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

# In This Section

                      -  PHMSA Rules 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 49 CFR Parts 100-199

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents here: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The eCFR is also searchable by keyword and other available options on the eCFR website. To search and browse regulations using the eCFR website, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

Search the eCFR

# 

# Pagination

-  «« First 
-  ‹‹ Previous 
- …
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 
-  10 
- …
-  ›Next › 
-  »Last »
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSIT BUS RETROFIT, STATEWIDE

RACM Analysis

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Transit Bus Retrofit - 1

Control Measure:

Transit Bus Retrofit

Description:

Older, higher-emitting buses will be fitted with emissions reducing retrofit technology.

Documentation:

N/A

Methodology:

All model year 1992-2002 buses in the fleet will be equipped with retrofit technology. 

Retrofitting model year 1992-2002 buses is assumed to have the greatest potential to reduce 

emissions due to existing regulations and fleet age.

Inputs/Assumptions:

 A Lubrizol Engine Control Systems, Purifilter Diesel Particulate Filter would be used to 

retrofit the buses. 

o This filter is a verified EPA retrofit technology and is estimated to reduce VOC 

emissions by 85% and PM emissions by 90%. 

o The filter has no affect on NOx emissions.

 All model year 1992-2002 buses in the fleet will be equipped with retrofit technology.

 Retrofitting model year 1992-2002 buses is assumed to have the greatest potential to 

reduce emissions due to existing regulations and fleet age.

 34.4% of all transit bus VMT (both daily and annual) can be attributed to model year 

1992-2002 buses.

 Because no estimates could be found on the affect of retrofit technology on SO2 

emissions, a zero benefit was assumed.

 MOBILE6.2 was used to generate emission factors and VMT.

Results:

Total Affected VMT:

Daily

Model Years 1992-2002 = 38,654 miles/day

Annual

Model Years 1992-2002 = 14,453,822 miles/year

Benefits (Emission Reductions):

Pollutant

Type

Analysis Year 2009

tons/day tons/year

VOC 0.02 1.54

NOx 0.00 0.00

PM2.5 0.00 4.93

SO2 NA 0.00
from appellant's knowing acquiescence in existing conditions, 2and the

State may suffer prejudice from the delay. See Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-64, 1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty 

## ek 3+‘ Parragui

cc: Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge Jose Luis Valencia, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County District Attorney Churchill County Clerk

2 Appellant previously filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 2009. Valencia v. State, Docket No. 55317 (Order of Affirmance, May 7, 2010). He failed to demonstrate why the claims raised in his current motion could not have been raised in his previous motion.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.1

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                10% SENIOR UNSECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE


     THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of March 31, 2003, by and between
[_____________________________] (the "Holder") and ServiceWare Technologies,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

     WHEREAS, the Company has heretofore issued to the Holder that certain 10%
Senior Unsecured Convertible Promissory Note, dated as of __________________, in
principal amount of $_________________ (the "Note"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder have agreed to amend the Note, subject
to the terms and conditions herein;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual
covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1. Section 2(a) of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety
as follows:

        "(a) Payment of principal of, and accrued and unpaid interest on, this
Note or any other amounts then due to the Holder under this Note or any other
Note Document, shall be made no later than 2:00 p.m., New York City Time, in
whole, on July 15, 2004 (the "MATURITY DATE"), by wire transfer of immediately
available funds to such account as the Holder shall have specified by written
notice to the Company as provided in the Note Purchase Agreement, or in such
other manner as instructed from time to time in writing by the Holder."

     2. The definition of "Conversion Price" set forth in Section 1 of the Note
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

        ""CONVERSION PRICE" means $0.25, subject to adjustment from time to time
as set forth in Section 7 below."

     3. Except as amended hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Note
shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.


                  [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


<PAGE>




    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Holder have caused this Amendment to
be duly executed, all as of the day and year first above written.




