alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004228EN.01003602.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/36

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 June 2004

in Case T-258/01: Pierre Eveillard v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Disciplinary measures - Relegation in step - Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations - Contract for the security of the Commission's buildings)

(2004/C 228/80)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-258/01: Pierre Eveillard, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Curral, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 25 June 2001 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 13 March 2001 whereby he contested the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of relegation by two steps — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J.S. Cooke, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of reduction by two steps; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of reduction by two steps;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.

1

---
Air Permits Division 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 4313 

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313 

Dear Ms. Treadaway: 

Thank you for the recommend"tions regarding the attainment status of selected areas in Louisiana under 

the 2010 sulfur dioxide (S02) rational ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) that your agency sent to 

us on September 18, 2015. As you know, we are subject to a March 2, 2015 court order directing us to 

promulgate S02 designations for these areas under section 107 of the Clean Air Act by July 2, 2016. 

Specifically, we are required to promulgate designations for these areas because they contain sources 

meeting the SD2 emissions criteria identified in the consent decree. The information you provided on 

September 18, 2015, will greatly help us meet this duty, and ensure protection of public health in 

Louisiana. 

In addition to the information you have provided, we have recently received modeling and related 

information from the Sierra Club that is relevant to a subset of the areas to be addressed by July 2, 2016. 

In your state, we have received information pertinent to the area near to the following power plant: 

Dolet Hills Power Station. We are enclosing a compact disc that contains this information. Please let us 

know if you have any questions about the information we have received or if you need any additional 

information. 

I am writing to solicit your review of the information that Sierra Club has provided, so that the EPA can 

base its designation decisions on the best available information. The Clean Air Act provides for 

designations to be developed through a partnership of state agencies and the EPA; however, we also 

believe it is important to consider significant and relevant information that members of the public 

provide to us. Consistent with the structure of the Clean Air Act, we believe that the best first step in 

addressing this information would be for your agency to provide its review of this information. Since the 

Sierra Club's recommendation differs from your recommendation, we would welcome your commentary 

generally on the information as well as your detailed review of the elements of Sierra Club's analysis. 

To the extent practicable, we would appreciate quantitative comparisons of data used in Sierra Club's 

analysis compared to the data used in your analysis, to help us evaluate the elements of the two analyses. 

We would appreciate your review of Sierra Club's information by November 17, 2015. Your timely 

review would provide us valuable assistance in our review of your designation recommendations and 

development of our intended designations, which we are aiming to complete by the end of January 2016. 

We will then publish notice of our intended designations for public comment, and, as required by the 

lntemet Address (URL) • http:llwww.epa.gov/region6 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Enclosure: 1 cd 

Guy Donaldson 

Chief 

Air Planning Section
# Idaho State Office

9173 W. Barnes Drive, Ste CBoiseID83709

208-378-5700

9173 W. Barnes Drive, Ste CBoiseID83709

Idaho

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  Idaho 
-  Idaho State Office 

Idaho NRCS State Office Directory**Please scroll all the way to the bottom of the State Office contacts for the Idaho Personnel Directory.**

##   State Office Staff

##   Idaho Personnel Directory

Directory of Idaho NRCS offices and employee personnel contacts.

Idaho Personnel Directory - April 11, 2024.pdf(1.11 MB)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                          $ 1,434
<SECURITIES>                      4,995
<RECEIVABLES>                    45,202
<ALLOWANCES>                     (1,273)
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                               40
<DEPRECIATION>                      (37)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   50,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               160
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                       50,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     50,698
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  3,149
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   2,923
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               2,923
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      2,923
<EPS-BASIC>                      0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.00


</TABLE>
HomeRadioactive WasteDecommissioning

# Decommissioning Regulations, Guidance, and Communications

            -  Regulations. The NRC's decommssioning regulations are found in Chapter I of Title 10, "Energy," of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (CFR). Part 20, Subpart E provides the main requirements for license termination. 
            -  Guidance. The NRC issues regulatory guides, technical reports in the NUREG-series, and other documents to aid licensees in implementing regulations. 
            -  Communications. NRC correspondence related to decommissioning establishes the relationships, roles, and responsibilities of the Federal and State government entities involved in decommissioning reactor and materials sites. 

See also, information on all NRC Rules and Petitions.

