alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Methodology for Combining Dynamic Responses (NUREG-0484, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0484, Revision 1 (PDF - 1.01 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**April 1980 **Date Published:**May 1980 

**Prepared by:** R. K. Mattu

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The NRC has historically required that the structural/mechanical responses due to various accident loads and loads caused by natural phenomena (such as earthquakes) be combined when analyzing structures, systems, and components important to safety. This requirement flows from lOCFR50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 2, which calls for an appropriate combination of the effects of the above events to be reflected in the design bases of safety equipment. This requirement has been implemented in various ways both within the NRC and the Nuclear Industry. An NRR Working Group constituted to examine load combination methodologies developed recommendations which were published in September 1978 as NUREG 0484. NRC adopted the Working Group's recommendations which stated: "For the combination of the dynamic responses within the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary (RCPB) and its supports which result from the coincidence of an SSE and LOCA, the Square Root of the Sums of the Squares (SRSS) technique is acceptable contingent upon performance of a linear elastic dynamic analysis to meet the appropriate ASME Code, Section III, Service Limit." Revision 1 of NUREG-0484 extends the conclusions of the original NUREG-0484 on the use of SRSS methodology for the combination of SSE and LOCA responses beyond RCPB to any other ASME Section III, Class 1, 2, or 3 affected system, component or support, and provides criteria for the combination of dynamic responses other than SSE and LOCA.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1239 

To amend the Clean Air Act with respect to the ethanol waiver for the 

Reid vapor pressure limitations under that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2015 

Mr. DONNELLY (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act with respect to the ethanol 

waiver for the Reid vapor pressure limitations under 

that Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ETHANOL WAIVER. 

4 Section 211(h)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 7545(h)(4)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

7 by inserting ‘‘or more’’ after ‘‘10 percent’’; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1239 IS

1 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘additional 

2 alcohol or’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 113 

To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the Bureau of Land 

Management are reviewed in a timely manner. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the 

Bureau of Land Management are reviewed in a timely 

manner. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Land Job Cre5 ation Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REVIEW OF CERTAIN FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES. 

7 If, by the date that is 45 days after the date on which 

8 a State Bureau of Land Management office has submitted 

9 a Federal Register notice to the Washington, DC, office 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 113 IS

1 of the Bureau of Land Management for Department of 

2 the Interior review, the review has not been completed— 

3 (1) the notice shall consider to be approved; 

4 and 

5 (2) the State Bureau of Land Management of6 fice shall immediately forward the notice to the Fed7 eral Register for publication. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Brueggeman, Respondent, vs. Woelky and wife, Appellants, and Radke and wife, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated February 18, 1927: E. T. Fairchild, Judge.

• Reformation and specific performance. Judgment in favor of plaintiff, from which defendants *Anton Woelky*and *Anna*Woelky, his wife, appeal.

For the appellants: *John C. Davey,*attorney, and *Lilian M. Kohlmetz,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent *Brueggeman: Otto A. Lemke*and *M. H. Sell,*both of Milwaukee.

For the respondents *Radke: Rudolph L. Forrer*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
1

1.•

,...... .

*.....1• n••• nn•n&I -

SBC—MT/ 2215542Z January 1965

!..

.• • • i • •• •

*UNCTIONS; CIA

/FUNCTIONS: NRO

CORCNA

1. There have been several instances recently where CORONA contractors

have received cables, letters and/or phone calls froM various sources in

the government which have requested and/or directed that certain work be

accomplished. Therefore, at the request of the contractors and in the best

interests of overall management of this program fro acting and

ccntract administration standpoint, a reiteration of ntractine

officer's policies and procedires covering this program is set forth below:

Contractors shall not implement or conduct work outside the contract

scope and/or specifications •:ithout the expressed approval of the conte-acting

officer or his duly authorize:: representative. For i. •

corned, t:1.A A y authorized representative is

located

The contractual instruments which constitute contract specifications

and/or scope are presently set forth in your respective contracts. These

noay be changed only by written direction from the contracting officer or in

the form of a technical directive signed by the contracting officer or his duly

authorized representative.

C. In order for the contracting officer or his duly authorized representative to expeditiously handle the approvals of requests for changes and/or

technical directives, it is mandatory that they be kept informed of such proposed increases in contract scope from the very beginning. This will er.r.ble

the contracting officer to ascertain the availability of funds, obtain additional

facilities, if necessary, and determine from authoriv that the change is

satiofactory from an operational standpoint.

2. in view of the foregoing, it is requested that the contracting officer be

fu...tished at the time of initiation copies of correspondence or made info Cr.

correspondence of all requests for additional work made by any arancy

f the government. With respect to contemplated effort ated at

all requests and responses will be sent through with

info copies to the contracting officer.

1.7.NCONTROLLED COPY 

• '

-

cif

•
#### Steven and another, Trustees, Respondents, vs. Joyce, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Frawley •& Stolts,*attorneys, and *W. H. Frawley, Jr.,*of counsel, all of Eau Claire.

For the respondents: *Bundy, Beach & Holland*of Eau Claire.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005093EN.01000401.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/4

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case C-222/03 P Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - EAGGF - Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed - Plan to build a centre for the storage, packaging and marketing of olive oil - Principle of proportionality - Force majeure - Rights of the defence)

(2005/C 93/07)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-222/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 21 May 2003, Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL), Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), (lawyers: E. Cappelli, P. De Caterini and A. Bandini), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 16 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali and Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli shall pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali and Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli shall pay the costs of this appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003

1

---
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE MANDLI ", •. 

,~ DEClASs'iFIED BY: C/IART· TBP SE6RET BYEMAN . \ .• 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2012 

151 NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFiCe:· 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

1'\1:1:1,.1: I"'IF THE OEPUTY DIRECTOR 

_.-

---_ .. 

-'1-- ..... _-~ 

~ 

, 

~==~e ..0 

S\ 

~;;! D ___ _ 

January 28, 1970 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE I?IRECTOR, NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

SUBJECT: Second·and Third Reports 

of the HEXAGON Revi~w Committee, 

I have been reporting.to you on a weekly basis the 

progress of the HEXAGON Program. The probability of the contractors' meeting the initial, launch date of December 1970 

has deteriorated markedly ·since October 15, 1969, the time I 

undertook a "mid-term'· review by Diy Coinmi ttee. Nevertheless 

at its recent·review of the Program, the Committee' concluded 

th·a.t· the proba.bi1i ty it ascribed last June to adela.y in" the 

initial launch was still correct. Hence the conclusion waa 

still valid: Although ·there 1s a finite. risk of a reduction 

in collection s.atlsfaction during the one year overlap period 

'wi th CORONA as exp~a~ned last June, no new CORONA v·ehicle$ 

should be purchased. 

Attachments 

BYE-13478-69, Nov. 4, 1969 

BYE-12546-70, Jan·. 22, 19.70 

F. Robert Naka 

CORONA HEXAGON 

HANOU VIA 

'BYEMAN lap SEeRE{ IICLUG" nOM aUfOMAnc III •• """ 

DOD "'IC"'II ...... ,. DOn NO' APPLY 

colnllO .... oBYE-12566-70 

co,. I 0' CO"" 

'Ae •. ___ O' ___ MU. 

I 

I 

I 

I' 

I . I 

I 

! 

I 

I 

I
# C_2005143EN.01002503.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 January 2005 in F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-151/05)

(2005/C 143/38)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 13 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

| 1. | Does Article 70 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code apply where it is necessary to establish whether a product in respect of which recovery of export duty is sought is of marketable quality? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 70 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code apply where it is necessary to establish whether a product in respect of which recovery of export duty is sought is of marketable quality?

1

| 2. | Is confirmation of sound and fair marketable quality within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (2) of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, given in a national application for payment, information for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3665/97 in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 3665/97? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is confirmation of sound and fair marketable quality within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (2) of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, given in a national application for payment, information for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3665/97 in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 3665/97?

2

---

(1)  OJ L 302, p. 1

1

(2)  OJ L 351, p. 1.

2

---
Hx'-SECRil' , . . '. . 

K'

.' G PAPErt DESTRO YNROrAPPROVEDFOR RELEASE 

WOR... t' - (iI\ DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

OR CONTROL B ~-DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 .JULY 2012. 

. TO: 

FROM:" 

OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

OPTO-MECHANICAL DESIGN SECTION 

'Distribution 

L.B. Molaskey ·vI 

Memorandum ME 57 

DATE: September IS, 1971 

SUBJECT: Telecon - Lt. Commander R. Anderson - USN - San Die.go, Calif. 

