alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
VIAE-MAIL UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Jessica Fernandez Registration Manager Bayer Crop Science LP Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Subject: Fenamidone Data Call-In (DCI) Package for Registration Review Dear Ms. Fernandez: OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the registration review for fenamidone in March 2014 with the opening of a docket and publication of a preliminary work plan. The final work plan was issued in September 2014
. Both of these documents, and supporting materials, may be found in docket number EPA-HQ

- OPP

-2014-0048. The Agency is now issuing a DCI to require submission of data for use in the registration review of fenamidone. You must respond to this DCI within 90 days of receipt. Further instructions are provided in the attached DCI package. When initially scoping the registration review for fenamidone, EPA did not identify the need for any additional studies to evaluate potential effects on pollinators. However, since the issuance of the June 2014 Guidance forAssessing Pesticide Risks to Bees\ EPA has begun to require these data where applicable. Therefore, the final work plan for fenamidone contained pollinator studies not listed in the initial work plan
. Three additional studies have been added to the fenamidone DCI to ensure that EPA has the entire suite of pollinator studies listed in the guidance document. For fenamidone , the additional pollinator study requirements are included in Table 1 below
. Table 1. Pollinator Data Requirements for Fenamidone Guideline# Study 850.3040** Field testing for pollinators Non-Guideline ** Residues in pollen and nectar/ field residue analysis Non-Guideline* *(OECD 75) Semi-field testing for pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies) **Tier 2 and 3 (Semi-field and full field colony-level studies) The need for a higher tier test for pollinators will be determined based upon lower-tiered tests and/ or other lines of data and the need for a refined pollinator risk assessment .

1 http ://www2.epa .gov/sites/productionlfiles/2014-6/documents/pollinator risk assessment guidance 06 19 14.pdfFurther instructions for responding to the DCI are enclosed
. If you have any questions about this letter, the fenamidone registration review, or the generic DCis for fenamidone, please contact Chri stina Scheltema of my staff at ( 703 ) 308-2201 or scheltema
.christina @ epa .gov . Sincerel y,

Kelly Sherman, Chief Risk Mitigation and Implementation Branch III Pesticide Re-evaluation Division

cc: T ony Kish , Product Manager, Registration Division
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wendy F. DiCicco, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                       |  |                          
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: February 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Wendy F. DiCicco, CPA
|                       |  | Wendy F. DiCicco, CPA    
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffWeapons Safety Assessment (NUREG-2264)

# Weapons Safety Assessment – Sample Template: Chapters 7 to 9 and Appendix A (NUREG-2264, Volume 4)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2264, Volume 4: Chapters 7 to 9 and Appendix A (PDF – 6.29 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 2022**Date Published:** March 2023

**Prepared by:**P. BrochmanH. StoneD. Davis

P. Brochman, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident ResponseU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The regulations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) require an applicant for combined preemption authority and enhanced weapons authority to submit a Weapons Safety Assessment (WSA) as part of its application. This document sets forth a process that the NRC staff finds acceptable for use by an applicant in developing a WSA. The information in this document can be used by an applicant to evaluate the potential onsite and offsite safety hazards, safety impacts, or safety risks and any onsite security risks that could arise from the deployment and potential use of enhanced weapons (e.g., machine guns) as part of a licensee’s protective strategy for defending against malevolent acts. Based on its assessment of these hazards, impacts, or risks, an applicant should identify preventive or mitigative measures that it intends to implement upon the deployment of enhanced weapons.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 03, 2023
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Zoran Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Karl Schneider, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                        |  |                                   
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|Dated: November 5, 2010 |  | /s/ Karl Schneider                
|                        |  | Karl Schneider                    
|                        |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Study of the Effect of Integral Burnable Absorbers for PWR Burnup Credit (NUREG/CR-6760)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6760 (PDF - 3.37 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2001**Date Published:** March 2002

**Prepared by:** C.E. Sanders and J.C. Wagner

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by UT-Battelle, LLC Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370

R.Y. Lee, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code W6479

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The Interim Staff Guidance on burnup credit issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Spent Fuel Project Office recommends restricting the use of burnup credit to assemblies that have not used burnable absorbers. This restriction eliminates a large portion of the currently discharged spent fuel assemblies from cask loading, and thus severely limits the practical usefulness of burnup credit. This report examines the effect of integral burnable absorbers (IBAs) on reactivity to provide technical justification for relaxing the current restriction for dry storage and transportation, and subsequently, for developing the necessary guidelines for relaxing the current restriction. The effect of IBAs on reactivity for various IBA designs is shown and discussed. Further, the reactivity effect of IBAs for typical initial fuel enrichment and absorber loadings is quantified as a function of burnup. The report concludes with a discussion of the issues for consideration and preliminary recommendations to expand the use of burnup credit to include spent fuel assemblies with IBAs.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Sensitivity Studies of Failure of Steam Generator Tubes during Main Steam Line Break and Other Secondary Side Depressurization Events (NUREG/CR-6935)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6935 (PDF - 3.46 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2006 **Date Published:** May 2007 

