alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Palisades - Notification of Full Compliance with NRC Order EA-12-049, “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events.”

Accession Number: ML15351A351

Date Released: Monday, December 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.
    - ML15351A369 - Palisades - Notification of Full Compliance with NRC Order EA-12-049, "Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events." (3 page(s), 12/16/2015)
    - ML15351A352 - Palisades - Attachment 1, Compliance With Order EA-12-049. (1 page(s), 12/16/2015)
    - ML15351A353 - Palisades - Attachment 2, Order EA-12-049 Compliance Elements Summary. (3 page(s), 12/16/2015)
    - ML15351A354 - Palisades - Attachment 3, Audit Open Item Responses. (5 page(s), 12/16/2015)
    - ML15351A355 - Palisades - Attachment 4, Interim Staff Evaluation Open Item and Confirmation Item Responses. (28 page(s), 12/16/2015)
    - ML15351A360 - Palisades - Attachment 5, Final Integrated Plan. (118 page(s), 12/16/2015)
    - ML15351A362 - Palisades - Attachment 6, System Operating Procedure 23, "Plant Heating System," Attachment 14, "Actions When Outside Temperatures are Less Than 20 Degrees Fahrenheit." (11 page(s), 12/16/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### §§ 1632.61-1632.62 [Reserved]
#### § 6.140 Employment.

No qualified individual with handicaps shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the Commission. The definitions, requirements and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
§ 1700.3 Establishment of standards for special packaging. ( a ) Pursuant to section 3 of the act, the Commission, after consultation with the technical advisory committee provided for by section 6 of the act, may establish by regulation standards for the special packaging of any household substance if the Commission finds: ( 1 ) That the degree or nature of the hazard to children in the availability of such substance, by reason of its packaging, is such that special packaging is required to protect children from serious personal injury or serious illness resulting from handling, using, or ingesting such substance; and
( 2 ) That the special packaging to be required by such standard is technically feasible, practicable, and appropriate for such substance.
( b ) In establishing such a standard, the Commission shall consider: ( 1 ) The reasonableness of such standard;
( 2 ) Available scientific, medical, and engineering data concerning special packaging and concerning childhood accidental ingestions, illness, and injury caused by household substances;
( 3 ) The manufacturing practices of industries affected by the act; and
( 4 ) The nature and use of the household substance.
( c ) In the process of establishing such a standard, the Commission shall publish its findings and reasons therefor and shall cite the sections of the act that authorize its action.
( d ) In establishing such standards, the Commission shall not prescribe specific packaging designs, product content, package quantity, or labeling except for labeling under section 4(a)(2) of the act. Regarding a household substance for which special packaging is required by regulation, the Commission can prohibit the packaging of such substance in a package which the Commission determines is unnecessarily attractive to children.
( e ) Promulgations pursuant to section 3 of the act shall be in accordance with section 5 of the act as to procedure.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                               Proxim Corporation
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

The following table shows certain information with respect to the active
subsidiaries of Proxim Corporation as of December 31, 2003:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                         Percent of voting
                                                      State or other Jurisdiction       securities owned by
               Name of Subsidiary                          of Incorporation             Proxim Corporation
<S>                                                   <C>                               <C>
Proxim Wireless Networks, Inc.                                 Delaware                        100%

Proxim International Holdings, Inc.                            Delaware                        100%

WirelessHome Corporation                                       Delaware                        100%

Proxim Europe B.V.                                            Netherlands                      100%

Proxim K.K. a/k/a Proxim Kabushiki Kaisha                        Japan                         100%
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2639]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 03-237; FCC 03-289]


Interference Temperature Operation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 21, 2004 (69 FR 2863), the Commission published 
proposed rules in the Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making. The Notice of Inquiry requests comment, information and 
research on a number of issues relating to the development and use of 
the interference temperature metric and for managing a transition from 
the current transmitter-based approach to the new interference 
temperature paradigm. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes 
technical rules that would establish interference temperature limits 
and procedures for assessing the interference temperature to permit 
expanded unlicensed operation. This document contains a correction to 
the ``ET Docket No.'', which was inadvertently published incorrectly.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 5, 2004, and reply 
comments must be filed on or before May 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Thayer (202) 418-2290, John Reed 
(202) 418-2455, or Ahmed Lahjouji (202) 418-2061, Office of Engineering 
and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Communications Commission 
published a document proposing to amend part 15 in the Federal Register 
of January 21, 2004, (69 FR 2863). This document corrects the Federal 
Register as it appeared. In FR Doc. 04-1192, published on January 21, 
2004 (69 FR 2863), the Commission is correcting the docket no. ``ET 
Docket No. 03-327'' to reflect the correct docket no. ``ET Docket No. 
03-237''. In rule FR Doc. 04-1192 published on January 21, 2004 (69 FR 
2863), the Commission is correcting ET Docket No. 03-327 to read as ET 
Docket No. 03-237:
    On page 2863, in the second column, ET Docket No. 03-327 is 
corrected to read as ET Docket No. 03-237.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-2639 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Order entered July 31, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00971-CV

