alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# deP

west virginia department of environmental protection Executive Office 60I 57°' Street SE Charleston, WV 25304



### Mr. Shawn M
. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region III 

### (3RAOO) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 June 3, 2015 Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor Randy C. Huffman , Cabinet Secretary dep.wv.gov

Re: Revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan Pursuant to Prevention of Significant Deterioration

- Request for Approval Dear Administrator Garvin: On behalfofthe State ofWest Virginia, I am herein submitting the 2015 Legislative Rule 45CSR14- Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, effective June 1, 2015, as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Included in this submittal is appropriate documentation which validates that proper state and federal administrative procedural rulemaking requirements have been fulfilled. Also included with this submittal is an electronic copy on compact disk in searchable PDF format. We certify that the enclosed electronic copy contains an exact duplicate of information contained in the hardcopy submission. In a letter dated January 20,2015 , WVDEP committed to provide EPA with a SIP revision incorporating a significant monitoring concentration (SMC) value ofzero for PM2.s into West Virginia's PSD rule
. EPA relied upon on this letter ofcommitment, and consequently proposed conditional approval ofthe 2012 and 2014 SIP revisions of45CSR14 [80 FR 16612]. Upon approval of2015 Legislative Rule 45CSR14 into the SIP, the SMC value contained in the rule will satisfy this commitment, and EPA may subsequently issue a final rule in which West Virginia's conditional approval ofthe 2012 and 2014 SIP revisions of45CSR14 will become final approvals. West Virginia requests that you approve this most recent version of45CSR14 as a revision to the SIP, replacing the current version of45CSR14 approved by EPA on May 27, 2011 at 76 FR 30832 and issuing fmal approval of the conditional approvals noted above.

Promoting a healthy environment.Letter to Mr. Shawn M. Garvin June 3, 2015 Page2

Ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal or require additional information, please contact William F. Durham, Director ofthe Division ofAir Quality at (304) 926-0462.

RCH/jlm Enclosure
cc: Diana Esher (3APOO) William F. Durham, Director, WVDAQ Sincerely, Randy C. Huffman Cabinet Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,949,780
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  328,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                    89,487
<INVENTORY>                                    935,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,192,836
<PP&E>                                         705,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 450,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,491,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,948,323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,438
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,254,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,491,823
<SALES>                                        708,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,060,650
<CGS>                                          504,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  504,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,965,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,287,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,289,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,289,749)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
# ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 06-0544

IN RE PETITION OF TONYA DEE BUMBARGER FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA 

# FILED AUG 132024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montane ORDER

Tonya Dee Bumbarger has petitioned for reinstatement to active status in the State BarofMontana. Thepetitionstatesthat onJuly 2, 2024,Bumbargerwasplaced on inactive status by the State Bar of Montana pursuant to Rules 3B2, 5, and 12 of the Rules for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for noncompliance with CLE requirements. Rule 14 governs reinstatement ofmembers transferred to inactive status for failure to comply with CLE requirements, and provides:

The Court may reinstate the member upon payment of all fees required by the Commission and certification by the Commission that the member has completed the minimum CLE requirements.

. . . The Commission may consider hours of approved CLE that the member has completed within 24 months prior to the application for reinstatement. Thus, Bumbarger must submit "certification by the [CLE] Commission" that she has completed 30 hours ofCLE approved by the Commission before the Court can order reinstatement to active status. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Tonya Dee Bumbarger for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this .1-• day ofAugust, 2024. 08/13/2024

Case Number: PR 06-0544

# t\Q

,,, ..0J'4 • - - 

# (°4 Isl!bs•it—,—
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# User's Manual for RESRAD-OFFSITE Code Version 4 (NUREG/CR-7268)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, June 24, 2021
Exhibit 32.1

                    Libra Alliance Corporation

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of Libra Alliance Corporation certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

..     the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2005, 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.



Date:  March 24, 2006
                                   /s/ April L. Marino
                                   ____________________________________
                                   April L. Marino
                                   Principal Executive Officer
                                   Principal Financial Officer
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This Certificate is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification is included solely for the purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose. In connection with the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PainCare Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of PainCare Holdings, Inc. that to the best of the undersigneds
knowledge:



|1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PainCare Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PainCare Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of PainCare Holdings, Inc.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: November 11, 2003 |  | /s/ Mark SzporkaMark Szporka Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
#### Thome, Appellant, vs. Crawford, Respondent.

*May 27*

June 25, *1919.*

*Bills and notes: Payment of note: Evidence.*

In an action to compel delivery of a note given by plaintiff to deceased and by deceased bequeathed to defendant, the evidence is *held*to sustain a finding that the note had not been paid.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Monroe county: James O’Neill, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to compel the delivery to plaintiff of a promissory note of $5,000 given by him to Elizabeth J. Stringham and by her bequeathed to the defendant. The action is based on the ground that plaintiff had paid the note in full to Mrs. Stringham in her lifetime. The circuit court found that the note had not been paid and entered judgment dimissing the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.

