alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washingt on, DC 20591

June 17 , 2015

Mr. Hugh J. Roche, Jr. 80 Stags Leap Circle Sparks

, NV 89441

Dear Mr

. Roche :

This is in response to your letter dated March 17, 2015

, posted to the public docket (No

. FAA

- 2015

- 0654 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (F AA) to initiate rulemaking to amend part 91, § 91.527 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. In your petition, you request the FAA move § 91

- General Operating Flight Rules,

S ubpart F

- Large and Turbine

- Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractio nal Ownership Program Aircraft

, to 14 CFR § 91, Subpart B or amend the regulation that will prohibit taking off with frost, snow or ice for all aircraft operating in accordance with part 91

.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73 , the FAA must use the follo wing criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have available to address these issues

.

Each year, t he FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers

the most value to the aviation system

.

After reviewing your request b ased on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments f or the proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will examine when we consider future rulemaking.

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find

out and track it through one of the two following websites :2

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website ( http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report

- on

significant

- rulemakings )

.

 For non

- significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semi

annual regulatory agenda , through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda websi te ( http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Dep uty Director, Flight Standards Service3

AAS

- 14

- 108

- P

ARM

- 1/200/210

Doc #:

ARM

- 200/BR/9/5/14

ERICK N. GRACIA

- GALIANO

PALACIOS DEL MONTE

1645 DENALI ST. TOA ALTA, PR 00953

- 5232
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs F

ebruary 28, 200 1 LAURA MAYSHARK NICHOLS v. CRAIG ALAN NICHOLS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County No. 18062 G. Richard Johnson, Chancellor

FILED MARCH 29, 2001 No. E1999-2825-COA-R3-CV
Craig Alan Nichols

appeals the dec

ree of the Trial

Court which, among

other things,

granted his wife a divorce. All of the issues he raises are dependent upon a consideration of

the facts introdu

ced in evidence. Because we have no transcript or statement of the evidence we

must conclusively

presume the evid ence present ed justified the judgment of the Trial Court. We accordingly affirm the judgment pursua

nt to Rule 10(a) of t

his Court. Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Cause Remanded
H OUSTON M. G ODDARD , P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which H ERSCHEL P. F RANKS and C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., JJ., joined. Craig Alan Nichols, Appellant, Pro Se Laura Mayshark Nichols, Appellee, Pro Se OPINION Craig Alan Nichols, an inmate in a Penal Institution of this State, appeals a judgment rendered against him in a

divorce case br

ought by his

wife, Laura

Mayshark N

ichols. Mr. Nichols' appellate brief

raises the follow

ing issues: 1. Defendant’s Co

unsel misunderstood his wishes concerning this matter. Defendant

did not want a divor

ce, and wife wa

s guilt y of similar conduct. A person can’t decide wh

en is the best

time to use a trump card, Plaintiff’s actions in the two and one half years following the allegations show that she had resumed a marriage relationship with the Defendant. 2. The Chancellor erred in the Final Decree For Absolute Divorce, by ruling the Court reserves the issues of child visitation and support. Defendants motion for-2-

a New Trial or to

Alter and Amend

the findings, asking the court to set visitation for four hours on

ce every three weeks. 3. Awarding the Plaintiff al imony in solido, taking the Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) that Defendant contributed to the purchase of the home.
4. Defendants per

sonal property

in Pla intiffs poss ession, Court did not hold Plaintiff financially

responsib le f

or personal property that she either sold or wanted to keep or destroyed. Although both parties were represented by counsel in the Trial Cou rt, no tran script or statement of the evidence was filed. Consequently, we are unable to reach the merits of the issues raised, which are wholly dependent upon the facts adduced b

elow, but must conc

lusively pre

sume that the evidence presented justified the judgment of the Trial Court. In re Rockwell v. Arthur , 673 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for such further pro

ceedings, if a

ny, as may

be necessary

and coll ection of co sts below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Nichols.

