alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 13-094 November 7, 2013

CONTACT: Maureen Conley, 301-415-8200 

NRC’s Donald Cool Named to ICRP Main Commission

and Chairman of ICRP Committee Four

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is pleased to announce that 

Donald Cool has been elected to the Main Commission of the International 

Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Since 1928, the ICRP has 

developed and overseen a system that is the basis for radiation protection 

standards and policies used around the world. 

Cool was also appointed chairman of ICRP Committee Four, the 

standing committee on the application of radiological protection 

recommendations. Cool, who holds a Ph.D. in radiation biology, is a senior 

advisor in the NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. He has been an active participant in the ICRP for 29 

years and a member of the standing committee since 1993. Cool also co-chairs 

the U.S. Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards and is a council member of the 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

ICRP’s radiological protection recommendations are updated periodically to reflect the latest 

scientific evidence and radiation protection experience. ICRP has more than 200 volunteer members 

from roughly 30 countries who are the leading scientists and policymakers involved in radiological 

protection. The ICRP Main Commission has 12 members and a chairman. ICRP Committee Four

provides advice on applying the radiological protection system. Among the issues on its plate, the 

committee is updating advice on emergency and long-term exposure using experience in contaminated 

territories such as around Fukushima.

Cool joined the NRC in 1982 as a health physicist in the Fuel Cycle Safety Branch, Office of 

Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). He has held progressively more responsible 

positions including leader of the Programmatic Safety Section, NMSS; chief of the Radiation 

Protection and Health Effects Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research; and director of the

Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS.
#### § 904.320 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2614]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,871]


Polyone, Inc., Burlington, NJ; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on December 23, 2003, in response to a 
worker petition filed by a state agency on behalf of workers at 
PolyOne, Inc., Burlington, New Jersey.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of January, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-2614 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
### Part D—Child Support and Establishment of Paternity
### SUBCHAPTER III—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GRANT AUTHORIZATIONS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3378 Received in Senate (RDS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3378

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 21, 2012

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 220 Elm Avenue in Munising, Michigan, as the ``Elizabeth L. Kinnunen 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ELIZABETH L. KINNUNEN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 220 Elm Avenue in Munising, Michigan, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Elizabeth L. Kinnunen Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Elizabeth 
L. Kinnunen Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 20, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Maurice R. Taylor, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2005 of ProUroCare Medical Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

   a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

                                             /s/ Maurice R. Taylor
                                             ----------------------------
Date:  May 11, 2005                          Name:  Maurice R. Taylor
                                             Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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  Annual  Report  of  Victoria  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Albert
Abdoulline, as 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/  Albert Abdoulline
-----------------------------------

Albert Abdoulline
President, Chief Financial Officer
Date:  March 29, 2006
Amended Greater Bay Bancorp 2005 Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT 2007A 
 TO 
 GREATER BAY BANCORP 
 2005 VOLUNTARY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT 2007A TO THE GREATER BAY BANCORP 2005 VOLUNTARY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN (“Amendment 2007A”) has been adopted by action of
the Compensation Committee of Greater Bay Bancorp (the “Company”) on and effective as of May 21, 2007, and is made pursuant to the following recitals: 
 A. The Company adopted the Greater Bay Bancorp 2005 Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) by action of the Board on February 15, 2005, as an amendment and restatement of the Greater Bay
Bancorp 2004 Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan (the “2004 Plan”), as subsequently amended by administrative actions on March 16, 2007. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment 2007A have the meanings set forth in the Plan.

 B. Section 10.01 of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan. 
 C. The Company has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and the Subsidiaries to amend the Plan as set forth in this Amendment
2007A. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the Plan is amended as follows: 
 1. Section 4.02 of the Plan is amended by the addition of the following subsection (c) at the end thereof: 
 (c) No deferral elections may be made under the Plan on or after May 21, 2007. Any deferral election made prior to such date
pertaining to Basic Compensation that would be payable in the absence of a deferral election after the end of 2007 Plan Year or pertaining to Annual Bonus Compensation for services performed in the 2007 Plan Year or in any subsequent Plan Year is
hereby terminated and of no further force or effect. 
 2. This Amendment 2007A applies to all Affiliated Companies that have adopted or
hereafter adopt the Plan as Participating Companies in accordance with Article 9 of the Plan, each of which shall automatically be deemed to have adopted this Amendment as part of the Plan. 
 3. Except as set forth herein, the Plan as previously amended shall remain in full force and effect, and each provision of the Plan that is hereby
amended shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its prior terms until the effective date of this amendment. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment 2007A to be executed by its duly authorized officer on the date set forth below, but to be effective as indicated herein. 
  

