alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Silverstar Holdings,        Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),        I, Lawrence Litowitz, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)        of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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.

Date: May 15, 2008

| /s/ Lawrence Litowitz                                                                                                      |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lawrence Litowitz                                                                                                          |
| Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting                        Officer)

                          |

[A signed original of this written statement required by        Section 906 has been provided to Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. and will be retained by        Silverstar Holdings, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its        staff upon request.]

 

 

 

38
No. 86-973.

#### South Ranch Oil Co., Inc. *v.*Seismic International Research Corp.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1999

# NRC Seeks Public Comments on Trojan License Termination Plan

----

----

No. 99-272 December 30, 1999

**NRC Seeks Public Comments on Trojan License Termination Plan**

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comments on Portland General Electric Company's plan for terminating the operating license of its Trojan Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located near Ranier, Oregon. Interested parties may also seek a public hearing.

The NRC issued a proposed determination of no significant hazards considerations with regard to the license termination plan. A public meeting was held on December 7 in St. Helens, Oregon, at which officials of the company presented the details of the plan and NRC officials presented a discussion of applicable regulations and inspection policy. Interested citizens asked questions and provided comments on the license termination plan.

A Federal Register notice was published December 29. Interested parties will have 30 days from then to submit comments or to request a hearing. Comments should be addressed to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.

Anyone wishing to request a hearing and file a petition for leave to intervene should submit his or her request to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.

A copy of the termination plan is available for review at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037; and at the Branford Price Millar Library, Portland State University, 934 S.W. Harrison, Portland, OR., 92707.

The Trojan Nuclear Plant began commercial operation in May 1976 and was shut down permanently in January of 1993. The plant currently is being dismantled and decontaminated. The reactor vessel, which represented 99.9 percent of the remaining radioactive material, excluding the spent fuel, was removed from the site in August. Spent fuel is expected to be stored in a dry cask storage facility above ground at the site until a permanent waste repository is available.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
NOTE TO DOCKET EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286: 

Summary of discussions with stakeholders on final SNAP hydrocarbon rule

From Margaret Sheppard, EPA

November 18, 2011

Between January 1 and November 15, 2011, EPA had discussions with the following stakeholders in 

which development of the final hydrocarbon rule was discussed.

The conversations covered questions about the timing of the final rule and in some cases, questions 

about how issues addressed in comments would be addressed. EPA explained that we were not able 

to provide information to answer either type of question.

The stakeholders did not provide additional information to inform the rulemaking process.

1/7/11 Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

1/12/11 Lasse (Lars) Lykke Espersen - Nestle and Reinhold Resch – AHT 

Cooling Systems

3/22/11 Christianna Papazahariou – Shecco 

6/13/11 Andrea Asch, Fabio Roberti, and Leo Aquino – Ben & Jerry’s

6/17/11 Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

7/12/11 Tom Catania and Sean Mackay - Whirlpool

7/22/11 Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

On or about 

9/8/11 Kelly Klein - GE

9/9/11 Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

11/3/11 Buzz Schaefer, Jony Zengari, Ray Tooey - Hussman

11/4/11 Charlie Hon – True Manufacturing

11/4/11 Andrea Asch – Ben & Jerry’s

11/4/11 Kelly Klein - GE

11/8/11 Claudette Juska, Kert Davies, Amy Larkin – Greenpeace – additional 

notes provided in another entry in the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,470
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,413
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    20
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (20)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (20)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.0)


</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsPetition  for Rulemaking Dockets

# Petition for Rulemaking Dockets for 2004

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 24, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Open Petition for Rulemaking Dockets
          - 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

#### 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 Thursday, February 24, 2022
SERVED: FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^••'rJCpORWiON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS •'?^£\ rTp^jijATlONS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATFER OF 

ENTERTAINMENT FUSION GROUP 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMSNO. FAA-20I1 - 1290 

HEARING NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on June 5, 2012, inclusive, in the U.S. Department of Labor Courtroom, Suite 5150, 

the Glenn M. Anderson Federal Building, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, 

CA. 90802. Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper pleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or 

postal service. 

