alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1118.9 Motions to limit or quash subpoenas and general or special orders and delegation to modify terms for compliance. ( a ) The Commission hereby delegates to the Associate Executive Director for Compliance and Enforcement; the Solicitor; the Directors of Divisions of Enforcement, Product Defect Correction, and Regulatory Management; and the General Counsel the authority: ( 1 ) To negotiate and approve the terms of satisfactory compliance with subpoenas and general or special orders;
( 2 ) To impose conditions upon compliance with such compulsory processes; and
( 3 ) To extend the time for compliance and the time for filing motions to limit or quash.
( b ) The person or firm served with a subpoena or general or special order may file a motion to limit or quash the subpoena or order. Any motion to limit or quash shall set forth the reasons why the subpoena or order should be limited or quashed and may be accompanied by memoranda, affidavits, or other documents submitted in support of the motion. The motion must be received in the Office of the Secretary of the Commission within 10 calendar days of receipt of the subpoena or order unless: ( 1 ) The subpoena or order provides for a different time; or
( 2 ) The Commission, for good cause shown, grants an extension of time to file a motion.
( c ) Upon receipt of a motion to limit or quash, the Office of the Secretary shall immediately notify and transmit a copy to the appropriate staff member. Unless a different period of time is specified in the subpoena or order, the staff shall file an answer with the Office of the Secretary within 10 calendar days after receipt of the motion. A copy of the answer shall be served upon the moving party or the counsel of the moving party. No reply to the answer will be permitted.
( d ) All motions to limit or quash shall be ruled upon by the Commission. The Office of the Secretary shall serve the decision on a motion to limit or quash upon the moving party or the counsel for the moving party and shall furnish a copy of the decision to the appropriate staff member. The Commission's decision is a final decision. Motions for reconsideration will not be received.
Robot Intelligence for Tunneling and Confined

Space Search and Rescue

John G. Blitch

Director

Center for Robot Assisted Search and Rescue (CRASAR)

P.O. Box 270346, Littleton CO 80127

303.697.7607, {crasarhq@aol.com, blitchj@aol.com }

ABSTRACT

The horrific nature of structural collapse and natural disaster has unquestionably risen to

the forefront of American perspective in the aftermath of recent terrorist attacks of 09/11/01. In

responding to these events, heroic rescue personnel are routinely faced with a tremendously

complex, hazardous, and often frustrating task environment that all too often leaves them without

success in the presence of seemingly endless streams of carnage and body bags. The use of

robots to assist in mitigating this challenge has been validated with a moderate degree of success

by recent response efforts at the World Trade Center, but the tele-operated nature of the

systems employed there did not fully exploit robot employment potential.

This paper presents the case for machine reasoning in the context of robot assisted

search and rescue. A description of the USAR challenge is presented first in an effort to

develop the reader’s appreciation for complexities and challenges of the problem at hand. This

is followed by a brief evolutionary review of mobile robot development and the motivation

behind a shift toward portable platforms. A more detailed review of CRASAR’s evolution and

its pioneering actions in response to the World Trade Center attack is provided next with

emphasis on platform shortcomings and the need for semi-autonomous control schemes. A

concept for USAR (Urban Search and Rescue) oriented micro-tunneling is presented next as a

new challenge in volumetric reasoning. The paper concludes with sequence of grand research

challenges for roboticists interested in the USAR task domain.

Keywords: robot, robotics, confined space rescue, search and rescue, tunneling, microtunneling, artificial intelligence, intelligent systems
§ 2017.2 Action following receipt of a petition. ( a ) USTR will consider a petition received in accordance with the schedule published in the Federal Register for the annual (normal cycle) AGOA review process under section 111 of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 2466a) in conjunction with that annual review.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, USTR will consider a petition received at any time other than the time described in paragraph (a) of this section, in accordance with the schedule published in the Federal Register for the next annual (normal cycle) AGOA review process.
( c ) ( 1 ) If a petition received at any time other than the time described in paragraph (a), requests an out-of-cycle review under section 111(d)(4) of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 2466a(d)(4)), within 60 days: ( i ) The AGOA Implementation Subcommittee will review the petition and report to the TPSC whether there are exceptional circumstances warranting an out-of-cycle review;
( ii ) The TPSC will conduct further review as necessary;
( iii ) The TPSC Chair will report the results of the TPSC review to the U.S. Trade Representative; and
( iv ) The U.S. Trade Representative may convene the TPRG or the TPC for further review of the TPSC recommendations and other decisions.
( 2 ) If the U.S. Trade Representative finds that there are exceptional circumstances warranting an out-of-cycle review, within 30 days of that determination USTR will announce a schedule for the review in the Federal Register. The schedule will include the deadline and guidelines for any party to submit written comments supporting, opposing or otherwise commenting on any proposed action.
( 3 ) For any out-of-cycle review initiated under this paragraph (c), the AGOA Implementation Subcommittee will consider public input received by the applicable deadline and any other relevant information and report to the TPSC. The TPSC will conduct further review as necessary and prepare recommendations for the U.S. Trade Representative. The U.S. Trade Representative may convene the TPRG or the TPC for further review of recommendations and other decisions. The U.S. Trade Representative will make recommendations to the President, which may include a recommendation that no action be taken.
NRC SCHEULES MEETING TO DISCUSS RESTART OF NFS PROCESS LINE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting for Tuesday, Aug. 

