alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 63138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Olympic Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Olympic Province Advisory Committee (OPAC) will meet on 
Friday, November 19, 2004. The meeting will be held at the Olympic 
National Forest Headquarters, 1835 Black Lake Blvd., SW., Olympia, 
Washington. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at 
approximately 3:30 p.m. Agenda topics are: Current status of key Forest 
issues; Special Forest Products Update; Invasive Plant Update; 
Strategic Resource Planning; Open forum; and Public comments.
    All Olympic Province Advisory Committee Meetings are open to the 
public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Ken Eldredge, Province Liaison, USDA, Olympic National 
Forest Headquarters, 1835 Black Lake Blvd, Olympia, WA 98512-5623, 
(360) 956-2323 or Dale Hom, Forest Supervisor, at (360) 956-2301.

    Dated: October 22, 2004.
Dale Hom,
Forest Supervisor, Olympic National Forest.
[FR Doc. 04-24212 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
exv10w2



 



Exhibit 10.2



AGREEMENT AMENDING AND EXTENDING TERM OF LEASE



THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 24th day of May 2002, between EARL H.
SEIEBERT AND ELAINE D. SEIBERT, husband and wife (collectively “Landlord”) and
SMITH & BUTTERFIELD CO., INC., an Indiana corporation, (“Tenant”).


RECITALS


On June 1, 1972, the parties hereto entered into a certain “Lease Agreement”
covering the premises commonly known as 113, 115 and 117 E. Third Street in
Owensboro; Kentucky; the extended term of which expires on May 30; 2002.


Landlord and Tenant desire to further extend the term of the aforesaid Lease
Agreement of June 1, 1972, and to modify and amend certain terms and provisions
thereof.


NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES, the parties hereto agree as
follows:


1.     Extension of Term -The term of the aforesaid Lease Agreement of June 1,
1972, as heretofore extended, be, and the same is, hereby extended for an
additional term of five (5) years commencing on the 1st day of June, 2002, and
ending at midnight on May 31 2007. Tenant shall have and is hereby granted two
(2) options to extend the term of this Lease for a period of five (5) years
each commencing June 1, 2007. Written notice of such election will be given to
the Landlord not less than 30 days prior to the expiration of this lease.


2.     RENT-The “Net Total Rental” payable by Tenant to Landlord during the
extended term provided for herein shall be the sum of Seventy-Two Thousand
Dollars ($72,000) payable in equal monthly installments of One Thousand Two
Hundred Dollars ($1,200.00), in advance, on the first (1st) day of each
calendar month during the extended term.


3.     Other Terms and Provisions -Except as expressly otherwise provided herein,
all terms; provisions; conditions and obligations applicable to the aforesaid
Lease Agreement of June 1, 1972, as heretofore extended, shall extend and apply
for and during the additional extended term. In case said options are
exercised, the same terms, conditions, covenants and provisions of this Lease
applicable to the original ten (10) year term shall apply to the extended term,
including without limitation the rent.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the day and
year first above written.




	 	 	 
	/s/ Earl H. Seibert	 	
EARL H. SEIBERT
	 
	/s/ Elaine D. Seibert	 	
ELAINE D. SEIBERT “Landlord”
	 
	BY:/s/ James D. Butterfield	 	
SMITH & BUTTERFIELD CO., INC.
	 
	James D. Butterfield, President “Tenant”
§ 2424.30 Procedure through which the petition for review will be resolved. ( a ) *Exclusive representative has filed related unfair labor practice charge or grievance alleging an unfair labor practice.* Except for proposals or provisions that are the subject of an agency's compelling need claim under 5 U.S.C. 7117(a)(2), the Authority will dismiss a petition for review when an exclusive representative files an unfair labor practice charge pursuant to part 2423 of this subchapter or a grievance alleging an unfair labor practice under the parties' negotiated grievance procedure, and the charge or grievance concerns issues directly related to the petition for review filed pursuant to this part. The dismissal will be without prejudice to the right of the exclusive representative to refile the petition for review after the unfair labor practice charge or grievance has been resolved administratively, including resolution pursuant to an arbitration award that has become final and binding. No later than thirty (30) days after the date on which the unfair labor practice charge or grievance is resolved administratively, the exclusive representative may refile the petition for review, and the Authority will determine whether resolution of the petition is still required. For purposes of this subsection, a grievance is resolved administratively when: ( 1 ) The exclusive representative withdraws the grievance;
( 2 ) The parties mutually resolve the grievance;
( 3 ) An arbitrator has issued an award resolving the grievance, and the 30-day period under 5 U.S.C. 7122(b) has passed without an exception being filed; or
( 4 ) An arbitrator has issued an award resolving the grievance, a party has filed an exception to that award, and the Authority has issued a decision resolving that exception.
( b ) *Exclusive representative has not filed related unfair labor practice charge or grievance alleging an unfair labor practice.* The petition will be processed as follows: ( 1 ) *No bargaining obligation dispute exists.* The Authority will resolve the petition for review under the procedures of this part.
( 2 ) *A bargaining obligation dispute exists.* The exclusive representative may have an opportunity to file an unfair labor practice charge pursuant to part 2423 of this subchapter or a grievance under the parties' negotiated grievance procedure concerning the bargaining obligation dispute, and, where the exclusive representative pursues either of these courses, the Authority will proceed in accord with paragraph (a) of this section. If the exclusive representative does not file an unfair labor practice charge or grievance concerning the bargaining obligation dispute, then the Authority will proceed to resolve all disputes necessary for disposition of the petition unless, in its discretion, the Authority determines that resolving all disputes is not appropriate because, for example, resolution of the bargaining obligation dispute under this part would unduly delay resolution of the negotiability dispute, or the procedures in another, available administrative forum are better suited to resolve the bargaining obligation dispute.
[88 FR 62458, Sept. 12, 2023]
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-05-007 March 11, 2005

