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

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Outreach & Engagement 
                      -  Training Requirements for Industry 
                      -  Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) 
                      -  Workshops 
                      -  Webinars 
                      -  Community Liaisons (CLs) 
                      -  Publications 
                      -  Publicaciones (en español) 
                      -  Newsletters 
                      -  Training Modules 
                      -  Videos and Mobile Apps 
                      -  Contact Us 

# Safety Tips for Lithium-Ion Battery-Powered Micromobility Devices

PHH50-0206-1023-Consumer-Safety-Tips-for-Micromobility-Devices.pdf (1.04 MB)

Safety Tips for Lithium-Ion Battery-Powered Micromobility Devices

*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          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
§ 158.901 Federal employee rights and processes. ( a ) *Adverse actions:* Nothing in this part affects the rights of CS employees under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75, 5 U.S.C. 4303, and 5 CFR parts 432 and 752.
( b ) *Reductions in force.* The provisions of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Subchapter I and 5 CFR part 351 regarding reductions in force apply to talent management actions taken under this part.
( c ) *Redress with third parties.* Nothing in this part affects the rights, as provided by law, of a DHS-CS employee to seek review before a third party of a talent management action taken under this part involving that employee, including seeking review before the: ( 1 ) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, regarding discrimination under Federal anti-discrimination laws;
( 2 ) Merit Systems Protection Board, regarding matters such as adverse actions under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75 or Chapter 43 and individual rights of action under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 12;
( 3 ) Office of Special Counsel, regarding matters such as whistleblower retaliation and other prohibited personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. 2302 and the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 7321 *et seq.*); and
( 4 ) Department of Labor, regarding matters covered by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (38 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.*).
( d ) *Back pay.* Back pay remains available under 5 U.S.C. 5596 and 5 CFR part 550, subpart H, for unjustified or unwarranted talent management actions.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Exactech, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Petty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|                                            
|/s/ William Petty                           
|William Petty, M. D. Chief Executive Officer
|March 13, 2009
§ 46.115 IRB records. ( a ) An institution, or when appropriate an IRB, shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including the following: ( 1 ) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent forms, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to subjects.
( 2 ) Minutes of IRB meetings, which shall be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
( 3 ) Records of continuing review activities, including the rationale for conducting continuing review of research that otherwise would not require continuing review as described in § 46.109(f)(1).
( 4 ) Copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators.
( 5 ) A list of IRB members in the same detail as described in § 46.108(a)(2).
( 6 ) Written procedures for the IRB in the same detail as described in § 46.108(a)(3) and (4).
( 7 ) Statements of significant new findings provided to subjects, as required by § 46.116(c)(5).
( 8 ) The rationale for an expedited reviewer's determination under § 46.110(b)(1)(i) that research appearing on the expedited review list described in § 46.110(a) is more than minimal risk.
( 9 ) Documentation specifying the responsibilities that an institution and an organization operating an IRB each will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy, as described in § 46.103(e).
( b ) The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research that is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. The institution or IRB may maintain the records in printed form, or electronically. All records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Federal department or agency at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 91-4255

___________

KENNETH E. WILDBUR, SR., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ARCO CHEMICAL CO., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

___________________________________________________________________ (December 7, 1992)

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion 10/12/92, 5th Cir. 1992, 974 F.2d 631)

Before KING and WIENER, Circuit Judges, and LAKE*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM :

The Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this

panel or Judge in regular active service on the Court having

requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for

Rehearing En Banc is DENIED

.
Although we have denied rehearing , we write to clarify our

opinion in two respects, neither of which is material to the

_______________ * District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.1 The sentence deleted read as follows:

An eligible employee could elect to receive either enhanced retirement benefits under section 35 of the ARRP or the special severance benefits provided by Schedule M of the STAP, but not both.

