alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2022182EN.01002101.xml

| 7.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 182/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/21

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 50/2022

of 18 March 2022

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2022/1118]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1244 of 20 May 2021 amending Annex X to Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the standardised access to vehicle on-board diagnostics information and repair and maintenance information, and the requirements and procedures for access to vehicle security information (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1244 of 20 May 2021 amending Annex X to Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the standardised access to vehicle on-board diagnostics information and repair and maintenance information, and the requirements and procedures for access to vehicle security information (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 51 (Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter I of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32021 R 1244: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1244 of 20 May 2021 (OJ L 272, 30.7.2021, p. 16).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32021 R 1244: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1244 of 20 May 2021 (OJ L 272, 30.7.2021, p. 16).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1244 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 19 March 2022, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 49/2022 of 18 March 2022 (2), whichever is the later.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2022.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Nicolas VON LINGEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 272, 30.7.2021, p. 16.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

(2)  See page 19 of this Official Journal.

2

---
[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:****Annual review [electronicresource]**
 
1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003
 
SuDoc Number:LC 1.2:N 21/6/ | LC 1.19/2:
Item Number:0786 | 0785-R-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000970872
 
February 6, 2020
### **CHAPTER 36—COMPENSATION OF CONDEMNEES IN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS**
§ 904.243 Admissions. ( a ) *Request.* If ordered by the Judge, any party may serve on any other party a written request for admission of the truth of any relevant matter of fact set forth in the request in conformance with § 904.3, including the genuineness of any relevant document described in the request. Copies of documents must be served with the request. Each matter for which an admission is requested must be separately stated.
( b ) *Response.* Each matter is admitted unless a written answer or objection is served within 20 days of service of the request in conformance with § 904.3, or within such other time as the Judge may allow. The answering party must specifically admit or deny each matter, or state the reasons why he or she cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
( c ) *Effect of admission.* Any matter admitted is conclusively established unless the Judge on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of it for good cause shown.
[71 FR 12448, Mar. 10, 2006, as amended at 87 FR 38939, June 30, 2022]
Summary of Compensation Arrangements Applicable to The PMI Group, Inc. Directors



 Exhibit 10.1 
 The PMI Group, Inc. Board of Directors 
 Summary of Compensation Arrangements Applicable to
Directors 
 Effective May 18, 2007 
 Directors who are employees of The PMI Group, Inc. (“PMI”) or its subsidiaries do not receive additional compensation for their services as directors. The compensation and benefits program for non-employee directors of PMI is as
follows: 
 Annual retainer fees for non-employee directors are: Board members - $60,000; Chair of the Audit Committee - $15,000; members of the Audit
Committee - $10,000; Chairs of Compensation, Governance and Nominating and Investment and Finance Committees - $10,000; Presiding Director - $15,000; and members of the Financial Guaranty Oversight Committee - $70,000. Annual retainer fees are paid
quarterly. 
 Under PMI’s 2005 Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan, each non-employee director may defer receipt of his or her cash retainer
fees. All amounts deferred are deemed to be invested in phantom shares of PMI common stock. On any date, the value of each share of phantom stock will equal the fair market value of a share of PMI common stock, including reinvestment of any
dividends. Phantom shares of PMI common stock will be paid in cash at the payment dates selected by the director in conformity with the Plan. 
 Non-employee
directors also receive quarterly, automatic, non-discretionary stock unit grants. Each quarterly grant consists of that number of stock units which, when multiplied by the market price per share of PMI common stock on the date of the award, equals
$25,000. The stock units vest upon the earlier of cessation of Board service due to retirement, death, disability, resignation or non-reelection to the Board, or the fifth anniversary of the award date and, upon exercise, are payable in shares of
PMI common stock. In addition, a non-employee director may elect to defer the payout of his or her stock units in accordance with the PMI Equity Incentive Plan. 
 All directors have entered into indemnification agreements with PMI, pursuant to which PMI is obligated to provide defense and indemnification, including advancement of expenses, in the event that certain claims are asserted against the
covered individuals. PMI also provides directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for its directors. Directors are also reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings and their spouses’
attendance at PMI’s annual off-site meeting of the Board of Directors.
**GAO-02-981R**                      Published: Jul 26, 2002. Publicly Released: Jul 26, 2002.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO reviewed the audit reports covering the financial statements of the Fleet Reserve Association for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 and the 3-months period ending December 31, 2001. GAO found no reportable instances of noncompliance. The audit reports include the auditors' opinions that the financial statements of the corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

## Full Report

Full Report (2 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Auditing and Financial Management

Accounting standardsAudit reportsFederal corporationsFinancial statement auditsReporting requirementsFinancial statementsMilitary forcesFederally chartered corporationFinancial managementRegulatory noncompliance
SCWC-17-0000006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