**Prepared by:** S. Majumdar, K. Kanza, J. Oras, J. Franklin, and C. Vulyak, Jr. 

Nuclear Energy Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439

E. Reichelt, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for**: Division of Fuel, Engineering and Radiological Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6588 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report summarizes sensitivity studies conducted on the failure of flawed steam generator tubes in a Westinghouse Model 51 steam generator (SG) during main steam line break (MSLB) and feed water line break (FWLB) events. The results of thermal hydraulic transient analysis of temperature and pressure pulse loading during the MSLB and FWLB events were obtained from a recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report. A simplified but conservative finite element model of the tube support plates (TSPs) and their supports and SG tubes was used to analyze the loads transferred to the SG tubes from the TSPs during the transients. Fracture mechanics analyses were conducted to determine the stability of postulated cracks in the SG tubes on the top of the tube sheet and the TSPs. The potential for crack growth during repeated application of the pressure pulse was explored. Tests on SG tubes subjected to bending load and internal pressure showed that the effect of bending on burst pressure is negligible for the type of bending-to-direct-axial-stress ratio that is expected during a MSLB.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsEnforcement Petition (2.206)Director's Decisions on Completed 2.206 Petitions

# Director's Decisions on Completed Petitions for 2000

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, July 10, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997

#### 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 Friday, July 10, 2020
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsPetition  for Rulemaking Dockets

# Petition for Rulemaking Dockets for 2013

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, July 28, 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, July 28, 2022
NUMBER 13-19-00623-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

AMBER NICOLE SORENSON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Jackson County, Texas.

 

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s counsel, W.A. White, has filed a motion requesting to withdraw as 

counsel. According to his motion to withdraw, good cause exists for him to withdraw 

because he has accepted an offer of employment as an Assistant District Attorney for 

Calhoun County, Texas to begin February 3, 2020. 
2

Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel 

rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 

(Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the 

appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with 

a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of 

this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant’s court-appointed 

attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to 

new appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge 

appellant’s current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall 

enter an order to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be 

appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number 

of the newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. The 

trial court shall further cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to 

be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of ten days from the date 

of this order. 

It is so ordered.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 10th 

day of January, 2020.
#### Riesch, Respondent, vs. Degnitz and others, imp., Appellants.

*December 4, 1929*

January *7, 1930.*

*384Crownhart, J.

The judgment must be reversed. The action was begun to recover on the notes from the makers and from the appellants Degnitz as indorsers thereof. We *385disregard the suggestion that the appellants Degnitz were guarantors of payment of the notes, the allegation in the complaint being insufficient in that regard and there being no evidence of the fact.

The notes were past due when transferred by indorse-ments. They were then by force of the statute, sec. 116.11, demand obligations so far as the indorsers were concerned. It was the duty of the respondent to make demand upon the makers within a reasonable time in order to charge the indorsers. Sec. 116.75, Stats. In case of failure of payment, upon demand, by the makers, in order to hold the indorsers, the respondent was required to give the in-dorsers prompt notice of dishonor. Sec.. 117.07, Stats.

There is no allegation in the complaint that demand of payment was made on the makers, or refusal to pay or notice of dishonor to the indorsers. There is no verdict and no finding of the court to that effect. There is no evidence in the record of notice of dishonor to the indorsers of the notes.

For these reasons the judgment must be reversed. As it appears that there was a misconception of the issues by the parties and the court, justice demands that a new trial be had. Other errors assigned may not arise on a retrial, and are not now considered.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a new trial ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,320
<SECURITIES>                                    26,624
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,403
<PP&E>                                          28,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,090
<BONDS>                                            424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,157
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,255
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (130)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,111)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.35)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis D. Oklak,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 of2002, that:

 

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

 

                (2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/ DENNIS D. OKLAK                                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Dennis D. Oklak                                                |
|   | *Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer of the General Partner* |
|   | Date: May 16, 2005                                             |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to Duke Realty Limited Partnership, and will be retained by DukeRealty Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of US Wireless Online, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Douglas Keeney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Douglas Keeney

Douglas Keeney



Chief Executive Officer



Date: April 16, 2004