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

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the

(COM(2005) 263 final — 2005/0118-0119-0120 CNS)

(2006/C 28/10)

On 25 July 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposals.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 October 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Bastian.

At its 421st plenary session held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 26 October), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 103 votes with 22 votes against and 18 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

3.   Specific comments

4.   Conclusions

Brussels, 26 October 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  ACP countries: developing African, Caribbean and Pacific States, signatories to the Cotonou agreement.

(2)  COM(2004) 499 final.

(3)  OJ C 157, p. 102.

(4)  COM(2005) 263 final.

(5)  COM(2005) 266 final.

(6)  See footnote 3.

(7)OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005.

(8)OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005.

(9)OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005.

(10)  See also OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005.

(11)  See also OJ C 157 of 28.6.2005.

----
### §112e. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 112e was editorially reclassified as section 5536 of this title.
#### Paul Kaulhausen, Respondent, *v.*Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

*Per Curiam.*

After giving the allegations of the complaint the benefit of every reasonable inference and intendment, we find that no cause of action has been pleaded against any of the defendants.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with a prospective contract, it must be shown that the contract would have materialized but for the wrongful interference. *(Union Car Adv. Co.*v. Collier, 263 N. Y. 386; *Portman*v. *Burack,*265 App. Div. 959, affd. 290 N. Y. 686; *Newberry & Co. v. Warnecke & Co.,*267 App. Div. 418, affd. 293 N. Y. 698.) The complaint herein fails to meet that requirement. While it may reasonably be inferred from the allegations of the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the complaint that plaintiff would have obtained employment with the defendant Ben Hyde, except for the wrongful conduct of the other defendants, the effectiveness of those allegations is completely nullified by the twentieth paragraph. In that portion of the complaint it is alleged that the statements and representations made by Ben Hyde, which are set forth in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs, were false and “ that in truth and in fact the defendant Ben Hyde had no intention of ever employing plaintiff ”. That being so, the defendant could not possibly have interfered with plaintiff’s prospective employment by Hyde.

The order should therefore be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of the order to be entered herein.

Peck, P. J., G-lennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, Chief Executive Officer of Tripath
Technology Inc. (the Company), and Jeffrey L. Garon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys transition report on Form 10-K/T/A for the fiscal nine months ended September 30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Periodic
Report and the results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Periodic Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 27th day of July 2005.



|                                                               |  |  |  |                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               |  | 
|/S/    ADYA S.
TRIPATHI                                        |  |  |  | /S/    JEFFERY L.
GARON                                             
|Adya S. Tripathi, Ph. D. President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Jeffrey L. Garon Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies the Form 10-K/TA to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tripath Technology Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K/TA), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
EPA DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF FORMALDEHYDE:

COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONA L

SAFETY AND HEALTH

NIOSH appreciates the opportunity to review and pro vide comments for the draft IRIS Formaldehyde Toxicological Review fo r Interagency Science Consultation. Given that NIOSH has not performed a study or assessments recently that are not discussed in the EPA risk assessment, our comments are confined to commenting on whether EPA has asked the appropriate questions in the charge to the NAS revi ewers. NIOSH defers

to the NAS assess some of the scientific issues rai sed by the draft

assessment.

In the draft risk assessment charge to reviewers, t he treatment of the biologically-based modeling of the toxicological da ta for formaldehyde appears to be an area of significant interest, and one for which EPA is seeking reviewers’ attention. In particular, it is appropriate to see a

reference to the issue in the last sentence of the charge questions “... please consider the analysis of the sensitivity of low-dose estimates of potential biologically-based dose-response models o f formaldehyde upper respiratory tract cancer to small changes in model design or model inputs.” This was the basis that EPA used to rejec t the conclusions of a published biologically-based model, so it implies t hat the reviewers should take a look at the ensuing controversy and weigh in on it.

The other significant area requiring consideration is in the interpretation of the epidemiological data for formaldehyde, particul arly the treatment of lymphohematopoietic tumors, which have not been ass ociated with formaldehyde exposures in the toxicological studies . This drives the largest part of the cancer risk in the epidemiologi cal analysis, so it’s important to determine whether or not the analysis is adequate. EPA gets at this in a very general and indirect way: “The dr aft uses as its preferred quantitative estimates dose-response relationships between several cancers and cumulative inhalation exposure to forma ldehyde. Please review and comment on the scientific support for th e choices made in developing those estimates.” While this is adequat e, EPA might consider a slightly more focused question, specifically addr essing the lymphohematopoietic tumors.
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. 99-04 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, January 7, 1999)

NRC MODIFIES POLICY ON ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION IN

SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given the NRC staff approval to exercise

discretion expeditiously on enforcement actions during severe weather conditions where safety

will not be undermined.

Previously, the use of enforcement discretion for these types of situations required prior

Commission approval. Under a revision to the NRC enforcement policy, the Commission will be

notified in writing after the action has been taken.

In some non-compliant situations when traditional enforcement action may not be

appropriate, NRC issues a Notice of Enforcement Discretion, rather than a Notice of Violation.

For instance, NRC may use this option to avoid unnecessary abnormal plant operations, to

reduce operational and shutdown risk, and to avoid unnecessary delays in plant startup.

Notices of Enforcement Discretion are only issued for non-compliances of specific conditions in

a plant license. They are not applicable to non-compliances with general regulations.

The enforcement policy revision was prompted by a situation last summer, when one

unit at the Quad Cities Nuclear Station in Illinois shut itself down while certain required

equipment tests were being performed. (Some tests can make the plant more vulnerable to

such an automatic “scram.”) This happened when other plants in the area were out of service

for a variety of reasons, some weather-related, causing electrical grid instabilities. The staff

believes that in cases like this, NRC should consider granting requests for Notices of

Enforcement Discretion by a licensee, balancing the risks associated with continued operation

of the plant in a non-compliant condition.