The NRC welcomes Public Involvement in Rulemaking, and invites the public to comment on proposed rules and policies, licensing actions, and draft technical documents. We announce public comment opportunities in the *Federal Register* and on our Documents for Comment page.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 14, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Regulations, Guidance, and Communications
          - Process
          - Financial Assurance
          - Oversight of Materials and Reactor Decommissioning
          - Public Involvement in Decommissioning
          - Program Documents
          - International Aspects
          - Lessons Learned
          - FAQ
          - What's New in Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
          - Map of Decommissioning Sites
          - Complex Materials Sites
          - Power Reactors Sites
          - Research and Test Reactors Sites
          - Fuel Cycle Facilities

#### 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

#### Related Information

            - Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 14, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00616-CV

Carrie BUNDE,

Appellant

v.

Cory BUNDE,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-19474

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 7, 2012

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed by January 9, 2012. Neither the brief nor a motion 

for extension of time have been filed. On January 26, 2012 this court ordered appellant to file 

appellant’s brief no later than February 8, 2012. Our order informed appellant that if she failed 

to file the brief by this date, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(a). Appellant has not responded; therefore, this appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

### 1 = 3W

Mo ti on o f AME R I CAN AIRL INE S , I NC . DOT - OST -1 996
- 1203 f o r con f i dential treatment under Rule 1 2 ( Form 41, Schedule B-7 )

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 Communic a t i ons w ith r e sp e c t to thi s documen t sho u ld be s ent t o: FRANC I S C . HElL Manag i ng Dir ector - Legal and Government A ffair s Americ an Airline s, I nc . 1 10 1 1 7 th S tre et , N . W . Su i te 600 Was h i ngton , D . C . 20036 (202) 496
- 5642 fran c is.he il @aa.com April 4 , 2014BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D . C.

Motion of AMERICAN AIRL I NES, INC . DOT - OST -1 996
- 1203 f or confidential treatment under Ru l e 12 ( F orm 4 1, Schedul e B - 7)

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 American Airlines , Inc. , under 14 CFR 302 . 12 , hereby moves that i ts F orm 41 , Schedu l e B - 7 for 4Q2013 be accorded conf i dent i a l treatment and withheld from public discl o sure. The inf o rmati on f o r which c onfidential treatmen t is requeste d perta i ns t o American ' s airframe and aircraft engine acquisi
ti ons and r e t i rements .

I n acco rdance w ith the Dep artment 's Final Ru le on S ub
mitting Airline Data via the Internet , 75 Fed . Reg. 41580, 415 82 , Jul y 16 , 20 10, we are upl o ading o ur confidential report electr on ical ly t o h ttp : // es ubmit . r ita . do t . gov

On June 5, 1 99 5, by le t ter o f James W. Mitchell, Dire c tor , Office of A i r l ine Statistics , the Department granted conf i dential treatment for a 1 0
- year per i od to si m ilar data fi l ed by American. F o r the reasons stated in that letter, the current submissi on shou ld als o re c ei ve confi den tial trea tmen t f o r 1 0 years .2
- WHEREFORE, American moves that the schedule being submitted electronically to the above-referenced website be withheld from public disclosure under Rule 12 for a period of 10 years. Respectfully submitted,

Francis C. Heil Managing Director
- Legal and Government Affairs American Airlines, Inc. April 4, 2014
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# TRAC-PF1 MOD1 Post Test Calculations of the OECD LOFT Experiment LP-SB-1 (NUREG/IA-0011)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0011 (PDF 4.12 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** April 1990

**Prepared by:** E.J. Allen

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Winfrith, Dorchester Dorset, England

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

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Analysis of the small, hot leg break, OECD LOFT Experiment LP-SB-I using the "best-estimate" computer code TRAC-PFlI/MOD1 is presented.

Descriptions of the LOFT facility and the LP-SB-1 experiment are given and development of the TRAC-PF1/MOD1 input model is detailed. The calculations performed in achieving the steady state conditions, from which the experiment was initiated, and the specification of experimental boundary conditions are outlined.

