alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: II-16-031 June 17, 2016

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Completes Review of Flood Protection Improvements at Oconee Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found modifications completed by Duke Energy at the 

three-unit Oconee nuclear plant would adequately protect the plant from a potential failure of the 

Jocassee Dam.

The plant is located near Seneca, S.C., about 30 miles west of Greenville.

In 2008, the NRC staff issued a letter to Duke requesting information related to external 

flooding, including the potential failure of the Jocassee Dam, located about 12 miles upstream from the 

plant. There were numerous meetings and conversations between the NRC and Duke, and the detailed 

flood hazard analysis took two years to complete. In 2010, Duke submitted the flood analysis and the 

NRC issued a confirmatory action letter (CAL) documenting the company’s commitments.

As Duke and the NRC continued to work through the flooding issues, the company also 

implemented some interim compensatory measures, which were inspected by the NRC in 2010.

The Fukushima Dai-ichi accident happened in 2011 and the NRC issued another letter in 2012 

requesting additional information on flooding as the agency worked to ensure that lessons learned from 

the situation in Japan were applied to U.S. plants including Oconee.

Duke submitted its flood hazard reevaluation report in 2013 and then a revised flood hazard 

reevaluation report in 2015. The NRC accepted that 2015 report for the purposes of the meeting the 

CAL. In addition to that report, NRC inspectors have evaluated the Oconee plant’s modifications as the 

company completed each of those steps. The modifications included building new or enhanced flood 

walls and other features as well as moving some power lines and equipment to less flood-prone 

locations.

In April, Duke informed the NRC that the flooding modifications were complete, and a 

subsequent inspection led the NRC to determine that the company had satisfied the commitments in the 

2010 CAL.

“The completion of the commitments in the confirmatory action letter gives the NRC 

confidence that the Oconee plant is adequately protected from external floods, including scenarios 

involving the failure of the dam,” said NRC Region II Administrator Cathy Haney.
Page | 2

Haney said the years it took to resolve the flooding issues at Oconee were necessary to ensure 

that the best analyses were used, that information from the accident in Japan was incorporated and that

the plant modifications met all requirements.

The Duke letter stating that the modifications were complete is available on the NRC website. 

The NRC report closing the CAL is currently available from the Region II Office of Public Affairs and 

will be available on the website in the next few days.
### §1541. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 862, title III, §301, formerly §4, 54 Stat. 1127; renumbered title III, §301, and amended June 28, 1941, ch. 260, §4(a), 55 Stat. 363; Apr. 10, 1942, ch. 239, §1, 56 Stat. 212, which provided that when President declared that emergency declared by him on Sept. 8, 1939, ceased to exist, the authority contained in sections 1521, 1532, 1561, and 1562 of this title terminate and that property acquired or constructed under subchapters II to VII of this subchapter be disposed of as promptly as advantageous under circumstances and in public interest, was omitted pursuant to act July 3, 1952, ch. 570, §1(a)(12), 66 Stat. 332, as amended by act Mar. 31, 1953, ch. 13, §1, 67 Stat. 18, which provided that this section continue in force until six months after the national emergency proclaimed by the President on Dec. 16, 1950 by Proc. No. 2914, 15 F.R. 9029, 64 Stat. a. 454, set out as a note preceding section 1 of Title 50, War and National Defense, or on such earlier date or dates as approved by Congress, but in no event beyond July 1, 1953.
### §12810. Cost-saving building technologies and construction techniques

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall make available a model program to utilize cost-saving building technologies and construction techniques for purposes of providing homeownership and rental opportunities under this subchapter.

#### (b) Selection criteria

The Secretary shall establish criteria for participating jurisdictions to select projects for assistance under the model program which may include—

(1) the extent to which innovative, cost-saving building and construction technologies are utilized;

(2) the extent to which innovative, cost-saving construction techniques are utilized;

(3) the extent to which units will be made available to low-income families and individuals;

(4) the extent to which non-Federal public or private assistance is utilized; and

(5) any other factor, determined by the Secretary to be appropriate.

#### (c) Guidelines

The Secretary shall publish guidelines for the model program under this section not later than 180 days after October 28, 1992.

#### (d) Report

The Secretary shall submit a biennial report to the Congress on the utilization of the model program under this section.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §260, as added Pub. L. 102–550, title II, §216, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3760.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to unexpended funds allocated under subchapter II of this chapter in fiscal year 1992, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 223 of Pub. L. 102–550, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 12704 of this title.
#### In the Matter of David R. McEwen, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 477]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) *1117to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During a search of petitioner’s cell, a correction officer found a sharpened plastic toothbrush handle hidden in the cell door track. As a result, petitioner was charged with possessing an altered item and a weapon. He was found guilty of both charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report and the testimony of its author, support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Smith v Goord,*255 AD2d 1007 [1998]). Inasmuch as the sharpened toothbrush handle was found within an area over which petitioner maintained control, it was reasonable to infer that it belonged to him *(see Matter of Hammond v Selsky,*28 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining claims are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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 Quarterly Report of Superlattice Power, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ayaz Kassam,
      Chief
      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
      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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Ayaz KassamChief
                Executive Officer and
              Principal
                Financial Officer





June
      11,
      2008
### §15345. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15345 was editorially reclassified as section 20945 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### § 1616.62 Policy regarding retail display requirements for items.