The revision took effect with its publication in the January 6 edition of the Federal

Register, but the public may submit comments through February 22. Comments can be

addressed to: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative

Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC, 20555.

###
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4901-N-43]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 22, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Burruss, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988, court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                    *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: October 14, 2004.

Mark R. Johnston,

Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.

[FR Doc. 04-23404 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.513 Supporting statement not required. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an importer will not be required to submit a supporting statement under § 10.511 of this subpart for: ( 1 ) A non-commercial importation of a good; or
( 2 ) A commercial importation for which the value of the goods does not exceed U.S. $2,500.
( b ) *Exception.* If the Center director determines that an importation described in paragraph (a) of this section may reasonably be considered to have been carried out or planned for the purpose of evading compliance with the rules and procedures governing claims for preference under the SFTA, the Center director will notify the importer that for that importation the importer must submit to CBP a supporting statement. The importer must submit such a statement within 30 days from the date of the notice. Failure to timely submit the supporting statement will result in denial of the claim for preferential treatment.
### §1388. Workplace climate surveys of employing offices

#### (a) Requirement to conduct secure surveys

Not later than 1 year after December 21, 2018, and every 2 years thereafter, the Office shall conduct a secure survey of employing offices under this chapter regarding the workplace environment of such offices. Employee responses to the survey shall be voluntary.

#### (b) Special inclusion of information on sexual harassment

In each survey conducted under this section, the Office shall survey respondents on attitudes regarding sexual harassment.

#### (c) Methodology

#### (1) In general

The Office shall conduct each survey under this section in accordance with methodologies established by the Office.

#### (2) Confidentiality

Under the methodologies established under paragraph (1), all responses to all portions of the survey shall be anonymous and confidential, and each respondent shall be told throughout the survey that all responses shall be anonymous and confidential.

#### (3) Survey form

The Office shall limit the use of any information code or information on the survey form that makes a respondent to the survey, or the respondent's employing office, individually identifiable.

#### (d) Use of results of surveys

The Office shall furnish the information obtained from the surveys conducted under this section to the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Rules and Administration of the Senate.

#### (e) Consultation with committees

The Office shall carry out this section, including establishment of methodologies and procedures under subsection (c), in consultation with the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Rules and Administration of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 104–1, title III, §307, as added Pub. L. 115–397, title II, §202(a), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5317.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 104–1, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 3, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1301 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon expiration of the 180-day period beginning on Dec. 21, 2018, with provisions for effect on pending proceedings, see section 401 of Pub. L. 115–397, set out as an Effective Date of 2018 Amendment note under section 1301 of this title.
#### § 315.3 Confidential Business Information.

EDA will follow the procedures set forth in 15 CFR 4.9 for the submission of Confidential Business Information. Submitters should clearly mark and designate as confidential any Confidential Business Information.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-59 June 16, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON ON APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT BYRON PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet June 20

with representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company for a

predecisional enforcement conference on apparent violations

associated with the reactor containment floor drains at the Byron

Nuclear Power Station. The facility is near Byron, Illinois.

The conference will start at 10 a.m. in the Third Floor

Conference Room of the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville

Road, Lisle, Illinois. It is open to public observation.

The discussion will focus on ComEd's failure to keep

material from clogging the drain system in the containment and

for failing to identify that the associated leakage detection

system was apparently inoperable for over five months, exceeding

the seven day limit in the plant's license. The containment

drain system is designed with flow detection instrumentation

which provides early identification of reactor cooling water

leakage.

The reactor containment is the large reinforced concrete

structure which surrounds the reactor and reactor cooling system

components.

On March 15, while Unit 2 was shut down for a maintenance

outage, the utility found standing water in the containment

building floor trench. Debris was found in the drain system.

Assessment by NRC staff determined that the debris was most

likely from the previous October Unit 2 outage, thereby rendering

the containment leak detection system inoperable from that date.

ComEd also provided inaccurate information in its report to the

NRC on the clogging of the system.

NRC inspectors also noted that the grates which covered the

drains differed from those which were described in the plant's

original design and in some cases there were no grates over

drains. In an apparent violation, the utility had failed to

perform a safety evaluation to determine the acceptability of

using a different design grate or no grate at all.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean

the NRC has determined that 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 an opportunity to point out

any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report;

and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective

actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a fine, will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later date.

####
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

PR No. 99-195 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, September 14, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS: NRC EXTENDS DATE FOR SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FOR

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is extending the application date for nominations to

its Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste.

Applications for nominations (announced on September 7) will now been accepted until

November 30.

Resumés should be sent to Ms. Robin Avent, Office of Human Resources, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Any questions regarding this

announcement should be directed to Ms. Avent, at 1-800-952-9678, or if calling from the

Washington area, 301-415-7018.

###
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-97-159 December 16, 1997

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC, NU TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT MILLSTONE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and Northeast

Nuclear Energy Company officials will meet on Monday, December

22, to discuss apparent violations of agency requirements at the

utility’s Millstone Station in Waterford, Conn. The apparent

violations were found by NRC inspectors during an August

emergency preparedness exercise and inspection.

The predecisional enforcement conference will be held at

10:00 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at NRC Region 1 office in

King of Prussia, Pa. It is open to the public for observation.

During the inspection, NRC inspectors found several apparent

violations of NRC requirements: instances where emergency

response facilities were not maintained in accordance with the

emergency plan; training and procedures for dose assessment were

not effective in assuring that personnel could perform timely

dose assessments; and, a revision to the emergency plan that

decreased the effectiveness of the plan and was implemented

without prior NRC approval, as required.

The decision to hold a pre-decisional enforcement conference

does not mean that the NRC has determined that 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 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 actions.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a

later time.

#