-2-

\Wildbur.sup outcome of our decision. The parties agree that the court did not

fully describe the relationship between section 35 of the ARRP and

t he special severance benefits under Schedule M of the STAP. We

agree and modify the October 12, 1992, opinion by deleting the

sentence that begins at the end of 974 F.2d page 633 and substituting instead the following sentence:

Employees eligible for Section 35 benefits had the option of choosing between enhanced ARRP retirement benefits plus a reduced special payment under the STAP or regular severance payments under the STAP with no enhanced ARRP retirement benefits. 1

Plaintiffs argue that our opinion fails to expressly state

t hat the district court can consider remanded facts to the

administrator, that is, facts not originally considered by the ARRP

administrator but considere d by the administrator after the district court remanded plaintiffs' claims to the administrator for

further consideration. The remands by the district court to the

ARRP ad ministrator were by agreement of the parties, and neither

party complaine d on appeal of any of the orders of the district

court remanding plaintiffs' claims for further consideration by the

ARRP administrator. Since new facts were presented to the administrator by agreement of the parties, the district court is to give-3-

\Wildbur.sup these remanded facts the same consideration it is to give to facts

initially considered by the ARRP administrator. Part III of our

opinion explains the analytical framework for the district court's

consideration of both original and remanded facts.
#### § 12.1 Scope and applicability of rules of practice.

The Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of Agriculture promulgated in subpart H of part 1, subtitle A, title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, are the Rules of Practice applicable to adjudicatory, administrative proceedings under section 6(a) of the Horse Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1825(a)) and sections 6 (b) and (c) of the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1825 (b) and (c)). In addition, the Supplemental Rules of Practice set forth in subpart B of this part shall be applicable to such proceedings.

[42 FR 10959, Feb. 25, 1977, as amended at 68 FR 6342, Feb. 7, 2003]
# C_2006326EN.01005204.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/52

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-369/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 326/108)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

1

---
#### § 156.2 Definitions.

For the purposes of this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean:

*Administrator.* The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the Administrator.

*Animal product.* Anything made of, derived from, or containing any material of animal origin.

*Applicant.* Any person who requests service under this part.

*Department.* The United States Department of Agriculture.

*Inspector.* Any officer or employee of the Department of cooperating agency authorized to perform any duties at any plant furnished service under this part.

*Inspector in charge.* An inspector of the Department assigned by the Administrator to supervise, review, and perform official work pertaining to a plant furnished service under this part.

*Person.* Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or other form of organization.

[23 FR 10111, Dec. 23, 1958, as amended at 57 FR 30899, July 13, 1992; 62 FR 19040, Apr. 18, 1997; 72 FR 70766, Dec. 13, 2007]
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1239

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat spaceports like airports

under the exempt facility bond rules.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 17, 1999

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. MACK, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr.

INHOFE, Mr. BURNS, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRAIG, and Mrs.

FEINSTEIN) 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 treat

spaceports like airports under the exempt facility bond rules.

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 ‘‘Spaceport Investment

5 Act’’.
2

•S 1239 IS

1 SEC. 2. SPACEPORTS TREATED LIKE AIRPORTS UNDER EX2 EMPT FACILITY BOND RULES.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 142(a)

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exempt

5 facility bond) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(1) airports and spaceports,’’.

7 (b) TREATMENT OF GROUND LEASES.—Paragraph

8 (1) of section 142(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of

9 1986 (relating to certain facilities must be governmentally

10 owned) is amended by adding at the end the following new

11 subparagraph:

12 ‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR SPACEPORT

13 GROUND LEASES.—For purposes of subpara14 graph (A), spaceport property which is located

15 on land owned by the United States and which

16 is used by a governmental unit pursuant to a

17 lease (as defined in section 168(h)(7)) from the

18 United States shall be treated as owned by such

19 unit if—

20 ‘‘(i) the lease term (within the mean21 ing of section 168(i)(3)) is at least 15

22 years, and

23 ‘‘(ii) such unit would be treated as

24 owning such property if such lease term

25 were equal to the useful life of such prop26 erty.’’.
3

•S 1239 IS

1 (c) BOND MAY BE FEDERALLY GUARANTEED.—

2 Paragraph (3) of section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue

3 Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is amended by add4 ing at the end the following new subparagraph:

5 ‘‘(E) EXCEPTION FOR SPACEPORTS.—

6 Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any exempt fa7 cility bond issued as part of an issue described

8 in paragraph (1) of section 142(a) to provide a

9 spaceport in situations where—

10 ‘‘(i) the guarantee of the United

11 States (or an agency or instrumentality

12 thereof) is the result of payment of rent,

13 user fees, or other charges by the United

14 States (or any agency or instrumentality

15 thereof), and

16 ‘‘(ii) the payment of the rent, user

17 fees, or other charges is for, and condi18 tioned upon, the use of the spaceport by

19 the United States (or any agency or in20 strumentality thereof).’’.

21 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

22 this section shall apply to obligations issued after the date

23 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>
                              EXHIBIT 10.27

                                             April 23, 1996
Mr. Ilyas Chaudhary, President
Capco Resources, Ltd.
950 -  444 5th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 2T8

Dear Ilyas:

     After further discussing my letters of March 7, 1996, with you, Meteor
proposes to extend the time period for the prepayment by Capco Resources Ltd.
of $1,016,000 of the $1,516,000 Saba Petroleum Company promissory note until
February 28,  1997, or until  such time as Saba closes any significant
offering of its securities, whichever first occurs.  This proposed extension
is subject to the following terms and conditions:

1.   Saba agrees to the Meteor proposal attached to this letter and dated
     April 23, 1996 (the "Saba Agreement"), and complies with the terms
     thereof.

2.   Payment of $500,000 is made on the Saba  promissory note by Capco
     Resources Ltd.  when required for the Pakistan Power Project or June 30,
     1996, whichever first occurs.
     
3.   CRL agrees to pay an additional 2% annual simple interest on the balance
     owed by Saba relating to the promissory note described above.
     
4.   If Saba does not comply with the terms of the Saba Agreement, Capco
     shall perform on its guarantee to Meteor and take whatever steps are
     necessary so that Meteor does not lose its opportunity tofully
     participate in the Pakistan Power Project.

                             Very truly yours,

                             Meteor Industries, Inc.

                         /s/ Edward J. Names
                             Edward J. Names, President

     Agreed and Accepted this 3rd day of April, 1996.

                             Capco Resources Ltd.

                      By: /s/Ilyas Chaudhary
                             Ilyas Chaudhary, President
#### § 115.10 Coverage of DHS immigration detention facilities.

This subpart covers ICE immigration detention facilities. Standards set forth in this subpart A are not applicable to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) holding facilities.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2805

___________ Dale E. Bryant, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Berry, * CO-I, Transportation Officer, Varner * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellees, * * Appeal from the United States PHP Healthcare Corporation, Arkansas * District Court for the Department of Correction, * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * David E. Rowe, PHP Healthcare * Medical Director, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Mike Montoya, PHP * Utilization Review Committee * Coordinator, Arkansas Department of * Correction; Does, Members of PHP * Utilization Review Committee from * 5/95 to 2/96, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________1 TheHonorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the HonorableHenry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-

Submitted: December 30, 1999 Filed: January 5, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. DaleE. Bryant, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment inhis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the reasons relied upon in its order. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 203.13 [Reserved]
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

84-8 

December 27, 1984 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4203 Complete Withdrawal

4203(b) Complete Withdrawal. Building & Construction Industry Exemption 

OPINION: 

This responds to your request for the PBGC's opinion concerning withdrawal from a construction industry pension

plan within the meaning of Section 4203(b) of ERISA. You have stated that a general contractor was obligated under

a collective bargaining agreement to make contributions to a plan for the contractor's common-law employees. At the

expiration of the collective bargaining agreement the contractor continues to operate as a general contractor but employs

no employees who perform building and construction activities. Rather, all work under the general contractor is

performed by subcontractors who may or may not have an obligation to contribute to the plan on behalf of their

employees. Specifically you wish to know whether a withdrawal occurs under these circumstances. We conclude that

these circumstances alone would not constitute a withdrawal under Section 4203(b). 