*Howard Teasdale*of Sparta and *Frank Winter*of La Crosse,- for the appellant.

*R. B. Graves*of Sparta, for the respondent.

*483Vinje, J.

Only a question of fact is presented by the appeal. Was the note paid? Plaintiff presented a receipt dated November 4, 1916, acknowledging full payment of the note and agreeing to deliver it to plaintiff within ten days. It is admitted that the receipt, which was typewritten, bears the genuine signature of Mrs. Stringham. It is claimed by plaintiff that this receipt was typewritten upon the same machine that another receipt for the interest of $150 that day paid was typewritten, at about the same .time, and without change of ribbon or cleaning the type. The receipt for the payment of the note shows a sound ribbon and clean type. The one for the interest shows clogged type and a -worn or broken ribbon.. There is also a marked variance in the spelling. Plaintiff claims payment-was made in cash. The proof shows that Mrs. Stringham went to the bank after receiving the check of $150 for the interest and deposited that together with a draft for $60 received from another person, but made no deposit of $5,000 that day or afterwards, and the record is barren of evidence showing what became of the money if it was paid. Mrs. Stringham left a personal estate of about $10,000, exclusive of the $5,000 note in question. Both plaintiff and Mrs. Stringham lived in Sparta and she did not die till about five months after he claims he paid the note, and yet he made no effort to get it from her during that time. Defendant claims Mrs. Stringham, who was about seventy-five years old, was induced to sign the receipt for the payment of the note in the belief that she was signing a receipt for the payment of the previous semi-annual interest, for which no receipt had been given. Such is in brief the nature of the case and the main character of the evidence from which the court found that the note was not paid. We cannot disturb the finding. It seems to be in accord with the weight of the evidence produced.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Spent Fuel Pool Project Phase II: Pre-Ignition and Ignition Testing of a 1x4 Commercial 17x17 Pressurized Water Reactor Spent Fuel Assemblies under Complete Loss of Coolant Accident Conditions (NUREG/CR-7216)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7216 (PDF – 7.89 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2013**Date Published:** April 2016

**Prepared by:** S.G. Durbin, E.R. Lindgren and L. Humphries Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185

Z. Yuan, M. Zavisca and M. Khatib-Rahbar Energy Research, Inc. Rockville, MD 20847-2034

R. Beaton U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

G. A. Zigh, NRC Technical Monitor R. Beaton, NRC Project Manager S. Gonzalez, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code N6777

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in collaboration with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and 12 international partners, conducted an experimental program to obtain experimental data for the characterization of hydraulic and ignition phenomena of prototypic light water reactor fuel assemblies in a spent fuel pool under complete loss of coolant accidents for validation of the MELCOR severe accident computer code. MELCOR is a fully integrated, engineering-level computer code whose primary purpose is to model the progression of postulated accidents in light water reactors as well as non-reactor systems (e.g., spent fuel pool and dry cask). The experimental program was conducted in two phases at Sandia National Laboratories. The first phase focused on axial heating and zirconium fire propagation in a single 17×17 PWR fuel assembly. The second phase consisted of pre-ignition and ignition tests of five prototypic PWR full-length 17×17 fuel assemblies to simulate a complete loss-of-coolant-accident in a spent fuel pool. The assemblies were placed in a 1×4 configuration where the center fuel assembly was electrically heated and the four surrounding assemblies were unheated. Two of the unheated assemblies contained pressurized rods to sstudy ballooning effects.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRegulatory Guides (by Division)Division 5 - Materials and Plant Protection

# Materials and Plant Protection (Division 5): Regulatory Guides 5.41 - 5.60

This page lists the number, title, publication date, and revisions for each regulatory guide in Division 5, "Materials and Plant Protection," with references to draft guides and related documents (where applicable).

See also Draft Regulatory Guides for Public Comment.

See NRC Regulatory Guides for more general information.

Regulatory Guides are reviewed about every 10 years, although a guide may be reviewed more frequently if the staff believes an emerging issue affects the guide. The NRC began these reviews in 2010, and began posting the results of its reviews on this site in 2013. The review dates are hyperlinked to the review memorandum, which provide useful information about the status and any known issues with the associated regulatory guide.

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Regulatory Guides 5.1 - 5.20
          - Regulatory Guides 5.21 - 5.40
          - Regulatory Guides 5.41 - 5.60
          - Regulatory Guides 5.61 - 5.80
          - Regulatory Guides 5.81 - 5.100

#### 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 Wednesday, April 3, 2024
#### Tamara Bankson, Appellant, v Westchester Medical Center, Respondent.