16 to discuss the findings of its restart readiness assessment team that led to the decision last 

month to authorize restart of the uranium hexafluoride process at Nuclear Fuel Services in 

Erwin, Tenn.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Erwin Town Hall, 211 North Main 

Ave., in Erwin. The public can observe the business part of the meeting and the NRC staff will 

then host a formal question and answer session.

All process lines at NFS were shut down in late December 2009, and the NRC issued a 

confirmatory action letter the next month that was designed to address issues that contributed to 

earlier events at the nuclear fuel processing facility.

After separate readiness reviews, process lines at NFS were authorized to restart, one at a 

time. The Navy Fuel line was authorized to restart in March 2010, the uranium metal/uranium 

oxide line was authorized in May 2010, and the uranium/aluminum line was cleared in July

2010. A fourth process, the ammonium diuranate line, was approved for restart in October 2010. 

The uranium hexafluoride process was the last of the NFS processes the company shut down in 

2009.

Each of the readiness reviews, conducted by a team of NRC inspectors, was designed to 

provide reasonable assurance that performance deficiencies identified in 2009 were sufficiently 

addressed by NFS.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription. The NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov) offers 

a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No: II-11-043

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

 August 4, 2011

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
§ 1025.43 Evidence. ( a ) *Applicability of Federal Rules of Evidence.* Unless otherwise provided by statute or these rules, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to all proceedings held pursuant to these Rules. However, the Federal Rules of Evidence may be relaxed by the Presiding Officer if the ends of justice will be better served by so doing.
( b ) *Burden of proof.* ( 1 ) Complaint counsel shall have the burden of sustaining the allegations of any complaint.
( 2 ) Any party who is the proponent of a legal or factual proposition shall have the burden of sustaining that proposition.
( c ) *Admissibility.* All relevant and reliable evidence is admissible, but may be excluded by the Presiding Officer if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, immateriality, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( d ) *Official notice* — ( 1 ) *Definition.* Official notice means use by the Presiding Officer or the Commission of facts not appearing on the record and legal conclusions drawn from those facts. An officially noticed fact or legal conclusion must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either: ( i ) Generally known within the jurisdiction of the Commission or
( ii ) Capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
( 2 ) *Method of taking official notice.* The Presiding Officer and/or the Commission may at any time take official notice upon motion of any party or upon its own initiative. The record shall reflect the facts and conclusions which have been officially noticed.
( e ) [Reserved]
( f ) *Offer of proof.* When an objection to proffered testimony or documentary evidence is sustained, the sponsoring party may make a specific offer, either in writing or orally, of what the party expects to prove by the testimony or the document. When an offer of proof is made, any other party may make a specific offer, either in writing or orally, of what the party expects to present to rebut or contradict the offer of proof. Written offers of proof or of rebuttal, adequately marked for identification, shall accompany the record and be available for consideration by any reviewing authority.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9365]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0990; FRL-9140-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Revisions to New Mexico Transportation Conformity 
Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the New Mexico State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the State transportation 
conformity rules. The plan revisions are intended to ensure consistency 
with amendments to the Federal Transportation Conformity Rule. These 
plan revisions meet statutory and regulatory requirements, and are 
consistent with EPA's guidance.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Please see the related direct final rule, which is located 
in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, for 
detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-8542; fax number 
214-665-7263; e-mail address riley.jeffrey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on SIP 
revisions pertaining to the State of New Mexico. We have published a 
direct final rule approving the State's SIP revisions in the ``Rules 
and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we view this 
as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have 
explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct 
final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action 
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw 
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all 
public comments in any subsequent final rule based upon this proposed 
rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. 
For further information, please see the information provided in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.