^ichaid C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMSNo. FAA-2011-1290 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Gordon Turner, Respondent's Counsel 

The Law Offices of Gordon Turner 

3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1350 

Los Angeles, CA 90010 

Tel: 213-487-9190 

Fax:213-487-9484 

Kyle E. Lomazow, Complainant's Coimsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue 

Renton,WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Unv Judge 

Office of Hearings, IVI-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Ad visor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Sen'ice was by U.S. Mail. For sen'ice in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W.. Wilbur Wriglil Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Aucntion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 1 -
1

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 30, 2012

Subject: EPA – EMI – Felman Corporation Teleconference Summary (July 2, 2012)

From: Beth Friedman, EC/R Incorporated

To: Conrad Chin, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)

I. Introduction:

A conference call was held on July 2, 2012 to discuss the possibility of testing additional 

pollutants, performing fenceline monitoring, and hosting plant visits at Eramat Marietta 

(EMI) and Felman Production. This memo provides an overview of the issues discussed.

II. Participants:

Beveridge & Diamond: Amy Lincoln (counsel for Felman)

Jones Day: John Rego (counsel for EMI)

EPA/OAQPS: Conrad Chin, Chuck French, Ray Merrill

EC/R Incorporated (Contractor for EPA): Beth Friedman, Brad Nelson

III.Summary of Discussions:

The following topics were discussed.

 EPA asked the plants if it would be possible in include testing for polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins in the July 2012 compliance tests. Both plants 

replied that there is not enough time to change the test plan and still obtain the 

needed compliance tests in this short period. The test contractors are already 

booked, and there is not enough time to conduct more testing given their 

availability. 

 The plants agreed that they could conduct testing for PCBs and dioxins in the 

proposed next round of tests to occur early in 2013, if EPA obtains an extension 

to the court-ordered promulgation date. Then, additional time would be needed 

to transmit the results to EPA and for EPA to analyze the data and prepare the 

final rule.

 EPA asked if the plants were still considering fenceline monitoring as an 

alternative option and if they could collect “baseline” data. The plants responded 
2

that they would need more information to respond to this question. EPA agreed 

to prepare a proposed fenceline monitoring protocol for review by the plants. 

 EPA asked the plants if an EPA observer could attend one or both tests. The 

plants said that this would not be a problem. 

 EPA said that Mr. Chin and Mr. French were planning to meet with local 

community groups in Ohio (that meeting has since been postponed). While in the 

area, they might want to visit one or both plants. Also, the Sierra Club 

representatives would also like to visit the plants. The plants responded that EPA 

should put in a formal request regarding the Sierra Club visitors. 

 The plants said that they would like to have more certainty regarding an extension 

past December 2012.
#### STATE v. JOHN E. SCOTT.

*Appeal*— Trial—Examination *of Witnesses.*

1. ífo appeal lies from a refusal of a fudge to continue a cause.

2. Where on cross-examination a witness was proceeding to answer a question and was stopped by counsel who proposed to aslt another, and 'the fudge interposed and allowed the witness to finish the reply; *Held '*not to be error.

*366INDxctment for an Assault with intent to commit rape, Iried at Spring Term, 1878, of Cumberland Superior Court, before *Moore, J.*

The facts necessary to an understanding of the case appear in the opinion. Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by defendant.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. T. II. Sutton,*for the defendant.

Smith, C. J.

The record sets out several exceptions taken during the progress of the trial which will be noticed as follows:

1. The court refused to continue the cause on the defendant’s affidavit and ordered the trial: The refusal to continue a cause is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the presiding judge, and no appeal lies from the exercise of that discretion.

2. During the cross-examination of the prosecutrix by the defendant’s counsel and while she was detailing what passed between ,her mother and herself immediately after the assault, she testified that her mother *asked,*— “ What is the matter, has he done anything to you ? and that she did not answet at first because” — at this point she was stopped by the counsel who was about to propound another question, when His Honor interposed, remarking, “ she ought to be allowed to tell why she did not answer her mother at first,'” and put the question to her himself, when the witness said— “ I was so scared I could not answer. I almost immediately, however, and in defendant’s presence, told my mother what had occurred.”

We think the judge properly interposed and gave the witness an opportunity to make the explanation and finish what she was then prevented from saying. This was an exercise of that control which a judge has over proceedings conducted before him, and necessary to the proper ad*367ministration of the law. He would have been derelict in duty had-he failed to interfere and prevent the cutting off an unfinished sentence. The other exceptions are unsupported by the record, and as the judge says in passing on them, have no foundation in the facts of the case.

The exceptions are overruled. There is no error. This will be certified to the end that judgment on the verdict be pronounced according to law.

Per Curiam. No error.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3: Docket Numbers 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530, Arizona Public Service Company (NUREG-1961)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1961 (PDF - 2.22 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** March 2011**Date Published:** April 2011

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This safety evaluation report (SER) documents the technical review of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (PVNGS), license renewal application (LRA) by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff (the staff). By letter dated December 11, 2008, and supplemented by letter dated April 14, 2009, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) (the applicant) submitted the LRA in accordance with Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations*, Part 54 “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” APS requests renewal of the PVNGS operating licenses (facility operating license numbers NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74) for a period of 20 years beyond the current expiration dates of midnight on June 1, 2025, for Unit 1; April 24, 2026, for Unit 2; and November 25, 2027, for Unit 3.

PVNGS is a three-unit, nuclear-powered, steam electric generating facility located in Maricopa County, AZ, approximately 26 miles west of the Phoenix metropolitan area boundary. The NRC issued the construction permits on May 25, 1976, for all three units, and it issued the operating licenses on June 1, 1985, for Unit 1; April 24, 1986, for Unit 2; and November 25, 1987, for Unit 3. PVNGS employs a pressurized water reactor (PWR) design with a dry ambient containment. Each of the units uses a System 80 PWR nuclear steam supply system provided by Combustion Engineering, Incorporated. Bechtel Power Corporation is responsible for the engineering and construction of the station and designed the balance of the plant. The licensed power output is 3,990 megawatts-thermal per unit with a net electrical output of approximately 1,346 megawatts-electric per unit.

On August 6, 2010, the staff issued an SER with Open Item Related to the License Renewal of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, in which the staff identified one open item and five confirmatory items necessitating further review. This SER presents the status of the staff's review of information submitted through March 17, 2011, the cutoff date for consideration in the SER. The open and confirmatory items identified in the SER with Open Item were resolved before the staff made a final determination. SER Sections 1.5 and 1.6 summarize these open and confirmatory items. SER Section 6.0 provides the staff's final conclusion of the LRA review.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### In re Heideman Drainage District: Dodge County Farm Drainage Board, Appellant, vs. Specht and others, Respondents.

*January 10*

April 5, *1927.*

*Drains: Improvements costing more than benefits received: Appeal: Absence of exceptions to findings of fact.*

1. Findings of fact of the trial court will be treated as verities on appeal in the absence of exceptions filed to them. p. 459.

2. In view of sec. 88.08, Stats., the deepening and widening of a drainage ditch was not permissible where no assessment of benefits had ever been made to the owners of the land affected and the cost of the proposed work would have exceeded all benefits theretofore received or thereafter to be received by the landowners, p. 459.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dodge county: C. M. Davison; Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Proceedings originally by H. Heideman to remove a bridge over a drainage ditch, and later by the *Dodge County Farm Drainage Board*to widen and deepen the ditch.

The court found among other facts these: The bridge was removed before the *Dodge County Farm Drainage Board*took jurisdiction of the matter. No proper petition was ever filed by or with the said *Dodge County Farm*
      *459
      *Drainage Board*for the alteration, widening, or deepening of the ditch. No assessments of benefits to the affected landowners has ever been made, and the cost of the proposed widening or deepening of the ditch exceeds the total benefits that the landowners have received or will receive from the original ditch as widened or deepened. The proceedings were dismissed and the *Drainage Board*appealed.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the briefs of *L. S. Keeley,*attorney, and *Husting & Rusting,*of counsel, all of Mayville, and for the respondents on those of *James F. Malone*of Beaver Dam.

The following opinion was filed February 8, 1927:

Vinje, C. J.

No exceptions were filed to the findings of fact, so we can treat them as verities. *Will of Britt,*174 Wis. 145, 182 N. W. 738. We have, however, looked into the evidence sufficiently to satisfy us that it sustains the above recited findings of the court.

The fact that at no time has there ever been an assessment of benefits made to the owners of land affected bars further expenditure of money for an alteration more costly than the digging of the original ditch, as well as the fact that the cost of the proposed work will exceed the benefits heretofore received or hereafter to be received by the landowners. Sec. 88.08, Stats.; *In re Dancy Drainage Dist.*190 Wis. 327, 208 N. W. 479.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on April 5, 1927.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Neutron Enterprises,Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, RussellHoffman President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 135)), that to my knowledge:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

/s/ Russell Hoffman

Russell Hoffman

President

 

----

EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Neutron Enterprises,Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, PaulDenommee, Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section135)), that to my knowledge:

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 result        of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Paul Denommee   

Paul Denommee
Secretary/Treasurer