alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 14-086 December 3, 2014

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Meeting Dec. 17 to Cover Industry Proposals to Reduce 

Emergency Planning Zones for Small Modular Reactors

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Wednesday, Dec. 17, to discuss proposals 

from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for a reduced 

emergency planning zone for small modular reactors.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in Room 2B1 of the NRC’s Two White Flint building at 11555 

Rockville Pike in Rockville. The meeting will discuss NEI’s proposed generic approach, as well as an 

expected site-specific approach by TVA as part of its Early Site Permit application for small modular 

reactors at the Clinch River site in Tennessee.

The NRC in 2010 highlighted emergency planning as one of several key policy issues for small 

modular reactors. Nuclear power plant emergency preparedness lays out plans for the plants as well as 

state and local authorities to recommend public protective actions within 10 miles of a plant in the 

unlikely event an accident releases radioactivity to the environment. Proposed small modular reactor 

designs are a fraction of the size of most current reactors, raising the question of how the new designs 

can best address emergency planning concepts. This meeting is part of ongoing NRC discussions with 

NEI regarding generic small modular reactor emergency planning issues. This is the first meeting to 

discuss a possible site-specific application.

If TVA includes a reduced emergency planning zone in its Early Site Permit application, the 

NRC will carefully review the proposal to ensure it would meet requirements for protecting public 

health and safety. Even if the NRC were to issue a permit, TVA would still have to apply for a license 

to build and operate small modular reactors at the Clinch River site.

The meeting agenda includes opportunities for the public to participate in the discussion. A 

teleconference will be available for those unable to attend the meeting in person. Anyone wishing to 

call in to the meeting should contact Joseph Williams at joseph.williams@nrc.gov or 301-415-1470 by 

Dec. 12 to ensure the teleconference can accommodate all callers.
#### § 1702.10 Human experimental data involving the testing of human subjects.

Any human experimental data submitted with a petition requesting an exemption under this part shall include a statement establishing that adequate measures have been taken to ensure against psychological or physical injury to the subject of the human studies. The Commission considers its regulations concerning the protection of human subjects (16 CFR part 1028) to be an example of measures that are adequate to ensure against psychological or physical injury to human subjects.
----

| (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: August 10, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Chang H. Ahn        |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Chang H. Ahn,           |   |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

| * | This Certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing. |
|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
§ 1500.213 Presentation of views under section 7 of the act. ( a ) Presentation of views under section 7 of the act shall be private and informal. The views presented shall be confined to matters relevant to the contemplated proceeding. Such views may be presented by letter or in person by the person to whom the notice was given, or by his representative. In case such person holds a guaranty or undertaking referred to in section 5(b)(2) of the act applicable to the article on which such notice was based, such guaranty or undertaking, or a verified copy thereof, shall be made a part of such presentation of views.
( b ) Upon request, reasonably made, by the person to whom a notice appointing a time and place for the presentation of views under section 7 of the act has been given, or by his representative, such time or place, or both such time and place, may be changed if the request states reasonable grounds therefor. Such request shall be addressed to the office of the Consumer Product Safety Commission that issued the notice.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

I, Nelson C. Rising, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Catellus Development Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Catellus Development Corporation as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. Catellus Development Corporation’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Catellus Development Corporation and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Catellus Development Corporation, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of CatellusDevelopment Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change inCatellus Development Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Catellus Development Corporation’s most recent fiscal quarter (Catellus Development Corporation’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Catellus Development Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Catellus Development Corporation’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to Catellus Development Corporation’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Catellus Development Corporation’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Catellus Development Corporation’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Catellus Development Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 6, 2004
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# July 13, 2015 Cyber Security Public Meeting Summary

Accession Number: ML15208A450

Date Released: Wednesday, August 12, 2015

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.
    - ML15208A445 - July 13, 2015 Summary on Cyber Security Public Meeting. (5 page(s), 8/5/2015)
    - ML15208A434 - 7-13-15 Slides for Cyber Security Meeting on Draft Reg Basis. (14 page(s), 8/5/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### SUBCHAPTER V—DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF COMMERCE IN RESOURCE AND RECOVERY
§ 1260.1 Scope and definitions. ( a ) This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for operating cords on custom window coverings. The effective date of this part is May 30, 2023.
( b ) The consumer product safety standard in this part relies on the following definitions in section 3 of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018 (incorporated by reference, see § 1260.5): ( 1 ) *Custom window covering* (custom blinds, shades, and shadings) has the same meaning as defined in section 3, definition 5.01, of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018, as any window covering that is not classified as a stock window covering.
( 2 ) *Stock window covering* (stock blinds, shades, and shadings) has the same meaning as defined in section 3, definition 5.02, of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018, as a window covering that is completely or substantially fabricated prior to being distributed in commerce and is a specific stock-keeping unit (SKU). Even when the seller, manufacturer, or distributor modifies a pre-assembled product by adjusting to size, attaching the top rail or bottom rail, or tying cords to secure the bottom rail, the product is still considered stock. Online sales of the product or the size of the order such as multi-family housing do not make the product a non-stock product. These examples are provided in ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018 to clarify that as long as the product is “substantially fabricated” prior to distribution in commerce, subsequent changes to the product do not change its categorization.
( 3 ) *Operating cord* has the same meaning as defined in section 3, definition 2.19, of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018, as the portion of the cord that the user manipulates directly during operation (including lifting, lowering, tilting, rotating, and traversing).
( 4 ) *Cord shroud* has the same meaning as defined in section 3, definition 2.09, of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018, as a device or material added to limit the accessibility of a cord or formation of a hazardous loop.
( 5 ) *Cord retraction device* has the same meaning as defined in section 3, definition 2.08, of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018, as a passive device which winds and gathers cords when tension is no longer applied by the user.
( 6 ) *Rigid cord shroud* is a cord shroud that is constructed of inflexible material, rendering the cord inaccessible as defined in Appendix C of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018, to prevent a child from accessing a window covering cord.
( 7 ) *Retractable cord* is a cord that extends when pulled by a user, and fully retracts when the user releases the cord, rendering the cord inaccessible as defined in Appendix C of ANSI/WCMA A100.1—2018.
( 8 ) *Loop cord and bead chain restraining device* is a device, integrated to and installed on the window covering, that prevents the creation of hazardous loop from an accessible continuous operating cord.
( 9 ) *Operating interface* is the part of the window covering that the user physically touches or grasps by hand or a tool to operate the window covering, for example a wand to tilt the slats of the product or the bottom rail to raise or lower the product.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 as of the dates and for the
periods indicated.
  Dated: May 12, 2009
    /s/ RAOUF Y. HALIMRaouf Y. HalimChief Executive Officer 8
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
MediciNova, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shintaro Asako, as Vice President and 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, that to 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.



Date: August 14, 2009By:

/s/    SHINTARO
ASAKOShintaro Asako Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No: III-14-024 July 3, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Public Meeting July 8 to Discuss Performance of

D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting on July 8, to discuss the 

agency’s annual assessment of safety performance for the D.C. Cook nuclear power plant. The two-unit 

plant is operated by Indiana Michigan Power Co., and is located in Bridgman, Mich., approximately 13 

miles south of Benton Harbor.

The meeting is scheduled for 6-8 p.m. at the Lake Charter Township Hall, 3220 Shawnee Road, 

in Bridgman. The NRC will present its assessment of the plant’s 2013 performance, talk about agency 

activities, and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public. 

“NRC inspectors spend a significant amount of time monitoring a wide range of plant activities 

to ensure the plant operates safely. Our hands-on approach is a key factor in protecting the public and 

environment,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold public meetings near 

the plant every year to make our inspectors available and accessible to answer questions and have open 

discussions about NRC oversight with those who live near the plant.”

The annual assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to the company addresses the 

performance of the plant during 2013 and will serve as the basis for the discussion.

Overall, the D.C. Cook facility operated safely in 2013. All performance indicators and 

inspection findings for D.C. Cook were green and both units remained in Column 1 of the action matrix. 

As a result, D.C. Cook Unit 1 and Unit 2 will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight 

during 2014. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear 

plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow, or red, commensurate 

with the safety significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical measurements 

of plant and equipment performance. The NRC’s action matrix reflects overall plant performance and 

agency response. There are five columns in the matrix with Column 1 requiring a baseline level of 

inspections. A move to the other columns results in an increased level of NRC oversight and inspections.

Inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant, inspection 

specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and specialists from the agency’s headquarters in 
Page | 2

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of performance to be inspected this year by NRC inspectors are 

activities associated with radiological safety, equipment designs, and emergency preparedness.

The most current performance information for D.C. Cook Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the 

NRC website.
### 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 April 27, 2010

s0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140366

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140366 COA: 288670 Wayne CC: 08-000127-FH JAMES ANTHONY CONNER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
### §13615. Preference within groups

Among disabled families qualifying for occupancy in units reserved under section 13612 of this title, and among elderly families and near-elderly families qualifying for preference for occupancy pursuant to section 13611 or 13613 of this title, preference for occupancy in units that are assisted under section 1437f of this title shall be given to disabled families according to any preferences established under any system established under section 1437f(d)(1)(A) of this title by the public housing agency.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title VI, §655, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3824; Pub. L. 104–99, title IV, §402(d)(6)(C), Jan. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 43; Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §514(b)(2)(B), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2548.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–276 substituted "shall be given to disabled families according to any preferences established under any system established under section 1437f(d)(1)(A) of this title by the public housing agency." for "shall be given to disabled families according to the preferences for occupancy referred to in section 1437f(d)(1)(A)(i) of this title and the first sentence of section 1437f(o)(3)(B) of this title, to elderly families according to such preferences, and to near-elderly families according to such preferences, respectively."

1996—Pub. L. 104–99, §402(d)(6)(C), (f), temporarily substituted "any preferences" for "the preferences for occupancy referred to in section 1437f(d)(1)(A)(i) of this title and the first sentence of section 1437f(o)(3)(B) of this title, to elderly families according to such preferences, and to near-elderly families according to such preferences, respectively". See Effective and Termination Dates of 1996 Amendment note below.

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

#### Effective and Termination Dates of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–99 effective Jan. 26, 1996, only for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, and to cease to be effective Oct. 21, 1998, see section 402(f) of Pub. L. 104–99, as amended, and section 514(f) of Pub. L. 105–276, set out as notes under section 1437a of this title.
LAVON TONY BUTLER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 2

- 5 923

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed July 10, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Adrian G. Soud, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant

.

Pamela Jo Bond i, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, CLARK , and OSTERHAUS , JJ., CONCUR.
#### Robert J.A. Zito, Appellant, v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 553]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 29, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion insofar as to dismiss plaintiff s claim to recover in quantum meruit and to direct that the parties enter into a confidentiality order prior to using or exchanging payroll documents during discovery, unanimously affirmed, *769without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered November 16, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, referred back to the Special Referee plaintiffs challenge to the Special Referee’s ruling closing the deposition of Richard Fischbein, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the reference vacated, and the matter remanded to the motion court for that court’s review and determination of plaintiffs challenge to the Referee’s ruling. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 26, 2005, unanimously dismissed as untimely, without costs.

Plaintiff attorney’s claim that the services at issue rendered by him to defendant law firm were so distinct from the contractually governed duties of his employment with the firm as to be compensable on a quantum meruit basis is not tenable. Indeed, it is plain that the services in question fell squarely within the contractually contemplated duties of plaintiff’s employment and, accordingly, that plaintiffs claim to recover for those services in quantum meruit was properly dismissed *(see Freedman v Pearlman,*271 AD2d 301, 304 [2000]). The motion court properly exercised its discretion in requiring the parties to enter into a confidentiality order before using or exchanging payroll documents during discovery.

Plaintiffs challenge to the Special Referee’s ruling closing the deposition of Richard Fischbein should have been reviewed and determined by the motion court *(see*CPLR 3104 [d]).

Although the appeal from the order entered September 26, 2005 was not timely taken and is not properly before us, we note that plaintiff, as a highly compensated professional, has no cognizable claim under Labor Law § 198 *(see*Labor Law § 190 [7]), and in any case, has failed to make the requisite supporting allegation for such a claim of a violation of Labor Law article 6 *(see Gottlieb v Kenneth D. Laub & Co.,*82 NY2d 457, 463 [1993]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.