PATRICIA MORANZ,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

HARBOR MALL, LLC,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000006; CIVIL NO. 14-1-0172)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner Patricia Moranz’s application for writ of 

certiorari filed on March 18, 2021, is hereby accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be 

held in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant 

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, move 

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 13, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000006

13-MAY-2021

10:15 AM

Dkt. 11 OGAC
### **CHAPTER 31—PUBLIC WORKS ACCELERATION PROGRAM**

Sec.
2641.
Congressional declaration of purpose.
2642.
Acceleration of public works.
2643.
Increase of State or local expenditures.
#### Myrna LaBow *v.*Ronald LaBow

*Leonard Bieringer,*in support of the petition.

*Myrna LaBow,*pro se, in opposition.

Decided March 10, 1988

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 13 Conn. App. 330, is denied.
NRC PUBLISHES DRAFT TRIBAL PROTOCOL MANUAL FOR COMMENT,

BEGINS DEVELOPING POLICY STATEMENT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking comments on draft agency procedures 

for consulting with Native American tribes and suggestions for a policy statement on tribal 

consultations that the staff will develop. The agency is producing these documents in response to 

direction from the Commission earlier this year following an increase in the number and 

complexity of consultations between the NRC and Native American tribes.

The draft Tribal Protocol Manual provides guidance on effective interaction between 

NRC staff and tribal governments, and background on the historic relationship between the 

federal government and Native Americans. The draft manual is based on internal procedures

used since March 2010 to govern the NRC’s interactions with tribal governments.

NRC staff will use the draft manual as a starting point for developing a policy statement 

on agency consultations with tribes. To further aid in developing that policy statement, the NRC 

is looking for comments from tribal governments and organizations, the public, and other 

interested parties. While the NRC welcomes all input, the staff is particularly interested in 

comments on four questions:

How can the NRC strengthen government-to-government relationships with Native 

American tribes?

What practices have the NRC or other federal agencies used that have been effective 

in identifying tribal interests and resolving tribal concerns about proposed actions?

Are there specific Tribal Policy Statements in other federal agencies that could serve 

as a starting point for the NRC’s efforts?

What unique tribal issues should the NRC be aware of as a non-landholding 

regulatory agency that issues licenses under the Atomic Energy Act?

The NRC will take comments on the draft manual and input into the policy statement 

until April 1, 2013. The draft manual is available in NRC’s document management system under 

accession number ML12261A423.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-113 October 15, 2012
Comments may be submitted on the federal government’s www.regulations.gov website 

using Docket ID NRC-2012-0235; by email to rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov; through a link 

on NRC’s public website; by mail to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff; or by fax to 301-

415-1101. 

######

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert H. Brown, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 348]

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered March 22, 2005. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a term of incarceration.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the term of probation imposed upon his conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. Defendant contends that the decision of the Supreme Court in *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]) precludes the use of a firearms report at his probation violation hearing. We reject that contention. Although the revocation of probation results in a loss of liberty, it is not a criminal prosecution *(see generally Gagnon v Scarpelli,*411 US 778, 782 [1973]; *Matter of Darvin M. v Jacobs,*69 NY2d 957, 959 [1987]). Thus, *Crawford,*which “preserved defendant’s right to confront witnesses in the context of a criminal prosecution,” does not apply *(People v Dort,*18 AD3d 23, 25 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 885 [2005]). In any event, any error in admitting the firearms report is harmless *(see generally People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
#### Michael Gesas v. William J. Markowitz.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
**NO. 03 -**  **15 -**  **00100 -**  **CV**

_____________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AUSTIN

____________________________________ _____________________________ **IN RE THE ESTATE OF EDELL WADE, DECEASED.**

**JAMES E. WADE, Appellant**  **V. JOHNNY WADE AND AMANDA WADE, INDIVIDUALLY AND**  **AMANDA WADE AS THE INDEPENDENT EX ECUTOR OF THE** 

**ESTATE OF EDELL WADE, Appellee**  **s**

_______________________________________ ___________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law of Burnet County, Texas

_____________________________________ _____________________________ **APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION**  **FOR EXT ENSION OF TIME**  **TO FILE APPELLEES’ BRIEF**  TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 1. Appellees, Johnny Wade and Amanda Wade, Individually and Amanda Wade as the Independent Executor of the Estate o f Edell Wade , request
an extension of time to file Appellee s ’ Brief. Appellee s’ Brief is currently due on Wednesday, June 17, 2015. Appellees seek a 30
- day extension to Friday, July 17, 2015
. ACCEPTED 03-15-00100-CV 5492390 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/1/2015 2:21:04 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