                                By:
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Name:
                                    Title:


                                SERVICEWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




                                By:  /s/ Scott Schwartzman
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                     Name:    Scott Schwartzman
                                     Title:   COO/CFO
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a)or 15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I,Joseph Loggia, certify that:

(1)          I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the “registrant”);

(2)          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

(3)          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

(5)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 14, 2006
|        | By:    |  /s/ Joseph Loggia |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Joseph Loggia           |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### §3334. Officers and staff

The Chairperson of the Appraisal Subcommittee shall appoint such officers and staff as may be necessary to carry out the functions of this chapter consistent with the appointment and compensation practices of the Council.

(Pub. L. 101–73, title XI, §1105, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 512.)
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1248

To correct errors in the authorizations of certain programs administered

by the National Highway Traffic Administration.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 21, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for Mr. MCCAIN) (for himself and Mr. HOLLINGS) introduced the

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

Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To correct errors in the authorizations of certain programs

administered by the National Highway Traffic Administration.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES

4 CODE.

5 (a) MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY.—Section 30104 of

6 title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking

7 ‘‘$81,200,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$98,313,500’’.
2

S 1248 IS

1 (b) MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATION.—Section 32102

2 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking

3 ‘‘$6,200,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$9,562,500’’.

Æ
# C_2007056EN.01002603.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2007 — Van Neyghem v Committee of the Regions of the European Union

(Case T-288/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade and step - Pay slip - Late complaint - Admissibility)

(2007/C 56/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Tirlemont, Belgium) (represented by: D. Janssens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (represented by: P. Cervilla, Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of Decision 87/03 of the Committee of the Regions of 26 March 2003 which definitively classified the applicant in Grade B 5, Step 4.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Grey, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 678]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J), rendered January 5, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal impersonation in the first degree, petit larceny, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence because the testimony of the prosecution’s eyewitness was unreliable. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions that are to be determined by the jury, who saw and heard the witnesses testify *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]; *People v Highsmith,*21 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2005]). The jury was able to weigh the strength of the conflicting testimony before it, and it gave the eyewitness’ *833testimony its due weight (see *People v Hart,*8 AD3d 402, 405 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see *People v Regan,*11 AD3d 640 [2004]).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, proof of less than meaningful representation is required, ráther than mere disagreement with counsel’s strategies and tactics (see *People v Henry,*95 NY2d 563, 565-566 [2000]). Generally, “the issue is whether counsel’s performance ‘viewed in totality’ amounts to ‘meaningful representation’ ” *(People v Turner,*5 NY3d 476, 480 [2005], quoting *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137,147 [1981]; see *also People v Schulz,*4 NY3d 521, 531 [2005]). The defendant failed to show that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for his trial counsel’s decisions (see *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1166

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that natural gas

gathering lines are 7-year property for purposes of depreciation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 27, 1999

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify

that natural gas gathering lines are 7-year property for

purposes of depreciation.

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

3 SECTION 1. NATURAL GAS GATHERING LINES TREATED AS

4 7-YEAR PROPERTY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section

6 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to classification of certain property) is amended by redes8 ignating clause (ii) as clause (iii) and by inserting after

9 clause (i) the following new clause:
2

•S 1166 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) any natural gas gathering line,

2 and’’.

3 (b) NATURAL GAS GATHERING LINE.—Subsection (i)

4 of section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph:

7 ‘‘(15) NATURAL GAS GATHERING LINE.—The

8 term ‘natural gas gathering line’ means—

9 ‘‘(A) the pipe, equipment, and appur10 tenances determined to be a gathering line by

11 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or

12 ‘‘(B) the pipe, equipment, and appur13 tenances used to deliver natural gas from the

14 wellhead to the point at which such gas first

15 reaches—

16 ‘‘(i) a gas processing plant,

17 ‘‘(ii) an interconnection with a trans18 mission pipeline certified by the Federal

19 Energy Regulatory Commission as an

20 interstate transmission pipeline,

21 ‘‘(iii) an interconnection with an

22 intrastate transmission pipeline, or

23 ‘‘(iv) a direct interconnection with a

24 local distribution company, a gas storage

25 facility, or an industrial consumer.’’.
3

•S 1166 IS

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service be3 fore, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 9002.6 Major party.

