alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Moshe Rosenbaum et al., Respondents, v Bayis Ne'Emon, Inc., Doing Business as Camp Esther, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[820 NYS2d 326]

*535In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Bayis Ne’Emon, Inc., doing business as Camp Esther appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated June 17, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Moshe Rosenbaum (hereinafter the plaintiff) was injured when his foot slipped into a hole while playing a game of badminton on premises owned by the defendant Bayis Ne’Emon, Inc., doing business as Camp Esther (hereinafter the appellant). The Supreme Court denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on the doctrine of assumption of risk. We affirm.

“Participants in sporting events may be held to have consented to injury-causing events which are the known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable risks of their participation” *(Colucci v Nansen Park,*226 AD2d 336 [1996]; *see also Turcotte v Fell,*68 NY2d 432, 439 [1986]; *Manoly v City of New York,*29 AD3d 649 [2006]). However, the doctrine of assumption of risk will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is “unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” *(Lapinski v Hunter Mtn. Ski Bowl,*306 AD2d 320, 321 [2003]).

Here, the appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The record indicates that at least a portion of the subject hole was concealed by an object which has been described by witnesses as being either a cesspool cover or a manhole cover and, as such, was not readily observable. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury-causing event *(see Morgan v State of New York,*90 NY2d 471 [1997]). Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Chaplin v Taylor,*273 AD2d 188 [2000]; *Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy,*226 AD2d 437 [1996]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Norman M. Bivens, a/k/a Buddy Bivens, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 59662;

First District (2nd Division)

August 13, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

*796James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Paul T. Foxgrover and Ronald P. Alwin, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Mary Ellen Dienes, and Francine Stewart Soliunas, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
#### § 12.14 Withdrawal of complaint.

At any time prior to service of notification to the complainant pursuant to § 12.15(a) of the Director of the Office of Proceedings' determination to forward the complaint to a registrant, complainant may file a written notice of withdrawal of the complaint which shall terminate the Commission's consideration of the complaint without prejudice to complainant's right to re-file a reparations complaint based upon the same set of facts within two years after the cause of action accrues. If the complainant has previously filed a notice of withdrawal of a complaint based upon the same set of facts, the notice of withdrawal of complaint shall terminate the case with prejudice to complainant's rights to re-file a complaint in reparations based on the same set of facts, but such termination shall be regarded by the Commission as without prejudice to complainant's right to seek redress in such alternative forums as may be available for adjudication of the claims.

[86 FR 64353, Nov. 18, 2021]
§ 1205.36 Product certification and labeling by importers. ( a ) *General.* The importer of any rotary walk-behind power lawn mower subject to the standard must issue the certificate of compliance required by section 14(a) of the Act and § 1205.35 of this regulation. If testing of each mower, or a reasonable testing program, meeting the requirements of this subpart B of part 1205 has been performed by or for the foreign manufacturer of the product, the importer may rely in good faith on such tests to support the certificate of compliance provided the importer is a resident of the United States or has a resident agent in the United States and the records of such tests required by § 1205.34 of this part are maintained in the United States.
( b ) *Responsibility of importer.* If the importer relies on tests by the foreign manufacturer to support the certificate of compliance, the importer bears the responsibility for examining the records supplied by the manufacturer to determine that the records of such tests appear to comply with § 1205.34 of this part.
No: 15-070 November 4, 2015 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Seeks Comment, Will Hold Meeting on Proposed Rule

to Set Variable Annual Fees for Small Modular Reactors

The NRC is seeking public comment on a proposed rule that would establish a variable annual

fee structure for light-water small modular reactors (SMRs). The annual fee methodology for large 

light-water reactors would remain the same under the proposed rule.

The NRC will hold an informational public meeting on the proposed rule Monday, Nov. 16,

from 1-4 p.m. in room T2B3 of the NRC’s White Flint complex at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, 

Md. NRC staff will describe the basis and methodology developed for the proposed SMR annual fees, 

which would be linked to the total heat output of all SMR modules at a site. The public will have the 

opportunity to ask questions on the proposed rule.

Current SMR concepts involve designs generating 300 megawatts electric per module or less, 

with one or more modules installed at a given site. The NRC has held pre-application discussions with 

several potential SMR vendors and the agency expects to receive the first SMR design certification 

application in late 2016.

The meeting will include a teleconference and webinar. For the call-in number, webinar details,

or more information on the proposed rule, please contact the NRC’s Arlette Howard at 301-415-1481, 

or via e-mail at Arlette.Howard@nrc.gov. 

