alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1105 The appeal petition. ( a ) *Format.* VOSB or SDVOSB appeals must be in writing. There is no required format for an appeal petition; however, it must include the following: ( 1 ) A copy of the denial or decertification and the date the appellant received it;
( 2 ) A statement of why the denial or decertification is in error;
( 3 ) Any other pertinent information the Judge should consider; and
( 4 ) The name, address, telephone number, and email address, if available, and signature of the appellant or its attorney.
( b ) *Service.* The appellant must serve copies of the entire appeal petition upon the Director, Office of Government Contracting (D/GC) and SBA Counsel at *OPLservice@sba.gov .*
( c ) *Certificate of service.* The appellant must attach to the appeal petition a signed certificate of service meeting the requirements of § 134.204(d).
( d ) *Dismissal.* An appeal petition that does not meet all the requirements of this section may be dismissed by the Judge at his/her own initiative or upon motion of a respondent.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23370]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[CGD17-04-002]


Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of recertification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has recertified the Cook Inlet Regional 
Citizen's Advisory Council for the period covering September 1, 2004 
through August 31, 2005. Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker 
Environmental Oversight Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an 
annual basis an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a 
regional citizens' advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This 
advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude 
oil tankers under the Cook Inlet Program established by the statute.

DATES: The Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council is certified 
through August 31, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of the recertification letter by 
writing to Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (mor), P.O. Box 
25517, Juneau, AK 99802-5517.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Andrew Vanskike, 
Seventeenth Coast Guard District (mor), 907-463-2818.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background And Purpose

    On September 1, 2004, the Coast Guard recertified the Cook Inlet 
Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (CIRCAC) through August 31, 2005. 
Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight Act of 
1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732), the Coast Guard may certify, on an annual basis, 
an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional citizens' 
advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This advisory group monitors 
the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the 
Cook Inlet Program established by Congress, 33 U.S.C. 2732 (b).
    On September 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of policy 
on revised recertification procedures for alternative voluntary 
advisory groups in lieu of councils at Prince William Sound and Cook 
Inlet, AK (67 FR 58440, 58441). This revised policy indicated that 
applicants seeking recertification in 2003 and 2004 need only submit a 
streamlined application and public comments would not be solicited 
prior to recertification.

    Dated: September 24, 2004.
James C. Olson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 04-23370 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
# CSP

A	R ecommendation	f

or	A er osol Sector	Definitions	f

or	EP A	SN AP	Pr oposal 4/7 /14 Draft All definitions apply only to provisions to remove SNAP listing for materials with Global Warming Potential (GWP) greater than 150 for Consumer Aerosols. **Consumer Aerosol:**  An aerosol product sold for use by household and/or institutional consumers that is not a Medical Aerosol or Technical Aerosol as defined below. **Medical Aerosol:** A n aerosol product that is classified as a drug for human or animal use by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. **Technical Aerosol:** An aerosol product designed to accomplish a specific set of task s that requires high

- GWP propellants to assure non

- flammability for user safety or to must meet specific regulatory requirements
.
#### In the Matter of Martin C. Burke, Petitioner, against Edgar Bromberger, as Chief City Magistrate of the City of New York, Respondent.

*763
      *Per Curiam.*

On the basis of the charges as limited by the Chief City Magistrate, sitting as a trial court (folio 73 of the record on appeal), and his decision with respect to those charges (folios 1307-1308), there was no substantial evidence justifying the finding of petitioner’s misconduct *“*in his activities as an assistant court clerk in connection with an applicant for relief in the Magistrates’ Court ”, and for his dismissal from the city service.

■ Considering the entire record, and without regard to the decision as limited by the trier of the facts, we find that, in the light of the petitioner’s unblemished record of over thirty-six years In the city service and six years prior Federal service, the trustworthy evidence of good character given in his behalf, the dismissal of the charges against him by the grand jury, and the unsupported, confused, contradictory and incredible story told by the complaining witness, there was likewise no substantial evidence to support the charges as a whole.

The determination should be annulled, with $50 costs and disbursements to the petitioner, and the petitioner reinstated.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Determination unanimously annulled, with $50 costs and disbursements to the petitioner, and the petitioner reinstated. Settle order on notice.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Fata, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant a new trial upon the ground that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
#### Virginio F. Orsini v. Eastern Wine Corporation.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 947.]
| Exhibit 10.15(a) |
|------------------|

EXPRESSJET AIRLINES, INC.