Results of a "Base Case" transient calculation are found to be generally consistent with those reported by other members of the OECD LOFT Program Review Group. The experimental trends with respect to pressure histories and minimumsystem mass inventory are reasonably well reproduced by the TRAC-PFl/MODl calculation. However, the inability of TRAC-PF1/MODI to account for main-pipe stratification in determining fluid conditions in a side branch leads to significant discrepancies between the measured and predicted break line and hot leg densities and is identified as the main reason for the poorly predicted break mass flow rate.

Implementation, via the TRAC-PFI/MODI control system, of correlations for determining side branch quality as a function of main-pipe stratified liquid level are shown to be effective in improving the predicted hot leg and break line densities and break mass flow rate. The remaining differences between measured and predicted data are considered to be due to deficiencies in the TRAC-PFl/MOD1 critical flow model and the sensitivity of the break flow to the hot leg liquid level behaviour.

It is recommended that some means of accounting for the effect of main-pipe stratified liquid level, in determining fluid conditions in a side branch, be implemented in the TRAC-PFl/MODl code.

It is also suggested that a closer examination of the factors influencing the draining of the steam generator tubes is required to resolve the observed discrepancies in hot leg liquid level behaviour.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeSite Help

# NRC Site Search: Commission Documents

### Filter by Document Type

 All 

### Sort Documents by

Sort by                  - Relevance
                  - Date

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, December 28, 2023

#### Related Information

                - Commission Documents

Section Navigation

#### Site Help

          - Search All Sites
          - Main Site
          - News Releases
          - Public Documents (ADAMS)
          - Agency Correspondence
          - Commission Documents
          - Commission Papers
          - Commission Speeches
          - Contracts
          - Enforcement
          - Event Reports
          - Facility Locator
          - FOIA
          - Generic Communications
          - Glossary
          - Images
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Reports
          - NSTS Blog
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - Reactor Oversight
          - Regulations (10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides

#### 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
January 2, 2011

Eric J. Barnosky

315 Mississippi Ave.

Miles City, MT 59301

- 4133

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of Aviation Analysis

Essential Air Service Division

ATTN: Dennis J. DeVanny

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Essential Air Service (Eastern Montana)

Dear Mr. DeVanny;

Prior to Big Sky Airline ceasing to provide Essential Air S ervice to Eastern Montana, I was a

frequent flier. On average, I would travel via Big Sky Airlines within the State of Montana once

to t wice a month. My employment requires me to travel to from Miles City to the State Capital

in Helena at a minimum of once per month and occasionally as frequently as three times per

month. The distance from Miles City to Helena is 375 miles one way. Big Sky Airlines’ focus

was to provide reliable travel within the State of Montana connecting Eastern Montana with the

major cities within the State.

Since Great Lakes Aviation was awarded the Essential Air Service Contact for Eastern Montana,

I haven’t flown within the State of Montana once. Great Lakes Aviation provides air service

from Eastern Montana to Denver to connect with the major airline s for interstate travel. If a

traveler needs to trave l intra state between Eastern Montana and the major cities, G reat Lakes

Aviation is of no assistance. If I were to travel from Miles City to Helena via Great Lakes

Aviation, the route would be as follows, Miles City to Billings, Billings to Denver, CO, and

finally Denver, CO to Helena. Of course the travel time, p oor connections, and fare makes flight

this un feasible.

My needs are not unique. W hen I use to travel from Eastern Montana to Helena and other major

cities within Montana, the plane was often full. I can’t begin to count the number of times others

have shared with me since Big Sky Airlines ceased to provide service in Montana that they no

longer use essential air service to travel withi n the state because the connections aren’t provided

by Great Lakes Aviation.

I have no preference between Great Lakes A viation and Gulfstream International except to say

that whoever is awarded the contract for this important service must be required to provideE ssential Air S ervice that truly connects Eastern Montana with the remainder of the State

, not

just to Denver, CO for interstate travel.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of Eastern Montana’s needs in choosing an airline

to provide Essential Air S ervice.

Sincerely

Eric J. Barnosky

Cc: Senator Max Baucus

Senator Jo n Tester

Representative Denny Reh bergMax Baucus

511 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20510

Jon Tester

724 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

- 2604

Phone: (202) 224

- 2644

Denny Rehberg

2448 Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC, 20515
# C_2004196EN.01000802.xml

| 3.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3373 — ACCOR/COLONY/DESSEIGNE-BARRIERE/JV)

(2004/C 196/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 June 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3373. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below: |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3373. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

---