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



Exhibit 32.02
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein.
 Date: August 8, 2007
    /s/ Robert R. FreemanRobert FreemanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
My calculation using MOBILE6 shows that about 1.3% of the gasoline is consumed by heavy duty gasoline vehicles greate

GVWR in 2010. David Brzezinski EPA OTAQ ASD 734-214-4235 April 13, 2010 

MOBILE6 

2010 CO2 VClass VClassAbbr VClassDesc 

140.5 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 Total 

6.0 HDGV > 14,000 lbs. GVWR & Buses 

1.5% HDGV > 14,000 lbs GVWR and MC Fraction
<PAGE>


[LETTERHEAD]


Steve Phenix
MCI Telecommunications                                August 21, 1996
707 17th St. Suite 3600
Denver, CO 80202

         This letter shall serve as an agreement between MCI and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
INTERNET INC. (hereafter referred to as RMI) governing the provision of
professional information system development services for MCI by RMI relative to
the design and development of the MCI internal Intranet project referred to as
Electronic Advice.

         RMI shall design and, with design approval of MCI, develop supporting
systems to facilitate Electronic Advice operation.  These functions include (but
are not limited to) integration to ISI to download paystub information,
integration to ADP to download paystub information, develop a full security
access system, view current payroll information, view payroll history
information, view employee information and send a message to payroll.

         MCI shall provide to  RMI data, documents, and information in verbal
and written form, as required and appropriate, to enable RMI to successfully
complete the above responsibilities.

         MCI and RMI both understand that the development of information
systems in an on going process.  Additional work, beyond the scope of this
agreement, will be negotiated as separate consultation.

         RMI shall complete the assigned tasks on a schedule consistent 
with the responsibilities involved and in accord with MCI requirements as 
mutually agreed.

         RMI shall deliver the above described services by providing one full
time systems developer and three part time systems engineers at an hourly rate
of $80 and $107.  RMI shall provide MCI with a detailed billing statement
categorizing hours billed in each of the developed functions.  The scope of this
agreement shall not exceed 105,000 DOLLARS.  If MCI chooses to extend the term
of the agreement beyond 105,000 dollars, they will request extension (including
a new maximum project amount) in writing and attach a copy of this agreement to
be initialed by both parties.

         In the event that MCI elects to terminate this agreement, MCI shall
provide written notice to RMI and shall be responsible for any and all costs
incurred to date and experienced in the winding down of the project, if any.

         If the terms of this agreement meet with your acceptance, please
indicate the same by signing below in the space provided and return a signed
copy of this agreement.

Sincerely,

/s/Elaine Feeney
Elaine Feeney
Director, Consulting Services
Rocky Mountain Internet Inc.      

                                  Accepted for MCI Telecommunications
                                  By /s/Steven S. Phenix
                                     ----------------------------------
                                  Date 8/26/96
                                     ----------------------------------
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Role in the Five-Year Plan to Address Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation (NUREG/BR-0526)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0526 (PDF – 7.09 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** December 2016

Tribal Liaison ProgramU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

## Introduction

The NRC and other Federal agencies are working to address uranium contamination in consultation with the Navajo Nation. In 2007, the agencies developed a coordinated Five-Year Plan that outlined a strategy to gain a better understanding of the scope of the problem and address the greatest risks first. In addition to the NRC, the Federal agencies are the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the Indian Health Service.

During the first five years, the agencies focused on collecting data, identifying the most imminent risks and addressing contaminated structures, water supplies, mills, dumps, and mines with the highest levels of radiation. They learned more about the scope of the problem and the work that needs to be done.

In 2014, the agencies published a second Five-Year Plan that builds on the information gathered and the lessons learned during the first five years. The agencies are committed to continuing to work with the Navajo Nation to reduce the risks to health and the environment. Under the Five-Year Plan each agency plays a specific role.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CHRISTINE V. SALES,

 Respondent

 v.

STEPHEN R. SALES, SR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 565 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

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

# Extended Storage of Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Potential Problem Areas (NUREG/CR-4062, BNL-NUREG-51841)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-4062 (PDF – 8.10 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 1985**Date Published:** December 1985

**Prepared by:** B. Siskind, D. R. Dougherty, D. R. MacKenzie

S. A. Romano, NRC Project Manager

Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973

**Prepared for:** Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 NRC FIN A3171

Availability Notice

## Abstract

If a state or state compact does not have adequate disposal capacity for low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) by 1986 as required by the Low-Level Waste Policy Act, then extended storage of certain LLRW may be necessary. In this report, extended storage of LLRW is considered in order to determine for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission areas of concern and actions recommended to resolve these concerns. The focus is on the properties and performance of the waste form and waste container. Storage alternatives are considered in order to characterize the likely storage environments for these wastes. The areas of concern about extended storage of LLRW are grouped into two categories:
        -  Performance of the waste form and/or container during storage, e.g., radiolytic gas generation, radiation-enhanced degradation of polymeric materials, and corrosion. 
        -  Effects of extended storage on the properties of the waste form and/or container that are important after storage (e.g., radiation-induced embrittlement of high-density polyethylene and the weakening of steel containers resulting from corrosion). 