I called Lt. Cdr. Anderson to check on the Progress with the fabrication of the underwater recovery hook and the schedule for the recovery tests~ 

He indicated that the project is proceeding on.or near to the original schedule. 

The assembly of the hook should start before the end of the week and be complete. 

by Friday, September 17th. The test program will start on Monday the 20th with 

the hook being use4 to pick upa loaded 55 gatlo~ drum from a sandy beach uSing 

a crane. Various immersion depths will be tried to evaluate. the ability of the . 

. hook' to penetrate the oc:ean bottom. These tests wui be performed in air. 

The Trieste is scheduled to depart from San Diego on 24 September,' 

prepared to go all the way to Hawaii. On Monday the 27th of September an underwater recovery test. will be performed somewhere at sea off the coast of california. 

~ dummy RV, provided by SPO, will be dropped in about 2000 feet of water and the 

Trieste will dry run the recovery.operation. " . 

Two back-up schemes have been devised and are being prepared by the 

Navy. Both schemes employ net type hardware which will be attached to the winch 

on the Trieste. It is planned to test at least one of these devices'at sea also • . ':" ~', -

Lt. Cdr. Anderson is leaving for Hawaii at the end of this week. He 

designated Lt. Cdr. R. Doyle a8 the contact in San Diego for the teat program. 

Lt. Cdr. Anderson will be the contact in Hawaii. 

For the record I asked Lt. Cdr. Anderson the name of the Captain of 

Submarine Development Group I which I neglected to record on our first viait. 

The captain's name is Samuel Packer. 

Lt. Cdr. Anderson suggested that I Join the test team 011 KllIday, 

20 September to assist in both the in-air tests and the at~.ea tests. He i. 

making arrangements for a ship to meet the Trieste at the test site. I plan to 

arrive early on the afternoon of the 20th, support the in-air tests and join' 

the Trieste at sea on the 27th. . 

LBM/cj 

ec: M.F. Maguire 

H.W. Robertson 

R.W. Jones 

C. Karatzas 

P. Petty.' 

R. Roylance 

... ~) 

~.~skey. ~~ . 

. ... i 

I 

"! 

, 

:j. 

, i
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

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

 

Pursuant to, and solely for purposes of, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), each of the undersigned hereby certifies inthe capacity and on the date indicated below that:

 

1.             The QuarterlyReport of Cache, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 26,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Cache, Inc.

 

 
| November 5,  2009 | By:  | /s/  Thomas E. Reinckens                               |
|------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |      | Thomas  E. Reinckens                                   |
| * *               | * *  | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*                 |
|                   |      | (Principal  Executive Officer)                         |
|                   |      |                                                   |
|                   |      |                                                   |
| November 5,  2009 | By:  | /s/  Margaret Feeney                                   |
|                   |      | Margaret  Feeney                                       |
| * *               | * *  | *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |
|                   |      | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)           |

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsRulemaking Dockets

# Rulemaking Dockets for 2001

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 Monday, April 29, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 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 Monday, April 29, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         207,052
<SECURITIES>                                   249,317
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    238,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               841,782
<PP&E>                                         141,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,652,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          220,571
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,663
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,073,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,652,179
<SALES>                                        202,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,894
<CGS>                                           98,326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  180,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,307,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,285,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,285,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,285,556)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 13-1273

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Shannon E. Williams lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: October 28, 2013 Filed: November 4, 2013 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Following the dismissal of a petition to re voke his supervised release, federal inmate Shannon Williams filed a motion in the district court 1 seeking attorney’s fees
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Nebraska.under the Hyde Amendment. See Pub. L. 105-119, Title VI § 617, 111 Stat. 2519 (reprinted in 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, historical and statutory notes) (in criminal case, court may award attorney’s fees to prevailing pa rty, where it finds position of United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith). The district court denied the motion, determining there was no evidence that th e government’s petition for revocation was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. W illiams appeals. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for attorney’s fees or the request for a hearing. See United States v. Porchay , 533 F.3d 704, 711 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of attorn ey’s fees under Hyde Amendment reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Bowman , 380 F.3d 387, 390 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (denial of hearing on motion for attorney’s fees under Hyde Amendment reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-