_________________________________________ HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
95.55743
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD3.2 With the LSTF Experiment Simulating a Loss of Residual Heat Removal Event During Mid-Loop Operation (NUREG/IA-0143)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0143 (PDF 5.62 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** August 1998

**Prepared by:** K. W. Seul, Y. S. Bang, S. Lee, H. J. Kim

Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety Advanced Reactor Dept. P.O. Box 114 Yusung, Taejon 305–600 Korea

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The potential for the RELAP5/MOD3.2 code was assessed for the loss of residual heat removal (RHR) event during the mid-loop operation. The predictability of major thermal hydraulic phenomena was evaluated for the long term transient. The results of two typical cases, cold leg opening (CLO) case with water-filled steam generators (SGs) and pressurizer opening (PRO) case with emptied SGs were compared with experimental data conducted at ROSA-IV/LSTF in Japan.

It was found that the code was capable of simulating the system responses to the loss-of-RHR event during the reduced inventory operation. The thermal hydraulic transport process including noncondensable gas behavior was reasonably predicted with an appropriate time setup and CPU time. Overall, the code well predicted the major thermal hydraulic phenomena during the transient.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Risk Evaluation for a Westinghouse PWR, Effectsof Fire Protection System Actuation on Safety-Related Equipment: Evaluation ofGeneric Issue 57 (NUREG/CR-5789, SAND91-1534)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-5789 (PDF - 4.98 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 1992****Date Published:****December 1992

**Prepared by:** J. Lambright, M. Bohn, S. Daniel Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-5800 Operated by Sandia Corporation

D. Brosseau (Subcontractor) ERCE, Inc. 7301A Indian School Road, NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

**Prepared for:** Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC FIN L-1334

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Nuclear power plants have experienced actuations of fire protection systems (FPSs) under conditions for which these systems were not intended to actuate, and also have experienced advertent actuations with the presence of a fire. These actuations have often damaged nearby plant equipment.

A review of the impact of past occurrences of both types of such events, a quantification of the risk of FPS actuation, a sensitivity study of the quantification of the risk of FPS actuation and risk calculations in terms of person-REM have been performed. Thirteen different scenarios leading to actuation of fire protection systems due to a variety of causes were identified. A quantification of these thirteen scenarios, where applicable, was performed on a 3-loop Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). These scenarios ranged from inadvertent actuation caused by human error to hardware failures, and include seismic root causes and seismic/fire interaction. This report estimates the contribution of FPS actuations to core damage frequency and risk, proposes physical modifications to reduce the risk from the dominant contributors, and estimates the values and impacts of the proposed modifications.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
# L_2023137DE.01007301.xml

| 25.5.2023 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 137/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2023

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 137/73

---

der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1302/2014 der Kommission vom 18. November 2014 über eine technische Spezifikation für die Interoperabilität des Teilsystems „Fahrzeuge — Lokomotiven und Personenwagen“ des Eisenbahnsystems in der Europäischen Union

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 356 vom 12. Dezember 2014
  )

Seite 337, Anhang, Abschnitt 6.2.3.8 Absätze 3 und 4:

anstatt:

| „(3) | Versuche müssen für die Lastzustände der Einheiten ‚Auslegungsmasse, betriebsbereites Fahrzeug‘ und ‚Auslegungsmasse bei normaler Zuladung‘ und ‚maximale Bremsleistung‘ (gemäß den Abschnitten 4.2.2.10 und 4.2.4.5.2) durchgeführt werden. |
| --- | --- |

„(3)

| (4) | Wenn zwei der oben genannten Lastzustände zu ähnlichen Bedingungen für die Bremsprüfung führen wie in den maßgeblichen europäischen Normen oder in den sonstigen normativen Dokumenten, kann die Anzahl der Prüfbedingungen von drei auf zwei reduziert werden. Versuchsergebnisse müssen anhand einer Methodik evaluiert werden, die folgende Aspekte berücksichtigt:






  — | Berichtigung der Rohdaten und |
| --- | --- | --- |

(4)

—

Berichtigung der Rohdaten und

| — | Wiederholbarkeit des Versuchs: Zur Validierung eines Versuchsergebnisses wird der Versuch mehrfach wiederholt. Die absolute Differenz zwischen den Ergebnissen und der Standardabweichung wird ausgewertet.“ |
| --- | --- |

—

Wiederholbarkeit des Versuchs: Zur Validierung eines Versuchsergebnisses wird der Versuch mehrfach wiederholt. Die absolute Differenz zwischen den Ergebnissen und der Standardabweichung wird ausgewertet.“

muss es heißen:

| „(3) | Versuche müssen für die Lastzustände der Einheiten ‚Auslegungsmasse, betriebsbereites Fahrzeug‘ und ‚Auslegungsmasse bei normaler Zuladung‘ und ‚maximale Bremsleistung‘ (gemäß den Abschnitten 4.2.2.10 und 4.2.4.5.2) durchgeführt werden.
  Wenn zwei der oben genannten Lastzustände zu ähnlichen Bedingungen für die Bremsprüfung führen wie in den maßgeblichen europäischen Normen oder in den sonstigen normativen Dokumenten, kann die Anzahl der Prüfbedingungen von drei auf zwei reduziert werden. |
| --- | --- |

„(3)

Wenn zwei der oben genannten Lastzustände zu ähnlichen Bedingungen für die Bremsprüfung führen wie in den maßgeblichen europäischen Normen oder in den sonstigen normativen Dokumenten, kann die Anzahl der Prüfbedingungen von drei auf zwei reduziert werden.

| (4) | Versuchsergebnisse müssen anhand einer Methodik evaluiert werden, die folgende Aspekte berücksichtigt:






  — | Berichtigung der Rohdaten und |
| --- | --- | --- |

(4)

—

Berichtigung der Rohdaten und

| — | Wiederholbarkeit des Versuchs: Zur Validierung eines Versuchsergebnisses wird der Versuch mehrfach wiederholt. Die absolute Differenz zwischen den Ergebnissen und der Standardabweichung wird ausgewertet.“ |
| --- | --- |

—

Wiederholbarkeit des Versuchs: Zur Validierung eines Versuchsergebnisses wird der Versuch mehrfach wiederholt. Die absolute Differenz zwischen den Ergebnissen und der Standardabweichung wird ausgewertet.“

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6923

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner – Appellee,

v.

ENOC ALCANTARA-MENDEZ,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02178-BR)

Submitted: September 28, 2012 Decided: October 22, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enoc Alcantara-Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband, 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Enoc Alcantara-Mendez appeals the district court’s 

orders committing him to the custody of the Attorney General 

under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006) and denying his motions for 

reconsideration. Our review of the record leads us to conclude 

that the district court did not err in finding that 

Alcantara-Mendez met the criteria for commitment and did not err 

in denying his motions for reconsideration. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s orders. 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1

I, Vincent A. Wasik, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter and six months ended December 29,
2007, of Velocity Express Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared,

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: February 12, 2008



/s/ Vincent A. WasikVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


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.
Argued and submitted October 2, 1992,

affirmed July 7,

reconsideration denied September 15,

petition for review denied October 26, 1993 (318 Or 26)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*KENNETH WAYNE WOODARD, *Appellant.*

(91-03-31314; CA A72110)

855 P2d 1139

Wayne Mackeson, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Des Connall, P.C., Portland.

Janie M. Burcart, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

DEITS, J.

*485DEITS, J.

Defendant was charged in a 26-count indictment with 15 counts of compelling prostitution, ORS 167.017, five counts of second degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.425, three counts of third degree sodomy, 163.385, and three counts of first degree sodomy. ORS 163.405. Pursuant to negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of compelling prostitution and no contest to one count of first degree sodomy. The state dismissed the remaining charges and made no sentencing recommendation. Defendant appeals only his conviction for sodomy, a Class A felony.

Because defendant pleaded no contest, his right to appeal is limited to issues identified in ORS 138.050, which states, in pertinent part:

> “(1) A defendant who has pleaded guilty or no contest may only take an appeal from a judgment or order described in ORS 138.053 where the disposition:

> “(a) Exceeds the maximum allowable by law; or

> “(b) Is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.”

Defendant attempts to circumvent the limitations of the above statute by arguing that his conduct amounted to incest, a Class C felony, rather than first-degree sodomy, a Class A felony. He reasons that, accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a conviction for sodomy and that his sentence for sodomy is reviewable as exceeding the maximum allowable by law. ORS 138.050(1)(a). We disagree. Defendant may not, on direct appeal, take issue with a conviction to which he agreed to plead no contest. His challenge is not reviewable. *State v. Peters,*104 Or App 582, 584, 801 P2d 904 (1990); *see also State v. Kilborn,*120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993).

Affirmed.
Exhibit 8.1



List of Principal Subsidiaries



|                                         |  |                           
|---------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Name                                     |  | Place of Incorporation    
|ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC.                |  | Republic of China         
|ChipMOS Far East Limited                 |  | Hong Kong                 
|Modern Mind Technology Limited           |  | British Virgin Islands    
|ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Shanghai) LTD.     |  | Peoples Republic of China
|ThaiLin Semiconductor Corp.              |  | Republic of China         
|Advanced Micro Chip Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Republic of China         
|CHANTEK ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.             |  | Republic of China         
|ChipMOS Logic TECHNOLOGIES INC.          |  | Republic of China
#### In the Matter of Theodore Howard, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 300]

*272Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2003, which changed the venue of this CPLR article 78 proceeding to Albany County, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the change of venue vacated.

In an affidavit in support of a motion to dismiss petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition to vacate respondent’s determination denying petitioner parole and for a new parole hearing, respondent requested that venue be changed from New York to Albany County, where its principal office is located. Respondent had, however, failed to follow the required procedures set forth in CPLR 511 (a) and (b) for a change of venue, including a written demand therefor, based on an improper designation of venue.

According to CPLR 506 (b), venue in a case such as this should have been placed in the judicial district where the determination complained of took place or where respondent’s principal office is located. The determination here was made at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility, located in Sullivan County. Respondent’s principal office is located in Albany County. Thus, Albany County is a proper venue.

Nevertheless, since respondent failed to follow the procedure set forth in CPLR 511 (a) and (b), it is not entitled to a change of venue as of right, as it sought *(Banks v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*271 AD2d 252 [2000]). Nor, in any event, is respondent entitled to a discretionary change of venue under CPLR 510 (2) or (3) since the requisite showing was not made. Finally, we note that although New York County is an improper county for venue, the proceeding may go forward there *(see e.g. Phillips v Tietjen,*108 App Div 9, 10 [1905]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
No: 19-020 April 30, 2019

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8205

***Corrected***

NRC Issues Direct Final Rule to Certify Korean APR1400 Reactor

Corrected to note that the rule will become effective 120 days following the publication 

in the Federal Register.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will issue a direct final rule certifying Korea Electric 

Power Corporation and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power’s Advanced Power Reactor 1400. The 

certification, valid for 15 years, will state that the NRC finds the design fully acceptable for U.S. 

use.

The two companies submitted an application Dec. 23, 2014, to certify the APR1400 for use 

in the United States. The design, as approved, would produce approximately 1,400 megawatts of 

electricity. The APR1400 features enhanced systems to safely shut down the reactor or mitigate the 

effects of an accident. Full certification allows a utility to reference the design when applying for a 

Combined License to build and operate a nuclear power plant. Absent adverse comments, the rule 

will become effective 120 days following publication in the Federal Register.

The NRC has certified five other designs: the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, System 

80+, AP600, AP1000, and the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor. The staff is reviewing 

applications to certify two other designs: the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor and the 

NuScale small modular reactor. The staff is also reviewing an application to renew the ABWR 

certification. More information about the APR1400 design review is available on the NRC’s 

website.