A discussion is given of additional information and actions required to address these concerns.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
# C_2015295EN.01000201.xml

| 8.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 4 September 2015

adopting the Council's position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016

(2015/C 295/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314(3) thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Whereas:

| 1. | On 25 June 2015, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 (1), |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 25 June 2015, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 (1),

1

| 2. | On 26 June 2015, the Commission presented letter of amendment No 1 to the draft general budget for the financial year 2016 (2), |
| --- | --- |

2.

On 26 June 2015, the Commission presented letter of amendment No 1 to the draft general budget for the financial year 2016 (2),

2

| 3. | The Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources (3), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (4), |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources (3), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (4),

3

4

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 was adopted by the Council on 4 September 2015.

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

Done at Brussels, 4 September 2015.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN

---

(1)  COM(2015) 300 final.

1

(2)  COM(2015) 317 final.

2

(3)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.

3

(4)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.

4

---
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03384**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 03384\03384_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03384\03384_Certification Statement.PDF Plant certification statement x 03384\03384_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 03384\03384_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-145489, 333-133702, 333-152720 and 333-160407 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 30, 2009 (October 27, 2009 as to the effects of the Restatement – Stock-basedCompensation discussed in Note 16), relating to the consolidated financial statements of Taleo Corporation and subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the restatement of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008), for the year ended December 31, 2008 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Taleo Corporation forthe year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

San Jose, California 

February 28, 2011
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2015115EN.01003901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 115/39 |

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 20 of 27 January 2015](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2015_020_R_TOC)
)

On page 49, Annex I:

for:

‘D. Francesc HOMS I MOLIST

Consejero de Presidencia’

,

read:

‘D. Francesc HOMS I MOLIST

Consejero de Presidencia de la Generalitat de Catalunya’

;

on page 50, Annex I:

for:

‘Sr. D. Juan VICENTE HERRERA

Presidente de la Junta de Castilla y León’

,

read:

‘Sr. D. Juan Vicente HERRERA CAMPO

Presidente de la Junta de Castilla y León’

;

on page 64, Annex II:

for:

‘Mr Joël RIGUELLE

Député bruxellois’

,

read:

‘Mr Joël RIGUELLE

Bourgmestre de la commune de Berchem-Ste-Agathe’

;

on page 69, Annex II:

for:

‘D. Roger ALBINYANA I SAIGÍ

Secretario de Asuntos Exteriores de la Generalitat de Catalunya’

,

read:

‘D. Roger ALBINYANA I SAIGÍ

Secretario de Asuntos Exteriores y de la Unión Europea de la Generalitat de Catalunya’

;

on page 69, Annex II:

for:

‘D. Enrique BARRASA SÁNCHEZ

Director General de Inversiones y Acción Exterior de Extremadura’

,

read:

‘D. Enrique BARRASA SÁNCHEZ

Director General de Acción Exterior del Gobierno de Extremadura’

.

---
#### In the Matter of George W. Vivino, a Suspended Attorney.

[631 NYS2d 516]

Motion to be reinstated granted effective as of *the*date hereof. No opinion. *Concur*— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Reviewing Real-Time Performance of Nuclear  Reactor Safety Systems (NUREG/CR-6083, UCRL-ID-114565)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6083 (PDF - 4.8 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 1993**Date Published:**August 1993

**Prepared by:** G.G. Preckshot Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808 Livermore, California 94550

**Prepared for:** Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC FIN L-1867

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to recommend regulatory guidance for reviewers examining real-time performance of computer-based safety systems used in nuclear power plants. Three areas of guidance are covered in this report. The first area covers how to determine if, when, and what prototypes should be required of developers to make a convincing demonstration that specific problems have been solved or that performance goals have been met. The second area has recommendations for timing analyses that will prove that the real-time system will meet its safety-imposed deadlines. The third area has descriptions of means for assessing expected or actual real-time performance before, during, and after development is completed. To ensure that the delivered real-time software product meets performance goals, the paper recommends certain types of code-execution and communications scheduling. Technical background is provided in the appendix on methods of timing analysis, scheduling real-time computations, prototyping, real-time software development approaches, modeling and measurement, and real-time operating systems.