1600 SMITH

HOUSTON, TX   77002

April 24, 2002

Dear Mr. Nides:

            You currently have Flight Privileges pursuant to youremployment agreement with ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. (the “Company”), to which Continental Airlines, Inc.(“Continental”) is a party for certain purposes. Capitalized terms used in this letter agreement are used with the samemeanings ascribed to them in your employment agreement.

            The last paragraph contained in Section 4.4 of youremployment agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

            “Flight Privileges are intended to be used solely forpersonal reasons and may not be used for business purposes (other than, with respect to Flight Privileges on the CO system,business purposes on behalf of the Company (during the term of the Capacity Purchase Agreement between the Company and Continental)or Continental, and with respect to Flight Privileges on the System (excluding the CO system), business purposes on behalf ofContinental (during the term of such Capacity Purchase Agreement) or the Company). Accordingly, notwithstanding any provisionherein to the contrary, credit availability on Employee’s UATP card (or any Similar Card) may be suspended, andEmployee’sUATP card (or any Similar Card) may be revoked or cancelled, if Employee’s UATP card (or any Similar Card) isused for business purposes (other than as described above) and, after receiving written notice from the Company (or Continental ifsuch non-allowable usage is on Continental or any of its affiliates or any successor or successors thereto) to cease such usage,Employeeagain uses his UATP card (or any Similar Card) for any business purpose (other than as described above). The parties heretoagree that Continental’s obligations regarding Flight Privileges are limited to each airline operated by Continental or anyof its affiliates or any successor or successors thereto (the “CO system”), and that the Company’s obligationsregarding Flight Privileges extend to the System other than the CO system.”

            If you agree with the foregoing, please sign the enclosedcopy of this letter agreement, whereby this letter agreement shall be a binding agreement among you, the Company and Continental and shall amend your employment agreement accordingly.

Sincerely,

|   EXPRESSJET AIRLINES, INC.                    |           | CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   By:______________________                    |           |   By:______________________                                               |
| James B. Ream President and Chief Executive Officer |                     | Michael H. Campbell  Senior Vice President Human Resources and Labor Relations |

Agreed

----
#### Verona Klein, Appellant, v. Arnold H. Klein, Respondent.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 812.]
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 Quarterly Report of PLM Equipment Growth & Income Fund VII (the Partnership), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the President of the General Partner and of the Partnership, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the Report of the Partnership filed today 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 Partnership.
 
 
 
 /s/ James A. Coyne
 James A. Coyne
 President of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 May 14, 2004
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-00-05 March 17, 2000

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC, ENTERGY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

AT WATERFORD NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional enforcement conference on

Monday with officials of Entergy Operations, Inc., operators of the Waterford 3 nuclear power plant

near Taft, Louisiana. The conference is to discuss two apparent violations of NRC requirements

identified during a special inspection following the “Alert” declared at the plant on November 27 last

year.

The conference will begin at 1 p.m. at NRC Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas. The

meeting will be open to public observation; NRC officials will be available afterward for questions.

The first apparent violation involves the low pressure safety injection system not being properly

aligned for operation as required by the plant’s technical specifications because of a mis-positioned

valve. The second apparent violation involves the failure to follow plant procedures for aligning the

low pressure safety injection system.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that NRC has made

a determination that violations did occur or that enforcement action will be taken. The purpose of the

meeting is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety significance, and to provide

Entergy officials with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report and present corrective actions that have been taken or planned.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action will be made at

this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later date.

###
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SHIFT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



2020 OMNIBUS EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN


 


This Amendment No. 1
to the Shift Technologies, Inc. 2020 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is made effective as of the 31st
day of March 2021.


 


Section
5(c) of the Plan is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“(c) Individual
Limits. All Grants under the Plan, other than Dividend Equivalents, shall be expressed in shares of Stock. The maximum aggregate
number of shares of Stock with respect to which all Grants, other than Dividend Equivalents, may be made under the Plan to any individual
during any calendar year shall be 2,000,000 shares of Stock, subject to adjustment as described below; provided, that the foregoing limit
shall not apply to grants made to fulfill any agreement by and between the Company and an Employee that was entered into on or about October
13, 2020. A Participant may not accrue cash-based Dividend Equivalents during any calendar year in excess of $1,000,000. The individual
limits described in this subsection (c) shall apply without regard to whether the Grants are to be paid in Stock or in cash. All cash
payments (other than Dividend Equivalents) shall equal the Fair Market Value of the shares of Stock to which the cash payment relates.”
Elizabeth A. Young, CSR, RPR 

