alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Cogliano, Gerain

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 1:09 PM
To: 'Jones, Danielle' < Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov > Subject: EPA response to OSHA language on feasibility Importance: High Attachments:

Hi Danielle,

Upon reviewing OSHA’s language on feasibility, we’ve made some revisions. (See attached). If OSHA accepts these edits, we won’t need a phone call.

The most substantive change is that we do not see a need to incorporate the case citations into the preamble discussion. The paragraph should really just explain the OSHA concerns and request comment. The case citations are more information than is necessary for the purpose of soliciting comments.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

GerainAttachment: OSHA feasibility

_ EPA response.docx

Insert for page 93 of the EO 12866 RMP draft

EPA is also proposing to require owners or operators to evaluate the feasibility of implementing any IST or ISD considered. EPA believes a feasibility analysis of any considered IST or ISD is necessary to ensure the facility owner or operator seriously considers whether IST or ISD modifications could further reduce risks and prevent accidents at the facility.

EPA is proposing to use the te rm “feasibility” to describe this analysis because it is already widely used in the context of IST

. H owever, according to OSHA, this term has a distinct meaning under the Occupational Safety and Health Act , where the courts loo k to whether a safety measure is capable of being done

. In this enforcement context, feasibility means that technical know

- how about materials and
methods is available or adaptable to specific circumstances, which when applied create s a reasonable possibility that employee exposure to occupational hazards will be reduced , and that the firm is
fina ncially able to implement the measure without severe adverse economic effect. Because of the potential for confusion, OS HA has indicated that it would be unable to adopt the term feasib l e, as defined in this notice, under its PSM standard if OSHA consider s similar revisions involving IST

. EPA seeks
comment on whether it would be better if EPA used another term, such as “practicability” for this analysis

.
EPA is not proposing to require sources affected by this provision to implement an evaluated IST
or ISD because the decision to i mplement such measures must consider the numerous factors related to processes, facilities, and society at large. Improper implementation of a seemingly safer alternative may lead to undesired consequences. EPA believes that only qualified facility personn el should choose the best measures that can reduce the risk of an accident at the facility. This decision should be based on a careful analysis and take into account: the chemicals present and their associated hazards; the operations and process conditions involved; and the types of equipment used that are specific to the facility’s process. Commented [A1]: OSHA Insert
# United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40402 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Scott Michael Martin,

Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-4-1

Before King, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent Scott Michael Martin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martin has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 22, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40402 Document: 00515949202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2021No. 20-40402

2 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 20-40402 Document: 00515949202 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the annual Report of A M Marketing,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kevin Ericksteen,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                                  /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: May 11, 2006                                    Kevin Ericksteen
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

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 Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (PPD) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Peter Wilkinson, Chief Accounting Officer of PPD (and currently PPDs principal financial officer), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 PPD as of,
and for, the periods presented in the Report.

Date: August 6, 2007



/s/ Peter WilkinsonPeter WilkinsonChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,291
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (930)
<INVENTORY>                                     41,080
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,012
<PP&E>                                          24,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,935)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,440
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,430
<SALES>                                         93,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,248
<CGS>                                           45,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,034
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,512
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,522
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY CALVIN SMITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-15296

D.C. No. CV 04-3436 JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 9, 2014** 

San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Calvin Smith appeals the denial of his motion to stay federal habeas

proceedings in the district court while he returns to state court to exhaust 18 of the

FILED

SEP 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-1-
60 claims raised in his second amended federal habeas petition. We lack appellate

jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. District court orders denying motions to

stay federal habeas proceedings to allow the exhaustion of state remedies are

reviewable on appeal after the district court enters a final judgment. See, e.g.,

Blake v. Baker, 745 F.3d 977, 979–80, 983–84 (9th Cir. 2014); Wooten v.

Kirkland, 540 F.3d 1019, 1022–24 (9th Cir. 2008); Olvera v. Giurbino, 371 F.3d

569, 572–74 (9th Cir. 2004); cf. Thompson v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.

2010) (per curiam); Stanley v. Chappell, No. 13-15987, 2014 WL 3930452, at

*2–4 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2014) (holding an order granting a motion to stay is not an

appealable final order). Therefore, the district court’s order here fails the third

requirement of the collateral order doctrine, that the order be “effectively

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay,

437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). The district court’s decision to adjudicate Smith’s

exhausted claims does not change this conclusion. If we determine on appeal of

final judgment that the district court erred in denying the stay, we can remand with

instructions to stay Smith’s unexhausted claims until he has exhausted his state

remedies. See, e.g., Olvera, 371 F.3d at 573–74. Because the district court could

then consider any new evidence presented by Smith to the state court, Smith’s

argument that Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) affects our analysis is

-2-
meritless. 