No. 05-13-00972-CV

SARAH MARIE SMITH, Appellant

V.

JOHN MICHAEL SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-51420-2013

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s July 17, 2013 motion to consolidate. We ORDER the appeal 

docketed as appellate cause number 05-13-00972-CV CONSOLIDATED into the appeal 

docketed as appellate cause number 05-13-00971-CV. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to 

transfer all papers from appellate cause number 05-13-00972-CV to appellate cause number 05-

13-00971-CV. Henceforth, all documents shall bear appellate cause number 05-13-00971-CV.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1



CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



The undersigned, Nelson C. Rising, the Chief
Executive Officer of Catellus Development Corporation (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:



(i) the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



Date: May 6, 2004



/S/ NELSON C. RISINGNelson C. Rising




THIS
CERTIFICATION IS FURNISHED SOLELY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AND IS NOT BEING FILED AS PART OF THE REPORT OR AS A SEPARATE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT.



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING 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. for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Shintaro Asako, Vice President, Accounting and Administration
of MediciNova, Inc., 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 the best of 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 MediciNova, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date:    May 10, 2006By:

/S/    SHINTARO
ASAKOShintaro Asako Vice President, Accounting and Administration (Principal Accounting Officer)
§ 301.35 Substitution of labels. ( a ) Persons authorized under the provisions of section 3(e) of the act to substitute labels affixed to fur products may do so, provided the substitute label is complete and carries all the information required under the act and rules and regulations in the same form and manner as required in respect to the original label. The substitute label need not, however, show the name or registered number appearing on the original label if the name or registered number of the person who affixes the substitute appears thereon.
( b ) The original label may be used as a substitute label provided the name or registered number of the person making the substitution is inserted thereon without interfering with or obscuring in any manner other required information. In connection with such substitution the name or registered number as well as any record numbers appearing on the original label may be removed.
( c ) Persons substituting labels under the provision of this section shall maintain the records required under § 301.41 of this part.
[17 FR 6075, July 8, 1952, as amended at 79 FR 30458, May 28, 2014]
---

---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of ACRO Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gadi Aner, the Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) of the Company, 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 result of operations of the
Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 15, 2007

|/s/ Gadi Aner
Gadi AnerChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of OneCap on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), Vincent W. Hesser, Chief Executive Officer
and Tammy Hardcastle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.


                                        /s/ Vincent W. Hesser
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Vincent W. Hesser
                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                        /s/ Tammy Hardcastle
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Tammy Hardcastle
                                   Chief Financial Officer
#### § 312.13 Severability.

The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
Exhibit 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:


(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-264693) and in the related Prospectuses of The Clorox Company, and





(2) Registration Statements  (Form S-8 Nos. 33-56563, 33-56565, 33-41131, including post effective amendments No. 1 and No. 2, 333-16969, 333-29375, 333-44675, 333-69455, including post effective amendment No. 1, 333-86783, 333-90386, including the post effective amendment No. 1, 333-131487, 333-193913 and 333-213161) of The Clorox Company;


of our reports dated August 10, 2022, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Clorox Company and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of The Clorox Company included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of The Clorox Company for the year ended June 30, 2022.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Francisco, CA


August 10, 2022
#### Lorraine Rupert et al., Respondents, v. Town of West Seneca, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.
### §10225. Location of test and evaluation facility

#### (a) Report to Congress

Not later than 1 year after January 7, 1983, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report setting forth whether the Secretary plans to locate the test and evaluation facility at the site of a repository.

#### (b) Procedures

(1) If the test and evaluation facility is to be located at any candidate site or repository site (A) site selection and development of such facility shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures and requirements established in subchapter I with respect to the site selection and development of repositories; and (B) the Secretary may not commence construction of any surface facility for such test and evaluation facility prior to issuance by the Commission of a construction authorization for a repository at the site involved.