													
	 	 	 	 	GREATER BAY BANCORP	 	 	 	 	 	 
							
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Peggy Hiraoka
	 		 		 	Date: May 21, 2007
		 		 	Name:	 	Peggy Hiraoka	 		 		 	
		 		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President Human Resources
No. IV-12-031

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

August 21, 2012 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD OPEN HOUSE FOR WATERFORD 3 NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will host an open house on Aug. 22 in New 

Orleans, La., to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance last year at the Waterford 

3 nuclear plant. 

The open house is informal and will be held from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the Hyatt regency 

New Orleans, 601 Loyola Ave. The plant is operated by Entergy Operations.

“The NRC continually reviews the safety performance of Waterford 3 and each of the 

nation’s commercial nuclear power plants,” said Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins. 

“This meeting will allow us to speak directly with the local community about the plant’s 

performance last year and the NRC’s actions to make sure the plant continues to operate safely, 

including the additional inspections performed during 2011 in response to the events at 

Fukushima Daiichi to evaluate the safety of U.S. nuclear plants. Those reviews showed that 

Waterford 3 and other U.S. plants continue to operate safely. ” 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials will serve as the basis for 

the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/wat_2011q4.pdf.

The NRC said Waterford 3 operated safely during 2011 and will receive the very detailed 

inspection regime during 2012 used by the NRC for plants that are operating well. These 

inspections are performed by resident inspectors stationed at the plant and by specialists from the 

Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. 

Current performance information for Waterford 3 is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/WAT3/wat3_chart.html.

###

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.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

 Arlington, TX 76011 - 4125

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
§ 904.102 Procedures upon receipt of a NOVA. ( a ) The respondent has 30 days from receipt of the NOVA in which to respond. During this time the respondent may: ( 1 ) Accept the penalty or compromise penalty, if any, by taking the actions specified in the NOVA;
( 2 ) Seek to have the NOVA amended, modified, or rescinded under paragraph (b) of this section;
( 3 ) Request a hearing under § 904.201(a);
( 4 ) Request an extension of time to respond under paragraph (c) of this section; or
( 5 ) Take no action, in which case the NOVA becomes a final administrative decision in accordance with § 904.104.
( b ) The respondent may seek amendment or modification of the NOVA to conform to the facts or law as that person sees them by notifying Agency counsel at the telephone number or address specified in the NOVA. If amendment or modification is sought, Agency counsel will either amend the NOVA or decline to amend it, and so notify the respondent.
( c ) The respondent may, within the 30-day period specified in paragraph (a) of this section, request an extension of time to respond. Agency counsel may grant an extension of up to 30 days unless he or she determines that the requester could, exercising reasonable diligence, respond within the 30-day period. If Agency counsel does not respond to the request within 48 hours of its receipt, the request is granted automatically for the extension requested, up to a maximum of 30 days. A telephonic response to the request within the 48-hour period is considered an effective response, and will be followed by written confirmation.
( d ) Agency counsel may, for good cause, grant an additional extension beyond the 30-day period specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
[71 FR 12448, Mar. 10, 2006, as amended at 87 FR 38937, June 30, 2022]
Board Coverage Decision

2000-34

No Decision Published

Name change: American Train Dispatchers Association 

BA# 8905
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

N. ROBINSON and M. ROBINSON,

Appellants,

v.

INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES a/k/a INTERNATIONAL 

HOUSE OF PANCAKES, LLC, a foreign limited parent company, a

Delaware company, NOSNAWS CORP., a Florida corporation, SUNSHINE 

RESTAURANT MERGER SUB, LLC, SUNSHINE RESTAURANT 

PARTNERS, LP, SUNSHINE RESTAURANT PARTNERS, GP, LLC, 

SUNSHINE RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LLC, all registered with Florida

as State of Georgia business entities, doing business in Florida under the 

fictitious name of SUNSHINE RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, a limited 

liability company, and RONALD NIELLY,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-1923

[March 21, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; John Joseph Murphy, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 2009-

042009.