DISMISSED.

-3-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6812

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEROY BUSH, a/k/a Duke,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR99-118, CA-00-4009-1-19)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Bush, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Bush seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Bush, Nos. CR-99-118; CA-00-4009-1-19

(D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1513 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1513

    To restrict the inclusion of social security account numbers on 
 documents sent by mail by the Social Security Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2017

 Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, and 
 Mr. Renacci) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To restrict the inclusion of social security account numbers on 
 documents sent by mail by the Social Security Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Must Avert Identity 
Loss (MAIL) Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS IN DOCUMENTS 
              SENT BY MAIL.

    (a) In General.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(xiv)(I) The Commissioner of Social Security shall ensure that no 
document sent by mail by the Social Security Administration includes a 
complete social security account number unless the Commissioner 
determines that inclusion of such complete number is necessary.
    ``(II) Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
this clause and not later than each of March 31 and September 30 of 
each of the first 6 years following the year in which such date of 
enactment occurs, the Commissioner of Social Security shall submit to 
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on the implementation of 
subclause (I). Such report shall include--
            ``(aa) the title and identification number of each document 
        used by the Social Security Administration during the previous 
        year on which is printed an individual's complete social 
        security account number;
            ``(bb) the most recent date on which each such document was 
        updated; and
            ``(cc) the projected date on which complete social security 
        account numbers will be removed from each such document, or if 
        the Commissioner determines that inclusion of such complete 
        number is necessary, the rationale for such determination.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall 
implement the amendments made under subsection (a) as soon as 
practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 906), Vincent A Wasik and Edward W. Stone, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Velocity Express Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 27, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of Velocity Express Corporation as of the dates presented and the results of operations of Velocity Express Corporation for the periods presented.



/s/ Vincent A. WasikVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 17, 2009/s/ Edward W. StoneEdward. W. StoneChief Financial OfficerDate: February 17, 2009


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Velocity Express Corporation and will be retained by Velocity Express
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27173]

[[Page 92198]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 701 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-374, K2025-372.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27173 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mniteb ~tate5' (!Court of ~peaI5'

for tbe jfeberaI (!Circuit

STACY CARSON AND AMY CARSON,

AS LEGAL GUARDIANS FOR KIT CARSON,

Petitioners-Appellants,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Respondent-Appellee.

2010-5089

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal

Claims in case no. 02-VV-873, Judge Mary Ellen Coster

Williams.

ORDER

The Secretary of Health and Human Services submits

a status report in response to this court's December 21,

2012 order requesting that the stay of briefing be lifted.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The stay of the briefing schedule is lifted.
CARSON v. HHS 2

(2) The Secretary's response brief is due within 40

days of the date of filing ofthis order.

(3) The appellants' reply brief is due within 14 days

of the date ofservice of the Secretary's response brief.

FOR THE COURT

JAN 10 2013

Date

cc: David P. Matthews, Esq.

Heather L. Pearlman, Esq.

s21

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

u.&~i~n~JOR

JAN 1a2013

JAN HOR8AlY

CLERK
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection ManualChange Notices

# Change Notices for 1997

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# RELAP5 and TRACE Simulation of Bethsy 9.1b Test with Accuracy Quantification (NUREG/IA-0531)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0531 (PDF - 9.30 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**November 2021**Date Published:**April 2022

**Prepared by:**Andrej Prošek, Boštjan Končar

Jožef Stefan InstituteJamova cesta 39SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

Division of Systems AnalysisOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Prepared as part ofThe Agreement on Research Participation and Technical ExchangeUnder the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In this study the TRACE advanced thermal-hydraulic system code has been used to simulate the BETHSY 9.1b integral experimental test. The TRACE results are compared with the RELAP5 computer code predictions. In addition, the accuracy of both simulations has been evaluated. BETHSY is an integral test facility, which was designed to simulate most pressurized water reactors (PWR) accidents of interest, to study accident management procedures and to validate the computer codes. The BETHSY 9.1b experiment represents the Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (SBLOCA) with loss of high pressure injection system. After the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident, this type of accident is considered as a part of Design Extension Conditions (DEC). As no DEC safety features for high pressure injection are available in BETHSY 9.1b test, a delayed operator action for secondary system depressurization has been analysed in this study. For accuracy quantification the Fast Fourier Transform Based Method by signal mirroring (FFTBM-SM) and original FFTBM have been used. The comparison of the simulated results with the experimental data is presented. Finally, the results of code accuracy quantitative assessment are shown.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, April 14, 2022