alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
As shown in the above chart, WVDuPontWashi ngtonWorks P05, which is the only unit
the coal stoker CO CEMS floor calculati ons are based on, has significantly lower CO CEMS daily averages than other Coal Stok er units in EPA’s database (approximately one order of magnitude less than the next lowest ranked unit, PAPennState 31). The graph shows that even this unit, the select ed top performer, has daily average CO emissions over a 30-day snapshot in time above the proposed CO CEMS limit based on 10-day averages. Only 6 Coal Stokers have provided CEMS data to EPA, which is only 1.6% of the population of Coal Stoker units and the WVDuPontWashingtonWorks P05 unit only makes up 0.26% of the population. The December 2011 proposed coal stoker CO CEMS limit of 34 ppm is much lower t han the proposed coal stoker stack test based CO limit of 220 ppm, which is based on 8 units. Therefore, since the DuPont boiler is not representative of the populat ion of coal stoker boilers and consideration of only this boiler results in a CO CEMS limit being set at a level where reduction of CO emissions does not provide a corresponding reduction in HAP emissions, EPA should consider the PAPennState 31 boiler in determining the appropr iate CO CEMS limit for coal stoker boilers. Otherwise, AF&PA is concerned that the CO Coal Stoker limi ts (both short term and CEM based) may not be achievable for so me of the existing stoker boilers. 1 10 100 1000 10000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35CO(ppm@3%O2) 

## CO Daily CEMS Averages for Coal Stoker Units

Limit

PAPennState 31

WVDuPontWashingtonWorks

P05

IACargillEddyville 1.001

IACargillEddyville 1.002

IACargillEddyville 1.039

WINewPageBiron B24
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SRM-COMSECY-16-0004R:  Revised Renewal of Advisory Committee on Medical Isotopes (ACMUI) Charter

Accession Number: ML16039A337

Date Released: Tuesday, February 9, 2016

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.
    - ML16040A046 - SRM-COMSECY-16-0004R: Revised Renewal of Advisory Committee on Medical Isotopes (ACMUI) Charter. (1 page(s), 2/8/2016)
    - ML16040A050 - SRM-COMSECY-16-0004R:  Revised Enclosure 1 - Renewal of Advisory Committee on Medical Isotopes (ACMUI) Charter. (2 page(s), 2/8/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
No. 89-6662.

#### Hill et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# COMSECY-15-0019 - Closure Plan for the Reevaluation of Flooding Hazards For Operating Nuclear Power Plants.

Accession Number: ML15153A104

Date Released: Tuesday, July 28, 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.
    - ML15153A105 - COMSECY-15-0019:  Closure Plan for the Reevaluation of Flooding Hazards For Operating Nuclear Power Plants. (3 page(s), 6/30/2015)
    - ML15153A110 - COMSECY-15-0019: Enclosure 1 - Mitigating Strategies and Flooding Hazard Re-Evaluation Action Plan. (10 page(s), 6/30/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 3.32 Admissions. ( a ) At any time after 30 days after issuance of a complaint, or after publication of notice of an adjudicative hearing in a rulemaking proceeding under § 3.13, any party may serve on any other party a written request for admission of the truth of any matters relevant to the pending proceeding set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or are known to be, and in the request are stated as being, in the possession of the other party. Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth.
( b ) The matter is admitted unless, within 10 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the Administrative Law Judge may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn written answer or objection addressed to the matter. If objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify its answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known to or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; the party may deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it.
( c ) Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the Administrative Law Judge on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. The Administrative Law Judge may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the proceeding will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the Administrative Law Judge that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits. Any admission made by a party under this rule is for the purpose of the pending proceeding only and is not an admission by him for any other purpose nor may it be used against him in any other proceeding.
[43 FR 56865, Dec. 4, 1978, as amended at 50 FR 53305, Dec. 31, 1985; 80 FR 15161, Mar. 23, 2015]
#### Ronald Liquore et al., Appellants, v Tri-Arc Manufacturing Co., Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 806]

*905In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered August 4, 2004, as, in effect, denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the production of certain litigation records.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an in camera review and a new determination in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that within 60 days of service upon it of a copy of this decision and order the defendant shall respond to the plaintiffs’ “notice for discovery and inspection of other pending lawsuits involving same component” by furnishing all responsive documents to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an in camera review or providing an affidavit in accordance herewith.