For purposes of the retail display and identification requirements of § 1616.31(c), and for those purposes only, any item which was manufactured before May 1, 1975, and for which a retailer has documentary evidence of compliance with all sampling and testing requirements of the Standard (FF 5-74) (subpart A of this part), will be deemed to be a complying item notwithstanding the absence of an affirmative label to indicate compliance with the Standard as required by § 1616.6(b) of the Standard and § 1616.31(b)(8), or the absence of a garment production unit identification or style identification which meets all requirements of § 1616.31(b) (4) and (7), provided that such an item complies with all other labeling requirements of § 1616.31(b).
§ 703.7 Audits. ( a ) The Mechanism shall have an audit conducted at least annually, to determine whether the Mechanism and its implementation are in compliance with this part. All records of the Mechanism required to be kept under § 703.6 of this part shall be available for audit.
( b ) Each audit provided for in paragraph (a) of this section shall include at a minimum the following: ( 1 ) Evaluation of warrantors' efforts to make consumers aware of the Mechanism's existence as required in § 703.2(d) of this part;
( 2 ) Review of the indexes maintained pursuant to § 703.6 (b), (c), and (d) of this part; and
( 3 ) Analysis of a random sample of disputes handled by the Mechanism to determine the following: ( i ) Adequacy of the Mechanism's complaint and other forms, investigation, mediation and follow-up efforts, and other aspects of complaint handling; and
( ii ) Accuracy of the Mechanism's statistical compilations under § 703.6(e) of this part. (For purposes of this subparagraph “analysis” shall include oral or written contact with the consumers involved in each of the disputes in the random sample.)
( c ) A report of each audit under this section shall be submitted to the Federal Trade Commission, and shall be made available to any person at reasonable cost. The Mechanism may direct its auditor to delete names of parties to disputes, and identity of products involved, from the audit report.
( d ) Auditors shall be selected by the Mechanism. No auditor may be involved with the Mechanism as a warrantor, sponsor or member, or employee or agent thereof, other than for purposes of the audit.
#### § 1203.13 Test schedule.

(a) Helmet sample 1 of the set of eight helmets, as designated in Table [1203.13](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.13), shall be tested for peripheral vision in accordance with [§ 1203.14](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.14) of this standard.

(b) Helmet samples 1 through 8, as designated in Table [1203.13](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.13), shall be conditioned in the ambient, high temperature, low temperature, and water immersion environments as follows: helmets 1 and 5—ambient; helmets 2 and 7—high temperature; helmets 3 and 6—low temperature; and helmets 4 and 8—water immersion.

(c) Testing must begin within 2 minutes after the helmet is removed from the conditioning environment. The helmet shall be returned to the conditioning environment within 3 minutes after it was removed, and shall remain in the conditioning environment for a minimum of 2 minutes before testing is resumed. If the helmet is out of the conditioning environment beyond 3 minutes, testing shall not resume until the helmet has been reconditioned for a period equal to at least 5 minutes for each minute the helmet was out of the conditioning environment beyond the first 3 minutes, or for 4 hours, (whichever reconditioning time is shorter) before testing is resumed.

(d) Prior to being tested for impact attenuation, helmets 1-4 (conditioned in ambient, high temperature, low temperature, and water immersion environments, respectively) shall be tested in accordance with the dynamic retention system strength test at [§ 1203.16](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.16). Helmets 1-4 shall then be tested in accordance with the impact attenuation tests on the flat and hemispherical anvils in accordance with the procedure at [§ 1203.17](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.17). Helmet 5 (ambient-conditioned) shall be tested in accordance with the positional stability tests at [§ 1203.15](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.15) prior to impact testing. Helmets 5-8 shall then be tested in accordance with the impact attenuation tests on the curbstone anvil in accordance with [§ 1203.17](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.17). Table [1203.13](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.13) summarizes the test schedule.