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE AT CATAWBA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff are scheduled to meet with Duke Energy officials March

22, to discuss the agency’s annual assessment of safety performance at the Catawba nuclear power

plant, located near York, S. C. The period covered is the calendar year 2004.

The 1 p.m. meeting at the Rock Hill, S. C., City Hall, is open to public observation. Before the

session ends, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plant’s safety

performance, as well as the agency’s role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the Catawba plant and all of the nation’s

other commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. “This

meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, with local officials and with

residents near the plant. Our aim is to make this information available to the public and answer any

questions people may have about our oversight.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cat_2004q4.pdf .

Overall, the Catawba plant operated safely during 2004. The NRC uses color-coded inspection

findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green”

and increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues

involved. Because all inspection findings and performance indicators for the plant during 2004 were

classified as “green,” Catawba will receive the baseline, or normal, level of inspections during 2005.

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by

inspection specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville,

Md. In addition to the baseline inspections in 2005, the NRC plans to inspect activities related to a

planned spent fuel storage installation, safety inspections concerning pressurizer penetration and steam

space piping connections, and operator licensing examinations.

 Current information for the two Catawba units is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CAT1/cat1_chart.html and 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CAT2/cat2_chart.html .

 ###
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-07-0060 - Basis and Justification for Approval Process for 10 CFR 20.2002 Authorizations and Options for Change

Accession Number: ML062050587

Date Released: Thursday, April 12, 2007

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML070220045 - SECY-07-0060 - Basis and Justification for Approval Process for 10 CFR 20.2002 Authorization and Options for Change (5 page(s), 3/27/2007)
    - ML070220047 - SECY-07-0060 - Enclosure - Options for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's  Authorization of 10 CFR 20.2002 Requests (3 page(s), 3/27/2007)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### §1472. Grave and imminent danger from oil pollution casualties to coastline or related interests of United States; Federal nonliability for Federal preventive measures on the high seas

Whenever a ship collision, stranding, or other incident of navigation or other occurrence on board a ship or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to the ship or her cargo creates, as determined by the Secretary, a grave and imminent danger to the coastline or related interests of the United States from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by convention oil or of the sea or atmosphere by a substance other than convention oil which may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences, the Secretary may, except as provided for in section 1479 of this title, without liability for any damage to the owners or operators of the ship, to her cargo or crew, to underwriters or other parties interested therein, take measures on the high seas, in accordance with the provisions of the convention, the protocol and this chapter, to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate that danger.

(Pub. L. 93–248, §3, Feb. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 8; Pub. L. 95–302, §1(2), June 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 344.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–302 substituted "convention oil or of the sea or atmosphere by a substance other than convention oil" for "oil", and "convention, the protocol" for "Convention".

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 95–302, see section 2 of Pub. L. 95–302, set out as a note under section 1487 of this title.
### §701i. Elimination from protection of areas subject to evacuation

In any case where the construction cost of levees or flood walls included in any authorized project can be substantially reduced by the evacuation of a portion or all of the area proposed to be protected and by the elimination of that portion or all of the area from the protection to be afforded by the project, the Chief of Engineers may modify the plan of said project so as to eliminate said portion or all of the area: Provided, That a sum not substantially exceeding the amount thus saved in construction cost may be expended by the Chief of Engineers, or in his discretion may be transferred to any other appropriate Federal agency for expenditure, toward the evacuation of the locality eliminated from protection and the rehabilitation of the persons so evacuated: And provided further, That the Chief of Engineers may, if he so desires, enter into agreement with States, local agencies, or the individuals concerned for the accomplishment by them, of such evacuation and rehabilitation and for their reimbursement from said sum for expenditures actually incurred by them for this purpose.

(June 28, 1938, ch. 795, §3, 52 Stat. 1216.)
#### Golda W. Fulkerson et al., Respondents, *v.*Philip G. MacDonald, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiffs, 'entered October 30, 1952, in Bronx County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Dore, J.

(dissenting). The uncontested facts in this record as to how the injury and the claimed loss of the diamond happened, conclusively show in my opinion that the injury and the claimed loss of property were not reasonably foreseeable; and in the state of facts disclosed defendant is not liable on the theory of either negligence or nuisance.