While the plaintiff demonstrated that certain prior litigation documents may be relevant and, thus, subject to disclosure *(see generally*CPLR 3101 [a]; *Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403 [1968]), the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to compel the production of those documents were insufficient to make a determination as to whether or not those documents were in fact relevant and not otherwise privileged. Thus, the Supreme Court should have examined the documents, in camera, prior to making its determination. Accordingly, within 60 days of service upon it of a copy of this decision and order, the defendant is directed to furnish the disputed documents to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an in-camera review. In the event the requested documents are not available or have been destroyed, the defendant is directed to provide an affidavit from the person who searched for them detailing the person’s qualifications, and the efforts made to locate them and the details of their destruction if appropriate *(see generally*CPLR 3101; *Gerardi v Nassau/Suffolk Airport Connection,*288 AD2d 181 [2001]; *Sadicario v Stylebuilt Accessories,*250 AD2d 830 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Executive Retirement Plan Amendment 2005-1



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 
 EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
 AMENDMENT 2005-1 
 Section 3.02(a)(iv) of
the Executive Retirement Plan is to be deleted effective immediately. Sections 3.02(b) and (c) of the Executive Retirement Plan are proposed to be amended to read as follows effective immediately: 
 “(b) Senior Officers are eligible for all three benefit features. Other participants are eligible for Benefit Features (i) and (ii) only.

 (c) Participants in the Plan on December 31, 1994, and Senior Officers as of December 13, 2005, are eligible for all three
Benefit Features as long as they remain eligible to participate in the plan, and they are also eligible for an additional 0.75% benefit accrual over that provided by the Qualified Plan for each Year of Service up to ten Years of Service (Plan
eligibility during those year is not required), unless they were participants in the Plan on December 31, 1992 and did not elect to participate in the Executive Disability and Survivor Benefit Program, in which case they are not eligible for
the additional 0.75% accrual.”
No: III-15-016 June 2, 2015

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Open House June 11 to Discuss 

Performance of Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold an open house June 11 to discuss the agency’s 

assessment of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant’s operation during 2014. The plant is located in Oak 

Harbor, Ohio, roughly 20 miles southeast of Toledo.

The open house is scheduled for 6-7:30 p.m. at Carroll Township Service Complex, 11080 W.

Toussaint East Road, in Oak Harbor. The NRC staff will be available for informal discussions about the 

performance of the plant as well as other topics related to the NRC’s regulatory activities.

“We host open houses, which are informal meetings between the NRC staff and the public, to 

have an open dialogue with local residents about the plant and other NRC-related issues of interest to 

the public,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “It is a great opportunity for 

people to meet our resident inspectors and other staff; and a great opportunity for us to speak with 

people who live near the plant.”

The NRC concluded that, overall, Davis-Besse operated safely in 2014. All performance 

indicators and inspection findings were “green.” However the plant did have one or more greater-thangreen security inspection findings which moved the plant from Column 1 to Column 2 of the action 

matrix during the third quarter of 2014. As a result of the findings, Davis-Besse will receive increased 

NRC oversight and inspection effort. The NRC found the plant had taken immediate corrective actions 

to address the issue that led to the greater-than-green finding and will conduct an additional follow up 

inspection later in the year.

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

plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then change 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 annual assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Davis-Besse addresses the 

performance of the plant during 2014 and serves as the basis for discussions. The most current 

performance information for the plant is available on the NRC website.
#### § 170.3 Fair and equitable representation of members (section 17(b)(5) of the Act).

