the party withholding discovery forfeit its right to object to introduction and use of secondary evidence to show what the withheld admission, testimony, documents, or other evidence would have shown;
( f ) Order that a pleading, or part of a pleading, or a motion or other submission by the party, concerning which the order was issued, be stricken, or that decision on the pleadings be rendered against the party, or both; and
( g ) Exclude the party or representative from the proceedings, in accordance with § 1025.42(b) of these rules.
Any such action may be taken by order at any point in the proceedings.
§ 971.1000 General. ( a ) *Purpose and scope.* ( 1 ) Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Administrator to assess a civil penalty, in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each violation, against any person found to have committed an act prohibited by section 301 of the Act. Each day of a continuing violation is a separate offense.
( 2 ) Section 106 of the Act describes the circumstances under which the Administrator may suspend or revoke a license or permit, or suspend or modify activities under a license or permit, in addition to or in lieu of imposing of a civil penalty, or in addition to imposing a fine.
( 3 ) Section 306 of the Act makes provisions of the customs laws relating to, among other things, the remission or mitigation of forfeitures, applicable to forfeitures of vessels and hard mineral resources. The Administrator is authorized to entertain petitions for administrative settlement of property seizures made under the Act which would otherwise proceed to judicial forfeiture.
( 4 ) Section 114 of the Act authorizes the Administrator to place observers on vessels used by a licensee or permittee under the Act to monitor compliance and environmental effects of activities under the license or permit.
( 5 ) Section 117 of the Act describes the circumstances under which a person may bring a civil action against an alleged violator or against the Administrator for failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty, and directs the Administrator to issue regulations governing procedures prerequisite to such a civil action.
( 6 ) The regulations in this subpart provide uniform rules and procedures for the assessment of civil penalties (§§ 971.1001-971.1002), and license and permit sanctions (§ 971.1003); the remission or mitigation of forfeitures (§ 971.1004); observers (§ 971.1005); protection of certain information related to enforcement (§ 971.1006); and procedures requiring persons planning to bring a civil action under section 117 of the Act to give advance notice (§ 971.1007).
( b ) *Filing and service of documents.* ( 1 ) Except as otherwise provided by this subpart, filing and service of documents required by this subpart will be in accordance with § 971.901(i). The method for computing time periods set forth in § 971.901(i) also applies to any action or event, such as payment of a civil penalty, required by this subpart to take place within a specified period of time.
( 2 ) If an oral or written request is made to the Administrator within ten days after the expiration of a time period established in this subpart for the required filing of documents, the Administrator may permit a late filing if the Administrator finds reasonable grounds for an inability or failure to file within the time periods. All extensions will be in writing. Except as provided by this paragraph, by 15 CFR 904.102 or by order of an administrative law judge, no requests for an extension of time may be granted.