Under Section 4203(b)(2), a withdrawal from a construction industry plan occurs only if the employer (1) ceases

to have an obligation to contribute under the plan and (2) continues to perform work in the jurisdiction [*2] of the

collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions were previously required by it. Thus, in the situation

you describe a withdrawal occurs only if work performed by subcontractors is deemed to be work performed by the

general contractor of the same type for which it had previously had an obligation to contribute. In our view this will be

the case only if the general contractor would have been obligated to contribute under the terms of its old contract for

work performed by subcontractors; i.e., if the old contract were still in force, the general contractor would be liable for

contributions based on the subcontractor's work. 

Of course, such determinations concerning whether a withdrawal has occurred and the identity of the liable employer

are in the first instance the responsibility of the plan sponsor. See Section 4202 of ERISA. Should a dispute arise

concerning such a determination, it must be resolved through the statutory dispute resolution process. See Sections 4219

and 4221 of ERISA. Please note that under Section 4212(c) a transaction, a principal purpose of which is to evade or

avoid liability, may be disregarded by a plan sponsor in making [*3] its withdrawal liability determination. 

I hope this has been of assistance. If you have further questions please contact * * * of my staff at the above address

or at 202-254-4873. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
[No. 4773.]

#### Kinley v. Kinley.

Trusts and Trustees — Express Trust — Parol Agreement — Enforcement.

A husband furnished funds for the purchase of lots and improvements thereon, the conveyance, without any evidence of fraud, being taken in the name of the wife under a parol agreement that the property should be held for their joint benefit. *36The defendant declining to recognize such agreement, the husband cannot enforce it, as parol evidence is not competent in this state to establish an express trust. — P. 37:

*■Appeal from the District Court of the City .cmd County of Denver.*

*Hon. John I. Mullins, Judge.*

Action by Lonis A. Kinley against Ida M. Kin- ‘ ley. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

*Reversed.*

Mr. D. C. Webber, and Mr. Horace C. Benson, for appellant.

Messrs. Talbot, Denison & Wadley and Mr. W. H. Hunt, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Hunter

delivered the opinion of the court:

In 1881 plaintiff (appellee), and defendant (appellant), were married. Defendant at the time was a widow with two children: A child was born of the marriage. Defendant after marriage, and between 1881 and 1893, purchased certain lots in an addition to Denver, with funds provided by plaintiff, the deed therefor being taken in her name, under an agreement that the property should be held for the joint benefit of plaintiff and defendant. Defendant' denied that the funds for the purchase were provided by plaintiff. Also denied that the funds for the improvement of the property were provided by the plaintiff.' •

The issues thus presented wei;e found for plaintiff, and as so found we receive them. The case then is reduced to this: Plaintiff, the husband of defendant, furnished funds for the purchase of lots, and for the improvement -of those lots upon the agreement with his wife, the defendant, that the property so *37acquired should be held for their joint benefit. The1 defendant declined to recognize such agreement, and this action was brought to enforce it.

■ The only evidence to establish this- agreement was parol. The gist of the case, then, is this: Plaintiff established a parol express trust between his wife, the defendant, and himself, and relied upon this for relief. There was no' evidence of fraud in bringing about the placing of the title in defendant’s name, or in securing the funds from the plaintiff to go into the construction of the improvements. The case presents simply an effort to establish an express or direct, trust by parol testimony. This, it has been ruled in this state, cannot be done. We axe unable to distinguish in any particular the case from *Davis v. Davis,*18 Colorado 67, and upon its authority the case is reversed.

See, also, *Von Trotha v. Bamberger,*15 Colo. 1.

Judgment reversed. *Reversed.*

Chief Justice Gabbert and Mr. Justice Maxwell concur. _