Official Court Reporter 

P. O. Box 747 

Belton, Texas 76513 

254 933-5268 

December 14, 2015 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle 

Clerk, Court of Appeals 

P. O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

tel 512 463-1733 

fax 512 463-1685 

In re: State vs Keith Anthony Collilns 

 COA: 03-15-00629-CR TC # 73281 

Attn: Chris Knowles 

Dear Chris, 

I am requesting an extension to complete this reporter's 

record by December 23, 2015. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Elizabeth A. Young 

Elizabeth A. Young
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-226 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, October 25, 1999)

NRC SEEKS SUGGESTIONS FROM PUBLIC ON TOPICS

FOR 12th ANNUAL REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE MARCH 27-29

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking suggestions from the public in choosing

topics for discussion at the next Regulatory Information Conference (RIC) to be held March 27-

29 at the Capital Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Comments and suggestions for the conference, which will focus on enhancing and

developing a better understanding of future trends for improved nuclear safety, can be

submitted electronically through November 19 at the RIC web site:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/RIC/2000/index.html.

The site contains a list of more than 40 topics respondents can choose from to assist

the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in planning the conference agenda, as well as

space for comments and other suggestions. Results of the survey will be posted to the web

site at a future date.

Persons interested in attending the conference will be able to register via the RIC web

site beginning in mid-December. For additional information, contact Sharon Bell at (301) 415-

1217.

##
§ 305.7 Services performed by the Recipient's own forces. In certain circumstances, the Recipient may wish to consider having a portion or all of the design, construction, inspection, legal services or other work and/or services in connection with the Project performed by personnel who are employed by the Recipient either full-time or part-time. EDA may approve the use of such “in-house forces” if: ( a ) The services are routinely performed by the Recipient for all construction Projects performed by the Recipient (for example, inspection or legal); or
( b ) The Recipient has a special skill required for the construction of the Project (for example, construction of unique Indian structures); or
( c ) The Recipient has made all reasonable efforts to obtain a contractor but has failed to do so because of uncontrollable factors such as the remoteness of the Project site or an overabundance of construction work in the Region; or
( d ) The Recipient demonstrates substantial cost savings.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-65 June 8, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC, PECO ENERGY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT LIMERICK PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of PECO

Energy Company on Wednesday, June 10, to discuss several apparent violations of

agency requirements involving equipment operability at the Limerick nuclear power

plant. PECO owns and operates the twin-reactor facility, which is located in the

Philadelphia suburb of Limerick, Pa.

The predecisional enforcement conference is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in the

Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open

to the public for observation.

One of the apparent violations pertains to a failure to verify the proper installation

of a bearing in one of the plant’s emergency diesel generators. Limerick has eight

emergency diesel generators -- four for each reactor. They would be used to provide

electricity to key safety systems in the event that off-site power was lost. After a failure

of one of the generators last October, PECO determined that the most likely cause was

a combination of internal forces and the improper installation of a bearing during the

engine’s last overhaul.

Another apparent violation stems from a failure to effectively troubleshoot a

problem affecting a Unit 2 residual heat removal system valve. One function of the

residual heat removal system is to maintain water level in the reactor vessel following a

loss-of-coolant accident. Part of that system is a minimum flow valve, which is

designed to open when a residual heat removal pump is in operation with the system’s

flow at low levels in order to prevent pump damage. However, between Sept. 1, 1997,

and Jan. 21 of this year, PECO efforts to prevent recurrent unplanned closures of the

valve were ineffective.

Lastly, an NRC inspector found that PECO did not aggressively and

comprehensively fix another Unit 2 valve that was experiencing difficulties. An exhaust

valve on the high pressure coolant injection system, one of the plant’s emergency core

cooling systems, failed to stroke open during testing. Despite efforts to fix the problem,

ineffective corrective action led to the valve being inoperable for an extended period of
time.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that

the NRC has determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be

taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may

have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That

decision will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

#
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5153 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5153

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to require certain notice 
     requirements by law enforcement officers of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency before executing and serving warrants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 30 (legislative day, November 29), 2022

 Mr. Sullivan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to require certain notice 
     requirements by law enforcement officers of the Environmental 
        Protection Agency before executing and serving warrants.

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

SECTION 1. POWERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

    Section 3063 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking paragraph (1); and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as 
                paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) The guidelines approved under subsection (b) shall require 
that a law enforcement officer described in subsection (a) provide 
notice to appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies before 
executing and serving any warrant.''.
                                 <all>
```
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-416/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Meaning of ‘waste’ - Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 80/68/EEC - Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Pollution caused by a pig farm)

(2005/C 271/01)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-416/02: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: K. Manji, and subsequently C. White, instructing D. Wyatt QC) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 31 of 08. 02. 2003.

----