Accordingly, I dissent and vote to reverse the judgment appealed from and to dismiss the complaint.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Breitel and Bastow, JJ., concur in decision; Dore, J., dissents and votes, to reverse and dismiss the complaint, in opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-03-003 January 24, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC STAFF, FIRST ENERGY TO DISCUSS "SAFETY CULTURE" AT DAVIS-BESSE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight panel, set up to coordinate the agency’s

activities associated with the reactor vessel head degradation at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station, will meet with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company officials on Thursday, January 30, to

discuss the utility’s plans for assessing the safety culture among the facility’s staff. The plant, which

has been shut down since February 16, is located in Oak Harbor, Ohio. 

The meeting will be held at 10 a.m. CST at the NRC’s Region III office, 801 Warrenville Road,

in Lisle, Illinois. Visitors should report first to the Second Floor reception area. The public is invited to

observe the business portion of the meeting and will have an opportunity to make comments and ask

questions of the NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned.

Interested individuals unable to attend may listen to the meeting via telephone by calling (888)

577-8995, and giving the password "Davis Besse." Cheryl Hausman is the teleconference coordinator.

The meeting will also be available for viewing by video conference at the NRC Headquarters, Room

O-3 B4, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting will focus on the utility’s proposed actions to address issues with the plant staff’s

"safety culture" and to evaluate changes in the culture.

The NRC oversight panel includes NRC management and staff from its Region III office in

Lisle, Illinois; the NRC Headquarters office in Rockville, Maryland; and the NRC Resident Inspector

Office at the Davis-Besse site.

Documents on the Davis-Besse corrosion issue, including further details on NRC's oversight

panel activities, are posted on the NRC's web site at: http://www.nrc.gov. Select "Davis-Besse" from

the Key Topics menu.

# # # # #
### **CHAPTER 38—DUMPING OF MEDICAL WASTE BY PUBLIC VESSELS**

Sec.
2501.
Findings.
2502.
Definitions.
2503.
Prohibition.
2504.
Guidance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



 <ARTICLE>                     5
 <LEGEND>

     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements  for the six month  period  ended  January 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

 </LEGEND>

        
 <S>                                           <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       APR-30-1997
 <PERIOD-END>                                            JUL-31-1998
 <CASH>                                                    2,089,000
 <SECURITIES>                                                      0
 <RECEIVABLES>                                             1,009,000
 <ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
 <INVENTORY>                                               1,167,000
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          4,377,000
 <PP&E>                                                      238,000 
 <DEPRECIATION>                                               43,000
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            4,883,000 
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       331,000
 <BONDS>                                                           0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
 <PREFERRED>                                                       0
 <COMMON>                                                    144,000
 <OTHER-SE>                                                4,408,000
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              4,883,000
 <SALES>                                                   1,308,000
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          1,308,000
 <CGS>                                                       514,000 
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                                             1,099,000
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (482,000)
 <INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (482,000)
 <DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
 <CHANGES>                                                         0
 <NET-INCOME>                                               (453,000)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (0.03)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.03)


         
 
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 8.1



List of Subsidiaries of Yanzhou Coal Mining Company Limited



The following table sets out selected details of our subsidiaries as at
December 31, 2004:



|                                                 |  |                                                                                                                  |  |                                                   |   |  |                          |  |                                                        |  |                  
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------- | - |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------
|Name of Subsidiary                               |  | Principal Activities                                                                                             |  | Percentage ofRegistered Capitalheld by theCompany |   |  | RegisteredCapital (000) |  | Actual Capital Contribution made by the Company (000) |  | Net Profit (000)
|Qingdao Free Trade Zone Zhongyan Trade Co., Ltd. |  | Trading and processing mining machinery                                                                          |  | 52.38                                             | % |  | RMB2,100                 |  | RMB271                                                 |  | RMB620           
|Shandong Yanmei Shipping Co., Ltd.               |  | Transportation of coal and construction materials via rivers and lakes; sales of coal and construction materials |  | 92                                                | % |  | RMB5,500                 |  | RMB1,169                                               |  | RMB540           
|Yanzhou Coal Yulin Power Chemical Co., Ltd.      |  | Production of methanol and acetic acid (currently under construction)                                            |  | 97                                                | % |  | RMB80,000                |  | RMB77,600                                              |  |                 
|Yancoal Australia Pty Limited                    |  | Investment holding                                                                                               |  | 100                                               | % |  | AUD30,000                |  | RMB218,290                                             |  |                 
|Austar Coal Mine Pty Limited                     |  | Coal mining business                                                                                             |  | 100                                               | % |  | AUD30,000                |  | AUD30,000                                              |  | 
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0617-0619

SAT Date: 7/2/2013

Print Date: 8/2/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; Hyd Pdt negl

Keywords:

 Keywords: UNCERT-SENS-RESPIRATORY

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0617-19

FATE: 

S = Reacts

Hydrolysis half-life = hr-da

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 90 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt > mo
Sorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt v.strong

PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes based on physical/chemical 

properties. There is uncertain concern for respiratory sensitization for any lower molecular 

weight isocyanates. Low moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic 

value

*

algal _ chronic 

value

*

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR 

chemical class = polymer-nonionic-NCO; 

pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 

mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs nonionic polymers

SAR Class polymer-nonionic-NCO

Ecotox Category Nonionic Polymers

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones