alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS             U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                       Office of Public Affairs              Telephone: 301/415-8200

                              Washington, D.C. 20555-0001       E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 07-008 January 19, 2007

NRC FINDS NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROMEXTENDED OPERATION OF OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final environmental impact statement on theproposed renewal of the operating license for the Oyster Creek nuclear plant. The report contains theNRC’s finding that there are no environmental impacts that would preclude license renewal for anadditional 20 years of operation.

The Oyster Creek plant is located nine miles south of Toms River, N.J. The current operatinglicense expires April 9, 2009. AmerGen Energy Co., LLC, submitted an application for renewal of thelicense July 22, 2005.

As part of its environmental review of the application, the NRC held public meetings near theplant to discuss the scope of the review and the draft version of the environmental impact statement.Comments were received and considered from members of the public, local officials, andrepresentatives of state and federal agencies.

The Oyster Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement is available on the NRC’s Web site atthis address:http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement28/index.html .

Copies are also available for inspection at the NRC’s Public Document Room at One WhiteFlint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md; and at the Lacey County Public Library located at10 East Lacey Road, Forked River, N.J.

###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
### Part O—Trauma-Informed, Victim-Centered Training for Law Enforcement
From: "Cassidy Mike" <MICHAEL.CASSIDY@kohler.com>

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/15/2010 08:44 AM

Subject: Replacement Pages for Spartanburg Report

Attachments: img

- Y150745

- 0001.pdf

Jeff,

There was a slight miscalculation for one source in the Spartanburg, SC test report previously submitted

to you on CD. Please use the attached pages to replace the pages with the miscalculations in the

original report. Contact me if any questions.

Also, the test report for the Brownwood TX facility is complete and I've mailed to you today the CD with

the test report. ARI is still working to submit the data via the ERT.

Michael J. Cassidy

EHS Specia list

Kohler Co.

444 Highland Drive

Mail Stop 009

Kohler, WI 53044

p. (920) 457

- 4441, x 77263

f. (920) 459

- 1682

mike.cassidy@kohler.com

Save money. Save water. Support Habitat for Humanity. Visit

www.SaveWaterAmerica.com
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1891 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1891

  To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit liability for the effects of 
emissions, and emission byproducts, resulting from or caused by an act 
                   of nature, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2003

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit liability for the effects of 
emissions, and emission byproducts, resulting from or caused by an act 
                   of nature, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LIABILITY UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

    Section 307 of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the following 
new subsection at the end thereof:
    ``(i) A State, and any political subdivision thereof, or Tribe 
shall not be held liable under this Act for the effects of emissions 
into the atmosphere, and any byproducts of such emissions, that result 
from or are caused by an act of nature, including volcanic eruptions 
and dust storms; accident; war; terrorism; or fires that occur beyond 
its jurisdiction related to land clearing, agriculture and ecological 
restoration and management.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 754.205 Agency records.

The complaint, the applicant's supporting material, the agency's administrative file, the notice of the proposed action, the employee's written reply, if any, summary or transcript of the employee's oral reply, if any, the notice of decision, and any order to the covered agency effecting the action together with any supporting material, must be maintained in the applicable Privacy Act system of records.
### §419a. Management practices to extend capacity and useful life of dredged material disposal areas

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall utilize and encourage the utilization of such management practices as he determines appropriate to extend the capacity and useful life of dredged material disposal areas such that the need for new dredged material disposal areas is kept to a minimum. Management practices authorized by this section shall include, but not be limited to, the construction of dikes, consolidation and dewatering of dredged material, and construction of drainage and outflow facilities.

(Pub. L. 94–587, §148, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2931.)
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64494-64495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-04-137]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Connecticut River, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the 
Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4, across the Connecticut 
River, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows the 
bridge to remain closed from 10 p.m. on November 15, 2004 through 10 
a.m. on November 16, 2004. This deviation is necessary in order to 
facilitate necessary electrical repairs at the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from November 15, 2004 through 
November 16, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, at mile 
3.4 across the Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the closed 
position of 19 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. 
The existing

[[Page 64495]]

drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205(b).
    The owner of the bridge, Amtrak, requested a temporary deviation 
from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate electrical 
repairs at the bridge.
    This deviation to the operating regulations allows the Old 
Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge to remain closed from 10 p.m. on November 15, 
2004 through 10 a.m. on November 16, 2004.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed 
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as 
soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is 
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 20, 2004.
John L. Grenier,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 04-24689 Filed 11-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
§ 362.404 Appointment and extension. ( a ) *Appointments.* ( 1 ) An agency may make 2-year appointments to the PMF Program, pursuant to a Pathways Policy, under Schedule D of the excepted service in accordance with part 302 of this chapter.
( 2 ) An agency must appoint a PMF using the excepted service appointing authority provided by § 213.3402(c) of this chapter.
( 3 ) OPM will establish an eligibility period during which agencies may appoint Fellow finalists.
( b ) *Extension.* An agency may extend a Fellow's appointment for up to 120 days to cover rare or unusual circumstances or situations. The agency's Pathways MOU must identify the criteria for approving extensions.
( c ) *Grade.* An agency may appoint a Fellow at the GS-09, GS-11, or GS-12 level or equivalent depending on his or her qualifications.
( d ) *Trial period.* The duration of the PMF appointment in the excepted service is a trial period.
( e ) *Work schedules.* A PMF will generally have a full-time work schedule. A PMF may request a part-time work schedule for a limited period of up to 6 months during the PMF Program. An agency has the discretion to approve or deny a request for a part-time work schedule if the agency and PMF have determined that it would not negatively impact the PMF's ability to meet all Program requirements by the expiration of the PMF's appointment. The agency's approval of the request must include an approval of a specific time period that the agency determines to be appropriate. A PMF is not entitled to approval of a request for a part-time work schedule. An agency's Pathways Policy must specify the conditions under which a part-time work schedule may be authorized. The PMF's Pathways Participant agreement must be updated with the new work schedule information when a part-time work schedule is approved.
[77 FR 28215, May 11, 2012, as amended at 89 FR 25774, Apr. 12, 2024]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Armor Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Peter
Braun, as President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


By:  /s/ Peter Braun
--------------------------

Peter Braun
President and CFO
February 20, 2004
Rockingham,

Dec., 1898.

#### Bailey *v.*Ballou.

A conveyance without consideration, made more than three months before the grantor’s insolvency and when his assets were barely equal to his indebtedness, is fraudulent in fact as to creditors, and may be avoided by his assignee.

Bill in Equity, by the assignee of Ballou & Page, to set aside •deeds purporting to convey a homestead from Ballou to the ■defendant, his wife, through a third person. Facts found by the court.

The deeds were without consideration, and were executed and delivered to the defendant on July 29, 1895, at which time Ballou’s assets and the assets of the firm, aside from the homestead, were of a value barely equal to the amount of his and the firm’s indebtedness. In making the deeds, Ballou had no intention to hinder or delay his own or the firm’s creditors in the collection ■of their claims, but supposed that he and the firm had ample means to pay their creditors in full. The firm subsequently made losses and became embarrassed. On May 11, 1896, they made an assignment to the probate court, and the plaintiff was ■appointed assignee. The firm and individual estate will each pay about fifty cents on the dollar of their respective indebtedness. A substantial part of the indebtedness outstanding at the ■date of the assignment existed July 29, 1895. Subject to the •defendant’s exception, a decree was made setting aside the ■deeds. The defendant moves to set aside the decree.

*Andrews Andrews*and *Leach $ Stevens,*for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown $ Warren,*for the defendant.

Pike, J.