(2) No test and evaluation facility may be converted into a repository unless site selection and development of such facility was conducted in accordance with the procedures and requirements established in subchapter I with respect to the site selection and development of respositories.1

(3) The Secretary may not commence construction of a test and evaluation facility at a candidate site or site recommended as the location for a repository prior to the date on which the designation of such site is effective under section 10135 of this title.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title III, §305, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2262.)

1 So in original. Probably should be "repositories."
Order entered November 4, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00365-CR

No. 05-15-01302-CR

MARK ANGELO GUAJARDO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-72357-U, F14-71086-U

ORDER

These two appeals involve cases that were tried together.1 However, although the notices 

of appeal were filed on the same date, they were delivered to this Court seven months apart. The 

clerk’s and reporter’s records have now been filed in both cases. Appellant has filed a brief in 

cause no. 05-15-00365-CR, but has not yet filed a brief in cause no. 05-15-01302-CR.

The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the February 4, 2015 judicial 

confession for trial court no. F13-72357-U (05-15-00365-CR).

 

1 The reporter’s record reflects that three other cases were tried with these two. The Court has no record of notices of appeal having been filed 

regarding the three other cases. 
After all briefs have been filed for the two cases, the appeals will be set for submission as

companion cases.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Felicia Pitre, Dallas County 

District Clerk, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA SHARI FF ATUN EL , : also known as DO UGLAS NEL SON, : : Petitioner, : : v. : Civil Action No. 09-2340 ( EGS) : ERI C HOL DER, : : Respondent. :

MEMORAN DUM OP INION This matter come s befor e the Court on petitioner’ s pro se petition for a wr it of habea s corpus. I t appea

rs that petitioner c halleng es his curr ent custody at the D.C. Jail arising fr om two criminal ac tions pending in the Super ior Court of the District of Columbia. See Pet. at 1, 3 (pag e numbers desig nated by

the Court). Such a c halleng e must be broug ht by motion in t he Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. I n rele vant par

t D.C. Code § 23-110 provides: [ An] application for a writ of habea s corpus in behalf of a p ri s o n er who is authoriz ed t o apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section shall not be enter tained by

. . . any Fe dera l

. . . co u rt i f i t appea rs . . . that the Superior Court h as denied him relief , unless it also appea

rs that the reme dy by motion is inadequate or ineffe ctive to test the leg ality

of his detention. D.C. Code § 23-110(g ). “Sec tion 23-110 has bee n found to be a dequate and ef fec tive beca

use it is coextensive with habeas c orpus.” Saleh v. Brax ton , 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D .C. 1992); see Swain v. Pressley , 430 U.S. 372, 375 (1977) (notingthat the proc edure for c ollatera l reviewof Superior Court convictions under § 23-110 “is compa

rable to that authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for the U nited States district courts”). It is settled that “a District of Columbia prisoner has

1no rec ourse to a f eder al judicial forum unless the loc al re medy is ‘inadequa

te or inef fec tive to test the leg ality

of his detention’” Byrd v. H enderson , 119 F.3d 34, 36- 37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (inter nal footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay , 794 F.2d 722, 726 ( D.C. Cir.), cert. de nied , 479 U.S. 993 (1986). Petitioner does not demonstrate that the reme dy available to him in t he Superior Court is an inade quate or

ineffe ctive mea

ns to challeng e his curr ent custody . Acc ording ly , the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice. An O rder consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separ ately

.

SI GNED: Emmet G. Sulli van United States District J udg e DATE: J anuar

y 8, 2010
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-12-00033-CR

______________________________

SAMMY WOODS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court

Red River County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR01581

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sammy Woods has filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion 

requesting that x-ray images be produced. 

The right to appeal in a criminal case is a substantive right determined solely within the 

province of the Legislature. Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). ―A 

defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed.‖ 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (Vernon 2006). Generally, a criminal defendant may 

appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1990). ―The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless 

that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.‖ Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. 

ref’d).

We do not have jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for production 

of x-ray images. See generally Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 

2003, no pet.); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d); Allen v. State, 

20 S.W.3d 164, 165 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.); State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 748, 

751–52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

On March 1, 2012, we wrote a letter to Woods requesting that he show this Court how we 

had jurisdiction over this appeal. We have received and considered his response, and do not find 
3

it persuasive.

We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 27, 2012

Date Decided: March 28, 2012

Do Not Publish