Table [1203.13](/on/2024-09-16/title-16/section-1203.13)—Test Schedule

| | § 1203.14 Peripheral vision | § 1203.15 Positional stability | § 1203.16 Retention system strength | § 1203.17 Impact tests | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Anvil | Number of Impacts |
| Helmet 1, Ambient | X | | X | X Flat X Hemi | 2 2 |
| Helmet 2, High Temperature | | | X | X Flat X Hemi | 2 2 |
| Helmet 3, Low Temperature | | | X | X Flat X Hemi | 2 2 |
| Helmet 4, Water Immersion | | | X | X Flat X Hemi | 2 2 |
| Helmet 5, Ambient | | X | | X Curb | 1 |
| Helmet 6, Low Temperature | | | | X Curb | 1 |
| Helmet 7, High Temperature | | | | X Curb | 1 |
| Helmet 8, Water Immersion | | | | X Curb | 1 |
§ 803.7 Expiration of notification. ( a ) *One year after waiting period expired.* Notification with respect to an acquisition shall expire 1 year following the expiration of the waiting period. If the acquiring person's holdings do not, within such time period, meet or exceed the notification threshold with respect to which the notification was filed, the requirements of the act must thereafter be observed with respect to any notification threshold not met or exceeded. Example: “A” files notification that in excess of $100 million (as adjusted) of the voting securities of corporation B are to be acquired. One year after the expiration of the waiting period, “A” has acquired less than $100 million (as adjusted) of B's voting securities. Although § 802.21 will permit “A” to purchase any amount of B's voting securities short of $100 million (as adjusted) within 5 years from the expiration of the waiting period, A's holdings may not meet or exceed the $100 million (as adjusted) notification threshold without “A” and “B” again filing notification and observing a waiting period.
( b ) *Upon failure to comply with request for additional information.* An acquiring person's notification and, in the case of an acquisition to which § 801.30 does not apply, an acquired person's notification, shall expire eighteen months following the date of receipt of such person's notification if a request for additional information or documentary material remains outstanding to such person (or entities included therein, officers, directors, partners, agents or employees thereof), without a certification as required by § 803.6(b), on such date. If either person's notification expires pursuant to this paragraph, both parties must file a new notification in order to carry out the transaction.
Example: A files notification on January 15 of Year 1 to acquire voting securities of B. On February 15 of Year 1, prior to expiration of the waiting period, requests for additional information or documentary material are issued to A and B. Before A supplies the information and documentary material requested, business conditions change, and A and B decide not to go forward with the transaction. A does not withdraw its filing and takes the position that it will comply with the request for additional information and documentary material if and when the proposed transaction is ever revived. A's notification expires July 15 of Year 2, eighteen months following the date of receipt of its notification. If A and B wish to revive their transaction, both parties must file a new notification and observe the waiting period in order to carry out the transaction.
[70 FR 73372, Dec. 12, 2005]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69894-69895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26431]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
3, 2005.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Department of Defense Application for 
Priority Rating for Production or Construction Equipment; DD Form 691; 
OMB Control Number 0704-0055.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 610.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 610.
    Average Burden Per Response: 1 hour.
    Annual Burden Hours: 610.
    Needs and Uses: Executive Order 12919 delegates to DoD authority to 
require certain contracts and orders relating to approved Defense 
Programs to be accepted and performed on a preferential basis. This 
program helps contractors acquire industrial equipment in a timely 
manner, thereby facilitating development and support of weapons systems 
and other important Defense Programs.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit and non-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jacqueline Zeiher.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed

[[Page 69895]]

information collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of 
Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESCD/Information Management 
Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4346.

    Dated: November 22, 2004.
Patricial L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-26431 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSignificant achievements in the planetary geology programRecent developments in planetology research are summarized. Important developments are summarized in topics ranging from solar system evolution, comparative planetology, and geologic processes active on other planetary bodies, to techniques and instrument development for exploration.Document ID19840013406Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHead, J. W.*(Brown Univ. Providence, RI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1984Subject CategoryLunar And Planetary ExplorationReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-3782NAS 1.26:3782Accession Number84N21474Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NSG-7570Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840013406.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Erick J. Talback, Appellant.

[818 NYS2d 875]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered May 13, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged by felony complaints and a misdemeanor complaint with various drug-related crimes. He thereaf*560ter executed a written waiver of indictment in open court, consenting to be prosecuted by a superior court information, and County Court approved the waiver. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 4 to 8 years. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant contends that County Court never acquired jurisdiction over this matter, with the issue specifically distilling to whether defendant was appropriately held for action of the grand jury prior to his waiver of indictment. “[A] defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by a [superior court information] when, among other conditions not in issue here, a local criminal court has held the defendant for [g]rand [j]ury action” *(People v Barber,*280 AD2d 691, 692 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 825 [2001]; see CPL 195.10 [1]; *People v D'Amico,*76 NY2d 877, 879 [1990]). “Being so ‘held’ for the action of a [g]rand [j]ury involves the filing of a felony complaint on which defendant has been arraigned and a finding after a preliminary hearing *(unless waived by*defendant) that reasonable cause exists to believe that defendant committed a felony” *(People v Barber, supra*at 692 [emphasis added]; *see People v D'Amico, supra*at 879).

Here, defendant was arraigned upon the felony complaint and, although he initially requested that a preliminary hearing be conducted on a specific date in the future, he nevertheless voluntarily entered his plea of guilty before that date, thereby effectively waiving his right to the hearing. Because defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and “the record of the plea proceeding establishes that the Superior Court was satisfied with the waiver [of indictment] and executed an order to that effect *(see,*CPL 195.30), we may presume that the matter was properly before that court” *(People v Chad S.,*237 AD2d 986, 986 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 856 [1997]). Defendant’s remaining assertions concerning the validity of County Court’s jurisdiction, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been examined and found to be unavailing.

As for defendant’s claim that his sentence was harsh and excessive, we decline to review this issue given his knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Tate,*28 AD3d 801 [2006]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.