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

# Site Suitability, Selection and Characterization: Branch Technical Position — Low-Level Radioactive Waste (NUREG-0902)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0902 (PDF – 1.54 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** March 1982**Date Published:** April 1982

D. Siefken, G. Pangburn, R. Pennifill, R. J. Starmer

Division of Waste ManagementOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The staff provides an expanded interpretation of the site suitability requirements in the proposed rule 10 CFR Part 61, a description of the anticipated site selection process, and a detailed discussion of the site characterization program needed to support a license application and environmental report. The paper provides early-on guidance to prospective applicants in these three subject areas.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Feedwater Line Break Analysis Using RELAP5/MOD3.3 for Steam Generator Blowdown Load Assessment (NUREG/IA-0473)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0473 (PDF - 8.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 2016**Date Published:** November 2016

**Prepared by:** Han-Sik JUNG, Du-Ho HONG, Jong-In KIM, Ae-Ju CHEONG*, Kyung-Won LEE*

Doosan Heavy Industry and Construction 22, Doosan Volvo-ro, Seongsan-gu, Changwon, Gyeongnam, 642-792, Korea

*Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 62 Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-gu Daejeon, 34142, Korea

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

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

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

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The RELAP5/MOD3.3 is generally used for best-estimate transient simulation of light water reactor coolant systems during postulated accidents in the Light Water Reactor (LWR). The RELAP5/MOD3.3 code is based on a non-homogeneous, and non-equilibrium model for a two phase system that is solved by a fast, partially implicit numerical scheme to permit economical calculation of system transients. This code is suitable for the analysis of transients and postulated accidents in LWR systems, including both large- and small-break loss of coolant accidents, as well as for the full range of operational transients.

For the evaluation of structural integrity for the steam generator in the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the postulated accidents, such as the Feedwater Line Break (FLB) in the Advanced Power Reactor (APR1400) at the Korean domestic plants, are considered Design Basis Events (DBE). In order to evaluate the structural integrity of a steam generator during the FLB, the data for the thermo-hydraulic velocity, density and pressure are needed.

This study was performed to calculate thermal hydraulic parameters, such as thermo-hydraulic velocity, density and pressure, using the RELAP5/MOD3.3 code for the structural evaluation of the steam generator internals during the postulated FLB accidents.

The calculation results were verified by comparing with experimental data generated from the experimental facility ATLAS (Advanced Thermal-Hydraulic Test Loop for Accident Simulation).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### WES-FLO INC., Plaintiff, v. WILSON FREIGHT COMPANY, et al., Defendant. In the Matter WILSON FREIGHT COMPANY, Debtor.

Adv. No. 3-81-0445.

Bankruptcy No. 80-B-11129BL.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.

Sept. 25, 1981.

Thomas H. Busch, Springfield, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Mark H. Berliant, Cincinnati, Ohio, for debtor/defendant.

Parks & Parks, Ashland, Neb., for

CHARLES A. ANDERSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the court upon an application for change of venue to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to a decision and order entered herein on 5 August 1981. 13 B.R. 617. It was there determined that “. . . even though the case [in the state court] has been properly removed to the court of the district wherein originally filed [S.D.Ohio], the automatic stay of the original court [S.D.New York] remains in effect as to the parties pending determination of the venue question. . . . The stay remains unaltered, except as to the statutory right to removal.” This Court does not violate the stay order by granting a change of venue to the court which has jurisdiction over both the estate and stay order.

We are now constrained to concur with the attorney for Debtor-Defendant that in the interest of sound administration of the case venue properly should be transferred to the Southern District of New York conformably to 28 U.S.C. § 1475. *396That Court not only has exclusive jurisdiction over all property of the debtor; but, also, the public auction giving rise to Wes-Flo’s complaint filed in the state court was ordered by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously determined, neither corporate litigant is an Ohio corporation. No local interest exists which dictates that the dispute should be litigated in the Southern District of Ohio. Various transactions involving administration of assets located in numerous of the United States are already subject to the primary jurisdiction and control of the Southern District of New York court. To cause the debtor to litigate disputes arising from disposition of its property in Ohio or other states in which such disposition occurs would impose upon the debtor’s estate an unnecessary and inordiante financial hardship to the detriment of all interested parties, and as has been urged, “thwart efficient and inexpensive administration of the estate.” The change of venue should, therefore, be granted.