Comments should be submitted by Dec. 4 using Docket ID NRC-2008-0664; the NRC will 

consider comments after the deadline if it is practical. Comments can only be submitted on the 

regulations.gov website; via e-mail to Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov; by fax to Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101; or by mail to Secretary, ATTN: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Source scales vary, and accuracy of the final land cover has not been assessed. 

Lakes are associated with facilities. Honker and Energy Lakes are also wildlife 

refuges. All Research Natural Areas and State Natural Areas lie within the Core 

areas. Core acreages are based on GIS data, not previously published. Closed 

facilities under administrative areas include Duncan Wildlife Restoration Area, 

Empire Farm, Youth Station, Lookout Tower, and Silo Overlook.

Disclaimer

012

Miles

 ̄

Alternative Land Prescription Areas

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Between Lakes The

NORTH

Y

Other Features

Road Level

Water

1

2

3

4

5

Legend

Subcategories to RX Areas

State Natural Area

Natural Resource Areas

Core Areas

Oak Grassland Demo

Wildlife Refuge

Wetlands

Environmental Education &

Developed Recreation Areas

Developed Recreation

Environmental Education

Turkey Bay OHV

Administrative Areas

Administration

Communications

Utility Corridor

Prepared by US Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes

GIS Laboratory, September 2004

General Forest

Nature Watch Demo
No. I-16-014 May 13, 2016 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Proposes $7,000 Civil Penalty for Violation

at West Virginia Manufacturing Facility

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is proposing a $7,000 fine for an Atlanta-based 

company for a violation of agency requirements. The violation involves maintenance inappropriately 

done on a fixed nuclear gauge at the firm’s manufacturing facility in Fairmont, W.V.

Based on the results of an NRC inspection and investigation carried out at Novelis Corp.’s 

Fairmont plant, the agency is also issuing a Severity Level III violation to the company.

Novelis performs aluminum sheet and light-gauge fin/foil cold rolling activities at the facility. 

The company held an NRC license for the possession and use of fixed nuclear gauges at this location. 

The gauges are used to measure the thickness of the sheet metal products.

The NRC inspection and investigation completed on Jan. 21, 2016, determined that on Sept. 12 

and 13, 2014, there was a violation involving the deliberate actions of plant employees. Specifically, an 

engineering reliability and automation engineer directed an electrical technician to repair nuclear gauge 

components related to the radiological safety of the device even though Novelis’ NRC license prohibits 

such activities.

“Our reviews found that the plant employees involved understood the work they were 

undertaking was not permitted, but they proceeded with the repairs nonetheless in order to minimize the 

economic impact on the facility from the inoperable gauge,” Acting NRC Region I Administrator 

David Lew said. “These activities could have resulted in unnecessary radiological exposure and 

possibly physical harm. This enforcement action serves as an important reminder of the need for gauge 

owners and users to adhere to license conditions meant to ensure the proper handling of nuclear 

materials.”

In a March 8, 2016, letter, Novelis acknowledged the violation occurred, but it disagreed that 

the employees acted deliberately. After reviewing the information, the NRC staff concluded that the 

enforcement action was still appropriate. Based on the apparent economic incentive for the violation, 

the NRC used discretion to double the fine from base amount of $3,500.

Novelis has notified the NRC of prompt and comprehensive corrective and preventive actions in 

response to the issue, including the termination of its NRC license, which occurred on Jan. 12, 2016.
Page | 2

The NRC is also issuing a Severity Level III violation to the engineering reliability and 

automation engineer who authorized the technician to work on the gauge.

The company is required to respond to the violation and proposed civil penalty within 30 days.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Davies J. Marshall, Respondent, for a Writ of Certiorari Commanding George E. Green and Another, Appellants, to Certify and Return to the Supreme Court, etc.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on opinion of Shearn, J., at Special Term (Reported in 97 Misc. Rep. 492). Present— Clarke, P. J., Scott, Smith, Page and Davis, JJ.
Enclosure 2 

Inimicality Screened Governments via 123 Agreement and Defense Treaty/Mutual 

Defense Agreement 

Governments with 123 

Agreements with a Defense 

Treaty or Agreement 

Defense Treaty (NATO) Other Mutual Defense 

Agreement 

Argentina X 

Australia X 

Belgium X 

Brazil X 

Bulgaria X 

Canada X 

Colombia X 

Czech Republic X 

Denmark X 

Estonia X 

France X 

Germany X 

Greece X 

Hungary X 

Italy X 

Japan X 

Korea, Republic of X 

Latvia X 

Lithuania X 

Luxembourg X 

Netherlands X 

Norway X 

Poland X 

Portugal X 

Romania X 

Slovakia X 

Slovenia X 

Spain X 

Thailand X 

Turkey X 

United Kingdom X
No: I-15-040 December 18, 2015

CONTACT: Diane Screnci 610-337-5330

Neil Sheehan 610-337-5331

New NRC Resident Inspector Assigned To Millstone Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have 

selected Christopher Highley as the new Resident Inspector at the Millstone 

nuclear power plant in Waterford, Conn. He joins NRC Senior Resident 

Inspector Jo Ambrosini and Resident Inspector Louis McKown at the two-unit 

site operated by Dominion Nuclear.

“Chris Highley has the experience, training and commitment to safety 

that will help the NRC in carrying out its mission of protecting people and the 

environment and ensuring the safe operation of the Millstone units," said NRC 

Region I Administrator Dan Dorman. 

Highley joined the NRC in November 2014 as a project engineer in the Region I Office. He 

retired from the U.S. Navy as a Nuclear Surface Warfare Officer after 25 years of service. He holds a 

bachelor’s degree in chemistry with a minor in math and physics from the University of Arizona. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as the 

agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects and 

interacting with plant workers and the public. 

The Millstone Resident Inspectors can be reached at 860-447-3179.
#### Saminey Realty Corporation, Appellant, v. Maralyn Mattlin, Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present— Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
### Part D—Office of AIDS Research

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 103–43, title XVIII, §1801(a)(1), (3), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 192, added part D designation and heading and struck out former part D designation and heading "Special Authorities of the Director of the National Institutes of Health".
#### Regina Crandall, Appellant, v. Union News Company, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
#### Donald Entwistle, an Infant, by A. Thorne Hills, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Alvin J. Faskel et al., Appellants.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 740.]
June 24, 2015 

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Lowey: 

 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your 

letter of April 30, 2015, in which you express your concern regarding plans to grant a certificate 

to build a new natural gas pipeline about one-quarter mile from the Indian Point Energy Center 

(IPEC) Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactors. In addition to asking the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission to grant a rehearing on the matter, you also stated that NRC’s responses to your 

November 2014 correspondence to the agency and to questions posed to the Commission 

during a House Appropriations Committee hearing on March 24, 2015, were insufficient. 

I want to specifically respond to your concerns related to the NRC. The NRC’s role in 

evaluating the pipeline project is to review the licensee’s safety evaluation and supporting 

hazard analysis to confirm that the pipeline would not impact the safe operations of IPEC Units 

2 and 3. 

 I have reviewed the information provided to you in response to your November 2014 

letter and in my oral responses to your questions during the referenced House Appropriations 

Committee hearing. I remain confident in the NRC staff’s findings from its independent 

confirmatory analysis and inspection of the proposed pipeline route that the pipeline will not 

pose an increased risk to radiological safety at the plant. Using proven methodologies and 

modeling software, the staff’s work considered “worst case” scenarios, yet still concluded that a 

potential rupture of the proposed pipeline would pose no threat to the safe operation or the safe 

shutdown of the plant. 

 If you need any additional information, please contact me or Mr. Eugene Dacus, Director 

of the Office of Congressional Affairs, at (301) 415-1776. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 

Stephen G. Burns 

cc: N. Bay
No: 16-032 May 31, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Announces Hearing Opportunity for Waterford License Renewal; 

Public Meeting June 8 to Discuss Environmental Review

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced the opportunity to request a hearing on an 

application to renew the operating license of the Waterford nuclear power plant in Killona, La.

The agency also has begun work on an environmental impact statement for the license renewal, 

and announced a public meeting to be held near the plant on June 8.

The Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, is a pressurized-water reactor currently licensed 

to operate through Dec. 18, 2024. The operator, Entergy Operations Inc., submitted the application, via 

a March 23 letter, to extend the license for an additional 20 years. The NRC staff has determined the 

application contains sufficient information for the agency to formally docket the application and begin 

its safety and environmental reviews. Docketing the application does not preclude requesting additional 

information as the reviews proceed, and it does not indicate whether the NRC will renew the license.