A futures association must assure fair and equitable representation of the views and interests of all association members in the procedures providing for the adoption, amendment or repeal of any association rule, in an association's procedure for the selection of association officers and directors and in all other phases of the association's affairs and activities, including disciplinary and membership hearings. No single group or class of association members shall dominate or otherwise exercise disproportionate influence on any governing board of an association or on any disciplinary or membership panel of such an association. Non-members of the association shall be represented wherever practicable on any board or hearing panel of the association.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl C. Delfino, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 493]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered October 19, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Waiving his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree and was thereafter sentenced to agreed upon concurrent prison terms of 11⁄3 to 4 years. Defendant now appeals on the sole basis that he was improperly denied youthful offender status.

*1110We affirm. Defendant’s challenge to the denial of youthful offender treatment was forfeited by his valid appeal waiver *(see People v Wise,*29 AD3d 1216, 1217 [2006]; *People v Anderson,*23 AD3d 765, 766 [2005]; *People v Sharlow,*12 AD3d 724, 726 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 748 [2004]). In any event, the record fails to demonstrate that County Court abused its considerable discretion in, after due consideration, declining to adjudge defendant a youthful offender *(see People v Driggs,*24 AD3d 888, 889 [2005]; *People v Lacelle,*19 AD3d 869, 870 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### §§ 1034.141-1034.148 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Karen Conners Leopold, Deceased. Martin J. Kimball, as Executor of Karen Conners Leopold, Deceased, Respondent; Estate of Charles D. Tuppen, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, and Jaeckle, Fleischmann & Mugel, LLP, et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 837]

*1228Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Erie County (Barbara Howe, S.), entered February 2, 2005. The order, among other things, granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: On February 1, 2005, Surrogate’s Court, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. However, Mary H. Tuppen, executor of respondent estate of Charles D. Tuppen, Jr., had died on an undisclosed date, her successor executor having been appointed on December 20, 2004. The successor executor has not been substituted as a respondent in this proceeding, and thus the Surrogate “lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion and the order . . . is a nullity” *(Schraven v Town of Tonawanda,*238 AD2d 952, 952 [1997]; *see Kelly v Methodist Hosp.,*276 AD2d 672, 672-673 [2000]; *Silvagnoli v Consolidated Edison Empls. Mut. Aid Socy.,*112 AD2d 819, 820 [1985]). “In addition, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal” (Schraven, 238 AD2d at 952; *see Kelly,*276 AD2d at 673; *Pavone v Walters,*214 AD2d 1052 [1995]). This dismissal does not preclude an application to have the successor executor substituted as a respondent, nor does it preclude a new motion for summary judgment *(see Weber v Bellinger,*124 AD2d 1009 [1986]; *Silvagnoli,*112 AD2d at 821). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J, Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Green, *JJ.*
§ 681.2 Duties of card issuers regarding changes of address. ( a ) *Scope.* This section applies to a person described in § 681.1(a) that issues a debit or credit card (card issuer).
( b ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) *Cardholder* means a consumer who has been issued a credit or debit card.
( 2 ) *Clear and conspicuous* means reasonably understandable and designed to call attention to the nature and significance of the information presented.
( c ) *Address validation requirements.* A card issuer must establish and implement reasonable policies and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address if it receives notification of a change of address for a consumer's debit or credit card account and, within a short period of time afterwards (during at least the first 30 days after it receives such notification), the card issuer receives a request for an additional or replacement card for the same account. Under these circumstances, the card issuer may not issue an additional or replacement card, until, in accordance with its reasonable policies and procedures and for the purpose of assessing the validity of the change of address, the card issuer: ( 1 ) ( i ) Notifies the cardholder of the request: ( A ) At the cardholder's former address; or
( B ) By any other means of communication that the card issuer and the cardholder have previously agreed to use; and
( ii ) Provides to the cardholder a reasonable means of promptly reporting incorrect address changes; or
( 2 ) Otherwise assesses the validity of the change of address in accordance with the policies and procedures the card issuer has established pursuant to § 681.1 of this part.
( d ) *Alternative timing of address validation.* A card issuer may satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section if it validates an address pursuant to the methods in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section when it receives an address change notification, before it receives a request for an additional or replacement card.
( e ) *Form of notice.* Any written or electronic notice that the card issuer provides under this paragraph must be clear and conspicuous and provided separately from its regular correspondence with the cardholder.
[74 FR 22645, May 14, 2009]
#### Sonya Gussman et al., Respondents, v. Garbo Realty Corp., Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division denied, without costs. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MaeCrate and Beldoek, JJ.
##### 



RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD CERTIFICATE June 12, 2003 Exhibit 10.48 Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.
474 Old Orchard Circle
Millersville, MD 21108 USA Dear Thomas: Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
Amended & Restated 1997 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan), you have been
granted a Restricted Stock Award (the Award) for the number of shares (each
an Award Share, and collectively, the Award Shares) of the Class A common
stock, par value $0.01 per share (the Common Stock) of TeleCommunication
Systems, Inc. (the Company) as outlined below. This Certificate constitutes
part of and is subject to the terms and provisions of the attached Restricted
Stock Grant Agreement (the Agreement) which is incorporated herein by
reference. Granted To: Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.     
(the Employee)
Grant Date: April 14, 2003
Award Shares Granted: 85,000
Vesting Schedule: 3-year Vesting 28,333 on 04/14/2004
28,333 on 04/14/2005
28,334 on 04/14/2006 By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Award granted on
the Grant Date shown above, which has been issued to me under the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and the Plan. I understand that I will forfeit all
unvested Award Shares at the close of business on my last day of employment at
TCS. I further acknowledge receipt of the Plan Prospectus and the latest annual
report or other SEC filing, and agree to be bound by all of the terms and
conditions of the Award, as evidenced in the Agreement, and the Plan. Signature: /s/ Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.
    
    Date: ________________Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.
 Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above, please
make the appropriate corrections on this form.
#### *In re*John Mullin *et al.*

*Filed at Ottawa November 13, 1886.*

Insolvent debtob— *discharge from imprisonment—when malice is the “gist of the action."*Malice being the *“gist*of the action” in a suit in trespass for an assault and battery, the defendant in the judgment, arrested and held in custody under a writ of *capias ad satisfaciendum*issued thereon, is not entitled to a discharge from imprisonment under the Insolvent Debt- or’s act.

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding.

Mr. H. 0. McDaid, and Mr. C. A. Knight, for the appellant,

contended that malice is not necessarily the *gist*of the action in trespass to the person, but that force is the *gist*of that action. *Gratly*v. *Stern,*37 Hun, 426.

The *gist*of an action is the ground or object of the action in point of law, without which there would be no cause of action. 1 Bouvier’s Law Die. 712; Gould’s Pleading, 41; *552Abbott’s Law Dic.; Wharton’s Law Dic.; *First Nat. Bank*v. *Burkett,*101 Ill. 394.

• Messrs. Brandt & Hoffman,' for Spangenberg,

relied principally on the case *In re Murphy,*109 Ill. 31.

Mr. Justice Magruder

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an application for discharge under section 2 of “An act concerning insolvent debtors,” being chapter 72 of the Revised Statutes of this State. The appellants were arrested on a *capias ad satisfaciendum,*issued upon a judgment, recovered in the Superior Court of Cook county, in an action of trespass for an assault and battery. The judgment, so recovered, has heretofore been brought before this court for review, and was affirmed by us in *Mullin et al.*v. *Spangenberg,*112 Ill. 140. A full statement of all the facts will be found in the opinion in that ease.

The Superior Court held, that malice was the *gist.*of the action, in which the judgment aforesaid was rendered, and that appellants could not be discharged under the Insolvent law. The decision of that court was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and Mullin and McHugh, the insolvent debtors, have appealed.

In the record, now presented to us, no other question is involved than that, which was considered and decided by us in *In re Murphy,*109 Ill. 31. The decision in the last named case is decisive of all the issues in the case at bar. The judgment of the Appellate Court is, therefore, affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*