*Major party* means a political party whose candidate for the office of President in the preceding Presidential election received, as a candidate of such party, 25 percent or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office. For the purposes of 11 CFR 9002.6, *candidate* means, with respect to any preceding Presidential election, an individual who received popular votes for the office of President in such election.
From: Timothy W Lohner To: Deborah Bartram Cc: Thomas Finseth ; Ron Jordan <RONALD JORDAN Subject: RE: Confirmation of CBI Status of Sumitted Report Date: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:40:33 PM

Deb, AEP concurs with EPA’s identification of the Amos Plant in the public record for the effluent guidelines rulemaking. The only restriction would be to note that the EPRI report is still protected under copyright.

Tim

Tim Lohner, Ph.D. Consulting Environmental Specialist American Electric Power, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215
614-716-1255 twlohner@aep.com

From: Deborah Bartram [mailto:Deborah.Bartram@erg.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:13 PM To: Timothy W Lohner Cc: Deborah Bartram; Thomas Finseth; Ron Jordan <RONALD JORDAN Subject: Confirmation of CBI Status of Sumitted Report



### This is an EXTERNAL email. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN attachments.

Hi Tim,

Thank you for discussing the ERPI report, Mitigation of SCR-Ammonia Related Aqueous Effects in a Fly Ash Pond, submitted by you as a CBI document to EPA as part of the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines . As we discussed, this report is now freely available from EPRI’s web site and as such, EPA would like to include it in the final record for the effluent guidelines rulemaking. The report currently does not identify the power plant where the study took place, but there are a number of identifying characteristics listed in the report, including the name of the receiving water where the ash pond discharges, such that knowledgeable people could determine the plant identity.

EPA would like to identify the plant in the public record, and would like AEP’s concurrence that the plant identity is not considered CBI. We look forward to hearing from you on this topic!

Thank you! 

### Deb Bartram

Deborah M. Bartram VP, Water ProgramsERG 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly VA 20151
703-633-1669 deborah.bartram@erg.com
Part II
Item 6. (continued)

                                 EXHIBIT 12(b)

                       CHASE PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION
               Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                   and preferred stock dividend requirements
                   -----------------------------------------
                                   (Unaudited)


                                    For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1997
                                           (in thousands, except ratio):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net income                                            $60,641
                                                      -------
                                                 
Fixed charges:                                   
  Advisory fees                                           188
                                                      -------
                                                 
Total fixed charges                                       188
                                                      -------
                                                 
Earnings before fixed charges                         $60,829
                                                      =======
                                                 
Fixed charges, as above                               $   188
                                                 
Preferred stock dividend                         
 requirements                                          33,413
                                                      -------
                                                 
Fixed charges including preferred                
stock dividends                                       $33,601
                                                      =======
                                     
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
  preferred stock dividend requirements                 1.81
                                                      =======


                                      -17-
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Plan Terminations 
-  PBGC-Initiated Terminations 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# PBGC-Initiated Terminations

## What is a PBGC-initiated termination?

The law provides that PBGC may terminate a pension plan, even if a company has not filed to terminate a plan on its own initiative, if:
                          - the plan has not met the minimum funding requirements;
                          - the plan cannot pay current benefits when due;
                          - a lump sum payment has been made to a participant who is a substantial owner of the sponsoring company; or
                          - the loss to PBGC is expected to increase unreasonably if the plan is not terminated.

PBGC must terminate a plan if assets are unavailable to pay benefits currently due.

## Contact info for PBGC-initiated terminations

**Mailing address:**

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation445 12th Street SWWashington, DC 20024-2101

**Phone:** 1-800-736-2444, Ext. 4100, or (202) 229-4242

July 27, 2022
#### § 9420.6 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the Commission shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C. 4151-4157 apply to buildings covered by this section.