alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Working with PHMSA 
-  Hazardous Materials Grants 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Grants Program Overview 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grant 
                      -  Assistance for Local Emergency Response Training (ALERT) 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Instructor Training (HMIT) Grant 
                      -  Supplemental Public Sector Training (SPST) Grant 
                      -  Community Safety (CS) Grant 
                      -  Reports to Congress 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Roundtable 
                      -  Hazmat Incident Response Training Resources 

## Related Links

                  -                                          U.S. Department of Transportation Awards Nearly $100 Million in Grants to Suppo...                   

## Contact Us

Hazardous Materials Grants Program
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**hmep.grants@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-1109****Alt Phone:**800-467-4922****Fax:**202-366-7342**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Hazardous Materials Safety Inspection (HMSI)

## Overview

The Hazardous Materials State Inspection (HMSI) Grant is a new financial assistance program (as of FY 2022) that provides grants to states for the performance of hazardous material shipper inspections that leverage available resources, improve the safety of hazardous materials transport, reduce fatalities, and reduce injuries.

Funding: Up to $2.5 million

Examples: Cost of hazmat shipper inspections to include personnel, travel, equipment, supplies, and training for hazmat inspectors.

## Related Links

                        - Delphi eInvoicing System
                        - FY2020 Supplemental Public Sector Training Grant Notice of Funding Opportunity
                        - Hazmat Grants Portal
                        - PHMSA Hazmat Grants Program Overview
                        - Guidelines for Hazardous Materials Response, Planning and Prevention/Mitigation Training
                        - Hazardous Materials Incident Response & Operations Training Modules
                        - 49 USC 5107(e): Hazmat Employee Training Requirements and Grants
                        - 49 USC 5128(c): Authorization of Appropriations
                        - National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO)
Document

SCHEDULE OF SIGNATORIES TO DIRECTOR
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS




1. Betty R. Johnson


2. William E. Waltz Jr.


3. A. Mark Zeffiro


4. Jeri L. Isbell


5. Wilbert W. James Jr


6. Michael V. Schrock


7. Justin A. Kershaw


8. Scott H. Muse


9. William R. VanArsdale
Exhibit
31.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of Dignyte, Inc., pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I,
Darwin Fogt, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 of eWellness Healthcare Corporation.
(the “registrant”);



2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



|Date:
    June 25, 2014                                                | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                       | 
|/s/
    Darwin Fogt                                                    | 
|Darwin Fogt, Chief
    Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
### [§2890a. Renumbered §2851a]
§ 115.188 Data review for corrective action. ( a ) The agency shall review data collected and aggregated pursuant to § 115.187 in order to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training, including by: ( 1 ) Identifying problem areas;
( 2 ) Taking corrective action on an ongoing basis; and
( 3 ) Preparing an annual report of its findings and corrective actions for the agency as a whole.
( b ) Such report shall include a comparison of the current year's data and corrective actions with those from prior years and shall provide an assessment of the agency's progress in preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse.
( c ) The agency's report shall be approved by the agency head and made readily available to the public through its Web site.
( d ) The agency may redact specific material from the reports, when appropriate for safety or security, but must indicate the nature of the material redacted.
§ 547.3 Who is responsible for implementing these standards? ( a ) *Minimum standards.* These are minimum standards and a TGRA may establish and implement additional technical standards that do not conflict with the standards set out in this part.
( b ) *No limitation of technology.* This part should not be interpreted to limit the use of technology or to preclude the use of technology not specifically referenced.
( c ) *Only applicable standards apply.* Gaming equipment and software must meet all applicable requirements of this part. For example, if a Class II gaming system lacks the ability to print or accept vouchers, then any standards that govern vouchers do not apply. These standards do not apply to associated equipment such as voucher and kiosk systems.
( d ) *State jurisdiction.* Nothing in this part should be construed to grant to a state jurisdiction over Class II gaming or to extend a state's jurisdiction over Class III gaming.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          68,808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,519
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 653,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,087
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,765,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   653,822
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  610,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (608,490)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (608,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (608,490)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Reginald J. Marie, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 467]

Carpinello, J.E

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered September 1, 2005 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Fetitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting fighting, engaging in violent conduct, creating a disturbance, assaulting staff, refusing a direct order and refusing to be frisked. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer ordered that petitioner be removed because of his unruly conduct. The hearing continued in petitioner’s absence and he was ultimately found guilty of all charges. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CFLR article 78 proceeding alleging that his due process right to be present at the hearing had been violated. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. The record reveals that, at the start of the hearing, petitioner advised the Hearing Officer that he did not respect his authority. As the hearing progressed, petitioner became increasingly disruptive by speaking loudly and intermpting the Hearing Officer. Thus, in view of petitioner’s argumentative and uncooperative behavior, we cannot say that the Hearing Officer’s decision to remove him from the hearing was in error *(see Matter of Raqiyb v Goord,*24 AD3d 1013, 1013 [2005]; *Matter of Polanco v Bennett,*6 AD3d 846, 846 [2004]; *Matter of Webb v Goord,*269 AD2d 641, 642 [2000]).

Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of James Joseph M., Respondent, v Rosana R., Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 186]

Appeal from orders, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.), entered on or about January 6, 2006, which limited respondent mother’s visitation with the child to strict supervision by the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and prohibited the mother from any contact or communication with the child’s school, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Respondent argues that the court abused its discretion by restricting her visitation without granting her a hearing. This issue was rendered moot by a later hearing resulting in dismissal of the father’s petition and restoration of respondent’s visitation *(see Matter of Jamela B.,*28 AD3d 478 [2006]), and no exception to the mootness doctrine applies *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Concur—Friedman, J.P, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### § 2.502 May I withdraw my appeal once it has been filed?

Yes. You may withdraw your appeal at any time before the reviewing official issues a decision. To withdraw an appeal, you must write to the reviewing official and all participants stating that you want to withdraw your appeal. If you withdraw your appeal, it will be dismissed by the reviewing official. While the dismissal of a withdrawn appeal is without prejudice, the appeals time frame set out in this part will be unaffected by a withdrawn appeal. Therefore, any refiling of a withdrawn appeal must be within the original filing deadline established pursuant to § 2.104.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

82-32 

October 28, 1982 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4221 Resolution of Disputes 

OPINION: 

 This responds to your letter requesting our opinion concerning arbitration over withdrawal liability as required by

Section 4221 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Multiemployer

Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 Pub. L. 96-364, 94 STAT. 1208 (September 26, 1980) ("Multiemployer Act").

Specifically you wish to know what procedure to follow, in the absence of a PBGC regulation on the subject, when the

parties to a dispute do not agree on the selection of an arbitrator. 

Under Section 4221 of ERISA arbitration of withdrawal liability disputes is to be conducted in accordance with fair

and equitable procedures to be promulgated by the PBGC. While PBGC is working on such a regulation, there is no

need to await its publication. In the interim, multiemployer plan sponsors and employers may use any reasonable

procedures, such as those established by the American Arbitration Association and the Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service. See Section 405(a) of the Multiemployer Act, 94 STAT. 1303. 

Section 4221(b)(3) provides that arbitration proceedings be conducted in the same manner and subject [*2] to the

same limitations as an arbitration proceeding carried out under title 9, United States Code. Therefore, if the parties are

unable to agree on the naming of an arbitrator or to fair and equitable arbitration procedures they may apply to the court

for appropriate relief. 

I hope this has been of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 
-  Rulemaking 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

# Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee September 2020 Meeting Minutes

LIBASAC Sept 16-17 Meeting Minutes.pdf (3.57 MB)

Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee September 2020 Meeting Minutes

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          lithiumbatteryFACA@dot.gov.*
# C_2007020EN.01001201.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 27 November 2006 — BVBA Van Landeghem v Belgian State

(Case C-486/06)

(2007/C 20/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BVBA Van Landeghem

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgian State

Defendant:

Question referred

‘Should pick-ups — that is to say, motor vehicles consisting, on the one hand, of an enclosed cabin for use as a passenger compartment, there being behind the driver's seat folding or removable seats with three-point safety belts, and, on the other hand, of a load space which is separated from the cabin, is not higher than 50 centimetres, can be opened only at the rear and has no facilities for attaching a load — which were equipped with a highly luxurious, full-option interior (including electrically adjustable seats, leather seats, electrically operated mirrors and windows, a stereo with a CD player, etc.), an ABS braking system, an automatic, 4 to 8-litre, very high fuel-consumption engine, four-wheel drive and luxurious (sports) rims, be classified, if put into circulation and released for home use in the period between 10 April 1995 and 4 December 1997, under heading 87.03 of the then applicable combined nomenclature (originally introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature), as motor cars and other motor vehicles, principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading No 87.02), including motor vehicles of the “station wagon” or “break” type and racing cars, or under heading 87.04 of the then applicable combined nomenclature as motor vehicles for the transport of goods, or under a heading other than headings 87.03 or 87.04 of the then applicable combined nomenclature?’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2


                              CERTIFICATION OF THE

              EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31,  2005  of  KeySpan  Corporation  (the  "Corporation"),  as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Gerald
Luterman,   Executive  Vice  President  and  Chief  Financial   Officer  of  the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     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 results of operations of the Company.



Date:       April 29, 2005


                                                     /s/ Gerald Luterman
                                                       Gerald Luterman
                                                    Executive Vice President
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 
-  Pipeline Technical Resources 

# In This Section

                      -  RIN 2 Overview 
                      -  RIN 2 Objectives 
                      -  RIN 2 Resources 
                      -  RIN 2 - Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines Communication 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Pipeline Rulemaking Implementation                   

# Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines Overview: Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments, RIN 2 Overview

## Overview

PHMSA revised the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to improve the safety of onshore gas transmission pipelines. This final rule addressed several lessons learned following the Pacific Gas and Electric Company incident that occurred in San Bruno, CA, on September 9, 2010, and responded to public input received as part of the rulemaking process. The amendments in this final rule clarify certain integrity management provisions, codify a management of change process, update and bolster gas transmission pipeline corrosion control requirements, require operators to inspect pipelines following extreme weather events, strengthen integrity management assessment requirements, adjust the repair criteria for high-consequence areas, create new repair criteria for non-high consequence areas, and revise or create specific definitions related to the above amendments.

**2022 Final Rule Publication Date:** August 24, 2022**Effective Date:** May 05, 2023
#### § 309.27 How are complaints filed?

Complaints about protected products alleged to be offered or displayed for sale or sold in a manner that falsely suggests they are Indian products should be made in writing and addressed to the Director, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Room 4004-MIB, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.

[61 FR 54555, Oct. 21, 1996. Redesignated at 68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003]
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# 20th CBRNE Soldiers Complete Ulchi Freedom Guardian

By Walter T. Ham IV20th CBRNE Command Public Affairs

                YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

pacom

news

articles
Annex A

TITLE 204. JUDICIAL SYSTEM GENERAL PROVISIONS

PART II. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 29. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Subchapter K. COSTS, FINES AND FEES

§ 29.401a. Consumer Price Index

- costs and fines.

Pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and 42 Pa.C.S. § 1721, the Supreme Court has authorized the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania to obtain and publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on or before November 30 the percentage i ncrease in the Consumer Price Index for calendar year 2016 as required by Act 96 of 2010 , 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 1725.1(f) and 3571(c)(4)(as amended). See

No. 488 Judicial Administration Docket.

The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania reports that the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, for calendar year

2016 was 2 .1% percent. ( See , U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series CUUROOOOSAO, January 20, 2017.)
§ 158.402 DHS-CS cybersecurity work and CTMS qualifications identification. On an ongoing basis, the Secretary or designee analyzes the DHS cybersecurity mission to identify: ( a ) The functions that execute the DHS cybersecurity mission;
( b ) The cybersecurity work required to perform, manage, or supervise those functions; and
( c ) The set of qualifications, identified in accordance with applicable legal and professional guidelines, necessary to perform that work.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Dayton Marshall, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 60379;

First District (5th Division)

November 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

*83Katz, Hirsch & Wise, Ltd., of Chicago (Allan A. Ackerman, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Michael J. Polelle, Assistant State’s .Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.