2. **CERTIFICATE OF**  **CONFERENCE:** Counsel for Appellees has conferred with Counsel for Appellant who has represented that Appellant do es not oppose this motion. 3
. Counsel responsible for drafting and filing Appellee s ’ Brief has a longstanding family vacation scheduled in early June and a number of other cases requiring his attention
. 4. Because Appellee s ’ Brief is currently due June 17, 2015 , this
extension is necessary to afford c ounsel for Appellees adequate time to prepare the Appellee s ’ Brief in this case
. 5
. Appellees have not previously requested any extensi ons of time to file Appellee s ’ Brief

. WHERE FORE, premises c onsidered , Appellees r equest that the Court set July 17, 2015 as the deadline fo r Appellees to file Appellee s ’ Brief in this case
. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Boyce C. Cabaniss Boyce C. Cabaniss State Bar No. 03579950 William G. Christian State Bar No. 00793505 G RAVES , D OUGHERTY , H EARON & M OODY A Professional Corporation 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 480.5660 Facsimile: (512) 480.58603 bcabaniss@gdhm.com wchristian@gdhm.com **Attorney s**  **for Appellees**  **Johnny Wade**  **and Amanda Wade, Individually**
/s/ Claude E. Ducloux Hill, Ducloux, Carnes & De La Garza State Bar No. 06157500 400 West 15th Street, Suite 808 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 474
- 7054 Facsimile: (512) 474
- 5605 cducloux@hdcdlaw.com **Attorney for**  **Appellee Amanda**  **Wade as**  **the Independent**  **Executor of**  **the Estate**  **of Edell Wade** 

**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**  By my signature below, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been served via electronic service to all counsel of record listed below on this 1st day of June , 2015
. Sheldon E. Richie Emily J. Seikel 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1750 Austin, Texas 78701 srichie@rg
- austin.com eseikel@rg
- austin.com

/s/ Boyce C. Cabaniss Boyce C. Cabaniss
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

Rod McCullum

DIRECTOR

FUEL CYCLE PROJECTS

NUCLEAR GENERATION DIVISION

September 10, 2010

Ms. Catherine Haney

Director

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject: Integrated Safety Analysis: Why It Is Appropriate for Fuel Recycling Facilities

Project Number: 689

Dear Ms. Haney:

Enclosed for your review is a Nuclear Energy Institute white paper on the use of Integrated Safety

Analysis (ISA) at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed recycling facilities. This paper is

intended as an information source for the NRC and should serve as a foundation for discussion with

industry representatives on the issue.

This paper concludes that an ISA is a risk-informed, performance-based way of achieving and

maintaining safety at fuel recycling facilities. As outlined in the paper, an ISA can be rigorously

developed and used to support a safety decision for these facilities. Using qualitative or semiquantitative techniques, as established for ISAs, these facilities can achieve and demonstrate safety

in an effective and efficient manner.

We believe that additional discussions between industry and the NRC can further advance the

ongoing dialogue on the regulatory framework for recycling facilities that the NRC is in the process

1776 1 Street, NW I Suite 400 I Washington, DC I 20006-3708 I P: 202.739.8082 I F: 202.533.0166 I rxm@nei.org I www.nei.org
Ms. Catherine Haney

September 10, 2010

Page 2

of developing. NEI is prepared to meet with the NRC staff, at its earliest convenience, for the

purpose of discussing this white paper. If you have any questions, please address them to me.

Sincerely,

Rod McCullum

Attachment

c: Ms. Marissa G. Bailey, Deputy Director NMSS/FSSS/SPTSD, NRC

Mr. Thomas G. Hiltz, NMSS/FCSS/SPTSD, NRC

NRC Document Control Desk
**U.S. Access Board: Rail Vehicle s**  **Access Advisory Committee Subcommittee on**  **Boarding and Alighting**

**June 25 , 2014**  **1:0 0**  **– 3**  **:00 Eastern** 1.0 Introductions 2.0 Approval of the Agenda 3.0 Discussion of s ubcommittee scope and objectives 4.0 Discussion on boarding and alighting methods 4 .1 Discuss boardi ng methods a nd appropriate mode, in probable order of preference to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities. Note: Many of these methods could be used in conjunction with a bridge plate. A. Full platform level boarding B. Set
- back platforms C. Car- borne lifts D. M ini
- high platforms E. Station
- based mobile lifts 5.0 Discussion on boarding and alighting devices 5 .1 Review of current law and regulations and begin development of recommendations A. Lifts B. Ramps C. Bridge plate 6 .0 Planning 6 .1 Develop action i tems 6 .2 Assign duties and t asks 6 .3 Establish deadlines for d eliverables
Attachments