The law respecting insolvent debtors provides that all . . . sales and transfers, whenever made, if fraudulent as to •creditors, shall be void; and the assignee may recover . . . any property so . . . sold or transferred.” P. S., *c.*201, *s.*26. The phrase, “ if fraudulent as to creditors,” has been construed to mean such sales or transfers as are frauds in fact, but not constructive frauds, or frauds by intendment of law. “ Gifts or ■conveyances without valuable consideration are not mere constructive frauds, or frauds by intendment of law. They are, as against creditors, fraudulent in fact.” *Thompson*v. *Esty, ante,p.*55. See, also, *Coleman*v. *Burr,*93 N. Y. 17, 31; *Roberts*v. *Victor,*130 N. Y. 585, 600; *Smith*v. *Reid,*134 N. Y. 568, 575.

*415The conveyance which Ballou made to his wife was without valuable consideration, was made at a time when “ his assets ” and *“*the assets of the firm ” remaining after the conveyance “ were of a value barely equal to the amount of his and the firm’s indebtedness” *(Gove*v. *Campbell,*62 N. H. 401, 403), and was “ fraudulent in fact ” as against his creditors. *Thompson*v. *Esty, supra.*

*Exception overruled.*

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
# 6:\

# ~ANA R.EFINING COMPANY

# f€J©@[P~1 1900 Tenth Street N.E. / Great Falls, Montana 59404-1955 

# RECEIVED

# ~EP 1 2 

## 2005 September 9, 2005 MT Dept. EnVIronmental Quality Permitting &Compliance Divison Trista Glazier PJr Resources Management Bureau MontanaDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality Air Resources Management Bureau P.O. Box 200901 Helena, 

### MY59620·0901 Dear Ms; Glazier: Inyour May 26, 2005 letter to MontanaRefIning Company (MRC), you requested information on new or reconstructed emissions units that were in existence at

### MRCbetween August 

### "1, 1962, and August 7, 1977 in order to determine sources SUbject to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) regulations. MRC has identifIed two emissions units that were in existence, as that term is defined in your letter, at

### MRC within the specified time frame; the catalytic reforming unit, in existence in 1962 (exact date unknown), and a collection offive (5) asphalt tank: heaters, in existence in 1963 (exact date unknown). Both emissions units are 

### in operation at this time. Enclosed is a table presentingthe emissions units and theirpotential-to-emit for five (5) criteriapollutants. Ifyou have questions, please feel free to call me at (406) 761-4100
.

.Sincerely;
Ray Martinich Environmental Engineer
Enclosure

EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 501 East Main Street/Artesia. NM 88210/(505) 748-3311 MARKETING OFFICES: 1900 Tenth Street N.E. /Great Falls. MT59404-1955/(406) 761-4100/Fax (406) 761-0174 REFINERY: 1900 Tenth Street N.E./Great Falls, MT59404-1955/(406) 761-4100/Fax (406) 761-0174Montana Refming Company BART Emissions Unit Information Request Potential-to-Emit for Emissions Units in Existence Between 08/07/62 and 08/07/77 (pollutant emissions in tons per year)
Pollutant Catalytic Reforming Unit Asphalt Tank Heaters Carbonmonoxide (CO) 2.77 2.42 Sulfur dioxide (S02) 0.02 0.02

Nitrogen dioxide (N°2) 4.62 4.03 Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 0.18 0.16

Total particulate matter 0.25 0.22
Exhibit 99.5 

 

AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT 

 

THIS AMENDMENT is made this 28th day of July, 2004, by and between FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, doing business in Florida as First Advantage Holding, Inc.(the “Borrower”), a Delaware corporation and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (the “Bank”). 

 

Recitals 

 

The Borrower and the Bank executed a Loan Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”) dated July 31, 2003, pursuant to which the Bank has provided a credit facility to the Borrower. The parties previouslyamended the Loan Agreement on December 22, 2003. The parties wish to further amend the Loan Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 

 

1. Section 1.01 (b) of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended so that, from and after the date hereof, such Article shall readas follows 

 

(a) The Borrower’sindebtedness under the Line of Credit shall be evidenced by a Renewal Promissory Note (as amended, extended or renewed from time to time, the “Note”) dated July 28, 2004, executed by the Borrower in favor of the Bank in the originalprincipal amount of $15,000,000.00. The Note shall bear interest at the rate set forth therein and shall be payable as set forth therein. 

 

2. Section 1.01 (d) of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended so that, from and after the date hereof, such Article shall read as follows 

 

(b) For purposes hereof, the term “RevolvingPeriod” shall mean a period commencing on the date hereof and terminating on July 31, 2006. 

 

3. The Borrower certifies that as of the date hereof: (a) all of its representations and warranties in the Loan Agreement are true and correct as if madeon the date hereof; and (b) no Default or Event of Default has occurred under the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement shall continue in full force and effect except as modified herein. 

 

DATED the day and year first above written. 

 

FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, doing business in Florida as FIRST ADVANTAGE HOLDING, INC.By: /s/    JOHN LAMSON        Its: Chief Financial Officer   
 

2
§ 2427.2 Requests for general statements of policy or guidance. ( a ) The head of an agency (or designee), the national president of a labor organization (or designee), or the president of a labor organization not affiliated with a national organization (or designee) may separately or jointly ask the Authority for a general statement of policy or guidance. The head of any lawful association not qualified as a labor organization may also ask the Authority for such a statement provided the request is not in conflict with the provisions of chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code or other law.
( b ) The Authority ordinarily will not consider a request related to any matter pending before the Authority, General Counsel, Panel or Assistant Secretary.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Social security, your right torepresentation.**
 
1998 | 2004 |2009 | 2010| 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:SSA 1.2:R 44/4
Item Number:0517-B
CGP systemNumber:000589315
 
January 16, 2020
§ 359.603 OPM priority placement. ( a ) *Agency certification.* ( 1 ) If there is no vacant SES position within the agency for which an appointee covered by § 359.602(b) is qualified, the agency head, or the acting agency head in the absence of the agency head, shall certify to OPM in writing that no such position is available. This certification may not be delegated below the Assistant Secretary level in a department, or an equivalent level above the director of personnel in other agencies.
( 2 ) The 45-day period during which OPM will attempt to place the appointee begins on the day the certification is acknowledged by OPM.
( 3 ) It is the continuing responsibility of an agency that has a surplus career appointee to place the appointee in any vacant SES position in the agency for which the appointee is qualified, even after the appointee is certified to OPM.
( 4 ) An individual remains a career SES appointee in his or her agency during the OPM placement period.
( b ) *OPM authority.* As provided by § U.S.C. 3595(b)(3), OPM may require an agency to take any action that OPM considers necessary to carry out a placement.
( c ) *OPM referrals.* ( 1 ) OPM may formally refer a career appointee to an agency for a specific SES vacancy or general priority consideration. Such a referral may not become a part of the regular competitive staffing process. The appointee must be considered by the agency for a noncompetitive SES appointment.
( 2 ) Any objection by the agency to the qualifications of the appointee must be based on the professional/technical qualifications in the standard for the position. An agency may not rely solely on lack of agency-specific experience for an objection based on lack of professional/technical qualifications if the appointee is otherwise qualified.
( d ) *Agency response.* ( 1 ) In order to expedite placement of surplus career appointees, an agency shall respond to an OPM referral within the time period prescribed by OPM.
( 2 ) If an agency fails to place a referred career appointee in an SES position because of objection to the appointee's qualifications or because of any other reason, the agency response must be in writing and must be signed by the agency head, or the acting agency head in the absence of the agency head. The response may not be delegated below the Assistant Secretary level in a department, or an equivalent level above the director of personnel in other agencies.
( 3 ) If an agency cancels a position while a referral to the position is pending, the appointee will be entitled to priority consideration for the position if it or a successor position is reestablished in the SES within 1 year of the cancellation date and the appointee has not been placed in another SES position.
( e ) *Corrective action.* If an agency fails to provide bona fide priority consideration, OPM may order appropriate corrective action.
( f ) *Declination by employee.* If a career appointee declines a reasonable offer of placement, OPM's placement efforts will cease. The appointee may be removed from the SES at the expiration of the agency notice period.
[54 FR 18876, May 3, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 6388, Feb. 2, 1995]