Freeman A. Mark of Mei & Mark LLP, Boca Raton and Edward J. 

Naidich of Mei & Mark LLP, Washington, DC, for appellants.

Kenneth R. Drake, Scott A. Markowitz, William C. McCue and Doron 

Weiss of Demahy Labrador Drake Victor Rojas & Cabeza, Coral Gables , 

for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
### subpart ii—provisions concerning pregnancy and perinatal transmission of hiv
Underground Piping and Tanks 

Integrity Initiative Integrity Initiative

Recent Interpretations

Glen Schinzel

December 5, 2012 December 5, 2012
Overview

 NEI 09-14 incudes a process for interpreting NEI 09 14 incudes a process for interpreting

the Initiative and related guidance 

– BPITF responsibility BPITF responsibility– Results communicated to the industry

 Requests were not addressed if the question Requests were not addressed if the question

asked whether utility actions meet the initiative

BPITF interprets guidance not adequacy of – BPITF interprets guidance, not adequacy of

utility implementation
Interpretations Since April 2012 Interpretations Since April 2012

 Milestone applicability to unit or site Milestone applicability to unit or site

– Applicable to the program (which may 

have been defined for either unit or site) have been defined for either unit or site)

 APEC survey (revised from earlier 

i t t ti ) in

terpre

t

ation

)

– Indirect inspection tool to focus areas for 

direct examination

– Provides useful information on general 

areas of interest
Interpretations Since April 2012 Interpretations Since April 2012

 Grouping of pipes and tanks together

– No specific requirement – Utility must justify its groupings

 Negative pressure testing for tanks

– Ini

tiativ

e does not specify h

ow testin

g

s

hould t at e does ot spec y o test g s ou d

be done

– Utilit

y must be able to 

justify approach y j y pp

considering delta pressure achieved and resulting loads
SERVED:· April27, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

STARJET; INC. 

Docket No. FAA-2014- 1115 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

. - ~. - • • ~ •• • I ' 

- ,· '-. -. ', \i: 

·-~-: ~:·.~~.-.. <T:,:.::~ 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Complaint dated 

January 6, 2015. Starjet, Inc., (hereinafter "StarjeC) filed a Request for Hearing dated 

December21, 2014. We served our Procedural Order on February 19,2015. 

On March 17,2015, the FAA filed a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted. 

Starjet has failed to file an Answer to the Complaint, failed to file a response to 

our Procedural Order and failed to respond to the Agency's Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted. · 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

I. On or before May 8, 2015, Starjet shall file a response to this Order stating 

why the relief requested in the Agency's Motion should not he granted; and 

2. On or before May .8, 2015, Stru:iet shall answer the Complaint; and 

3. On or before May 8, 2015, Starjet shall fully comply with our Procedural 

Order; and 

4. Absent full and complete responses to paragraphs I, 2 and 3 hereinabove. 

Sta~jet may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations in the Complaint may 

be deemed admitted; and/or Starjet may be precluded from introducing any evidence at 

the hearing other than his own testimony; and/or Starjet's Request for Hearing may be 

dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against Starjet in the full amount of 

the fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI 0001 

ONE COPY 

Pekka Karu, President/Director of Operations 

Starjet, Inc., Respondent 

26 Washington Blvd., 211d Floor 

Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 

TEL: 310-301-9325 

FAX: 310-301-1556 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7110 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative La'H' Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E 11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-20 14-1115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier. use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO. Washington. 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
§ 1027.5 Hearing. ( a ) *Request for hearing.* ( 1 ) An employee may file a petition for an oral or paper hearing in accordance with the instructions outlined in the agency's notice to offset.
( 2 ) A hearing may be requested by filing a written petition addressed to the Executive Director stating why the employee disputes the existence or amount of the debt or, in the case of an individual whose repayment schedule has been established other than by a written agreement, concerning the terms of the repayment schedule. The petition for a hearing must be received by the Executive Director not later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the employee's receipt of the offset notice, or notice of the terms of the payment schedule, unless the employee can show good cause for failing to meet the filing deadline.
( b ) *Hearing procedures.* ( 1 ) The hearing will be presided over by an impartial hearing official.
( 2 ) The hearing shall conform to procedures contained in the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 4 CFR 102.3(c). The burden shall be on the employee to demonstrate that the existence or the amount of the debt is in error.