NRC staff members will conduct a public meeting June 8 from 7-9 p.m. to describe the 

environmental review process and accept comments from the public about the potential scope of that 

review. The meeting will be held at the St. Charles Parish Emergency Operations Center, 15026 River 

Road, in Hahnville, La. 

The hearing opportunity was announced today in the Federal Register. The hearing opportunity 

notice includes instructions for filing petitions to intervene. The deadline for filing hearing petitions is 

August 1.

The scoping meeting is one method for filing public comments on the environmental review

before the August 1 deadline. Comments can also be submitted via regulations.gov under 

Docket ID NRC-2016-0078, or via mail (using Docket ID NRC-2016-0078) to Cindy Bladey, 

Office of Administration, Mail Stop OWFN-12 H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555-0001. A Federal Register notice, expected soon, will repeat the instructions for 

submitting comments.

The Waterford 3 license renewal application is available on the NRC website, and at the 

St. Charles Parish Library, East Regional Library, 160 W. Campus Dr., Destrehan, La.
§ 1021.13 Finding of no significant impact. ( a ) A finding of no significant impact shall cite and be attached to the environmental assessment upon which it is based. It shall refer to anticipated effects upon the environment identified in the environmental assessment and give the reason(s) why those effects will not be significant. The final paragraph of the finding shall give the reasons why the overall impact on the environment is not regarded as significant.
( b ) The signature of the Executive Director shall appear at the end of the finding of no significant impact.
Argued and submitted October 9,

affirmed November 15,

respondent Kathleen Climer’s petition for attorney fees filed November 20, 2000,

allowed by opinion March 28, 2001

See 173 Or App 282 (2001)

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Kathleen A. Climer, Claimant. WAL-MART STORES, INC., *Petitioner, v.*Kathleen CLIMER and Kinney Shoe Corporation, *Respondents.*

(98-00453, 98-09140; CA A108391)

14 P3d 648

Delbert J. Brenneman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Marjorie A. Speirs and Hoffman, Hart & Wagner, LLP.

Daniel J. Sato argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Kathleen Climer.

Brad G. Garber argued the cause for respondent Kinney Shoe Corporation. With him on the brief was Meyers, Radler, Replogle, Roberts & Miller.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *SAIF v. Yokum,*132 Or App 18, 887 P2d 380 (1994).
[Civil No. 305.]

#### TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE PERSONS, REAL ESTATE, LAND, AND PROPERTY Described in the Delinquent List of the County of Pima for the Year 1889, Appellees.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Pima.

Clark Churchill, Attorney-General, B. H. Hereford, District Attorney, and Barnes & Martin, for Appellant.

II. W. Maxwell, Maxwell *&*Satterwhite, C. W. Wright, W. H. Lovell, Haynes & Heney, Jeffords & Franklin, J. A. Zabriske, and F. J. Heney, for Appellees.

February 14, 1891.

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 68213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25916]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Pub. L. 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Veteran's 
Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards will be held on Thursday 
and Friday, January 6-7, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The 
meeting will be held at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 530, Washington, 
DC 20420. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs on adverse health effects that may be associated 
with exposure to ionizing radiation and to make recommendations on 
proposed standards and guidelines regarding VA benefit claims based 
upon exposure to ionizing radiation.
    The major items on the agenda for both days will be discussions and 
analyses of medical and scientific papers concerning the health effects 
of exposure to ionizing radiation. On the basis of its analyses and 
discussions, the Committee may make recommendations to the Secretary 
concerning the relationship of certain diseases with exposure to 
ionizing radiation. On January 6 there will be presentations by VA's 
Public Health and Environmental Hazards Office, and by Specialists in 
Energy, Nuclear, and Environmental Sciences (SENES). The January 7 
session will include planning future Committee activities and 
assignment of tasks among the members.
    Those who wish to attend should contact Ms. Bernice Green of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension Service, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, by phone at (202) 273-7210, 
or by fax at (202) 275-1728. Members of the public may submit written 
questions or prepared statements for review by the Committee in advance 
of the meeting. Statements should be sent to Ms. Green's attention at 
least 5 days prior to the meeting at the address shown above. Those who 
submit material may be asked to clarify it prior to its consideration 
by the Committee.
    An open forum for verbal statements from the public will also be 
available for 20 minutes during the morning and 20 minutes in the 
afternoon each day. Each person who wishes to make a verbal statement 
before the Committee will be accommodated on a first come, first served 
basis and will be provided three (3) minutes to present the statement.

    Dated: November 15, 2004.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-25916 Filed 11-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
```