[774 NYS2d 783]

*618In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered April 22, 2003, which denied her motion, inter alia, to deem proper her prior service of a notice of claim, or for leave to renew her cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and granted the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that her service of process upon the wrong governmental entity should have been excused. Such an error can be excused provided that a prompt application for relief is made after discovery of the error. In this case, however, even upon her motion for leave to renew, the plaintiff produced no proof that she served a notice of claim upon the proper party, the Westchester County Health Care Corporation, nor did she seek permission to do so *(cf. Matter of Flynn v Town of Oyster*Bay, 256 AD2d 341 [1998]). In addition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that no prejudice would result from her delay in serving a notice of claim upon the proper party *(see Matter of Lorseille v New York City Hous. Auth.,*295 AD2d 612 [2002]). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion and granting the defendant’s cross motion. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Report to Congress on the Security Inspection Program for Commercial Power Reactor and Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities: Results and Status Update (NUREG-1885)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 10, 2023
#### Will of Elsen: Elsen, Respondent, vs. Elsen, Executor, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Baldwin & Bosshard*and *R. E. Nietsch,*all of La Crosse.

For the respondent: *Brody & Crosby*and *George H. Gordon, Law & Brody,*all of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
# C_2015214EN.01000201.xml

| 30.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 214/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 214/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 June 2015

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI Regulation) and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013

(2015/C 214/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 was adopted on 26 June 2015.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 26 June 2015.

For the Council

The President

E. RINKĒVIČS

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 69, 13.3.2015, p. 1.

2

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# FIRAC User's Manual: A Computer Code to Simulate Fire Accidents in Nuclear Facilities (NUREG/CR-4561,LA-10678-M)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-4561 (PDF - 10.8 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**February 1986**Date Published:**April 1986

**Prepared by:** B.D. Nichols, W.S. Gregory Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 

**Prepared for:** Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC FIN A-7152

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This user's manual supports the fire accident analysis computer code FIRAC. FIRAC is designed to estimate radioactive and nonradioactive source terms and to predict fire-induced flows and thermal and material transport within the ventilation systems of nuclear fuel cycle facilities. FIRAC has been expanded and modified to include the capabilities of the zone-type compartment fire model computer code FIRIN developed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The two codes have been coupled to provide an improved simulation of a fire-induced transient within a facility. The basic material transport capability of FIRAC has, been retained and includes estimates of entrainment, convection, deposition, and filtration of material. Also, the interrelated effects of filter plugging, heat transfer, gas dynamics, material transport, and fire and radioactive source terms are simulated.

This report summarizes the physical models that describe the gas dynamic, material transport, heat transfer, and source term processes and illustrates how a typical facility is modeled using the code. The modifications required to couple the code to FIRIN also are presented. Finally, the input and code-calculated output for several sample problems that illustrate some of the capabilities of the code are described.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
My calculation using MOBILE6 shows thatabout 1.3% of the gasoline is consumed byheavy duty gasoline vehicles greater than 14,000 lbs.GVWR in 2010.David BrzezinskiEPA OTAQ ASD734-214-4235April 13, 2010MOBILE62010 CO2 VClass VClassAbbr VClassDesc140.5 1 LDGV Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (Passenger Cars)47.1 2 LDGT1 Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 1 (0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 0-3750 lbs. LVW)156.7 3 LDGT2 Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 2(0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 3751-5750 lbs. LVW)62.3 4 LDGT3 Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 3(6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 0-5750 lbs. ALVW)28.6 5 LDGT4 Light-Duty Gasoline Trucks 4 (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 5751 lbs. and greater ALVW)29.0 6 HDGV2B Class 2b Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (8501-10,000 lbs. GVWR)1.1 7 HDGV3 Class 3 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (10,001-14,000 lbs. GVWR)0.4 8 HDGV4 Class 4 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (14,001-16,000 lbs. GVWR)1.3 9 HDGV5 Class 5 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (16,001-19,500 lbs. GVWR)2.8 10 HDGV6 Class 6 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (19,501-26,000 lbs. GVWR)1.3 11 HDGV7 Class 7 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (26,001-33,000 lbs. GVWR)0.0 12 HDGV8A Class 8a Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (33,001-60,000 lbs. GVWR)0.0 13 HDGV8B Class 8b Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (>60,000 lbs. GVWR)0.3 25 HDGB Gasoline Buses (School, Transit and Urban)1.1 24 MC Motorcycles (Gasoline)471.3 Total6.0 HDGV > 14,000 lbs. GVWR & Buses1.5% HDGV > 14,000 lbs GVWR and MC Fraction