    Dated: April 9, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-9365 Filed 4-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
### Part E—Fundamental Research
#### Frances M. CAUDILL, Movant, v. W. T. & Wm. STAFFORD, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 21, 1947.

W. J. Ward for movant.

M. O. Wheeler opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, and plaintiff below, sought to recover judgment against appellees for $193. Demurrer was sustained to the petition and it was dismissed. No motion was made in this court for an appeal, but if it had been the amount involved is below the appellate jurisdiction of this court. Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Chemosensory Systems Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         February 15, 2019.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John Bishop, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9664,                         *bishopj@csr.nih.gov.*

This meeting is being published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due ot the partial Government shutdown of December 2018.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 24, 2019.

Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2019-00311 Filed 1-29-19; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 10.6


RELIANT ENERGY, INC.

2002 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


AMENDMENT TO

NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT


THIS
AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”)
is entered into and effective as of May 16, 2007, by and between Reliant
Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) and Joel V. Staff (the “Optionee”).


WHEREAS,
on August 28, 2003, the Company granted to the Optionee an Option to
purchase shares of common stock of the Company under the Reliant Energy, Inc.
2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, formerly known as the Reliant Resources, Inc.
2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, pursuant to a Nonqualified Stock Option Award
Agreement (“Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto; and


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Optionee desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Option
exercise period upon termination of employment;


NOW,
THEREFORE, effective as of the day and year first above
written, the parties agree to amend Section 3(d) of the Agreement to read as
follows:


“(d)         Termination of Employment by the
Company or Due to Resignation.  Upon
termination of Employment of the Optionee by the Company or any of its
Subsidiaries for any reason or due to voluntary resignation by the Optionee,
the portion of the Option not exercisable shall expire immediately, and the
portion of the Option exercisable upon termination shall expire upon the
earlier of (i) the second anniversary of the date of termination of the
Optionee’s service as a Director of the Company or (ii) the expiration of the
Option Period.”


	
   

  	
  RELIANT ENERGY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Mark M. Jacobs

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Mark
  M. Jacobs

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  President
  and Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  OPTIONEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  Joel V. Staff

  
	
   

  	
  Joel
  V. Staff
No: III-13-028 July 16, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss 

Apparent Violation at Point Beach Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a regulatory conference with officials 

of NextEra Energy Point Beach LLC on Monday, July 22, to discuss a preliminary inspection finding in 

the area of external flooding response. The two-unit plant is located in Two Rivers, Wis., about 13 miles 

northwest of Manitowoc.

NRC and company officials will discuss the significance of the inspection finding, which 

involved the failure to have an appropriate procedure to respond to an external flooding situation as 

described in the plant’s final safety analysis. The finding did not represent an immediate safety concern.

The meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. CDT in the NRC’s Region III office, located at 2443 

Warrenville Road, in Lisle, Ill. The public is invited to observe and NRC officials will be available to 

answer questions.

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a colorcoded system which classifies findings as green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order of safety 

significance. The NRC’s preliminary evaluation determined that the violation at Point Beach was 

“yellow,” which means it has substantial safety significance. 

No decisions on the final safety significance or other NRC actions will be made at the 

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

The NRC inspection report in which the apparent violation is documented is publicly available 

on the NRC website.
§ 766.22 Review by Under Secretary. ( a ) *Recommended decision.* For proceedings not involving violations relating to part 760 of the EAR, the administrative law judge shall immediately refer the recommended decision and order to the Under Secretary. Because of the time limits provided under the EAA for review by the Under Secretary, service of the recommended decision and order on the parties, all papers filed by the parties in response, and the final decision of the Under Secretary must be by personal delivery, facsimile, express mail or other overnight carrier. If the Under Secretary cannot act on a recommended decision and order for any reason, the Under Secretary will designate another Department of Commerce official to receive and act on the recommendation.
( b ) *Submissions by parties.* Parties shall have 12 days from the date of issuance of the recommended decision and order in which to submit simultaneous responses. Parties thereafter shall have eight days from receipt of any response(s) in which to submit replies. Any response or reply must be received within the time specified by the Under Secretary.
( c ) *Final decision.* Within 30 days after receipt of the recommended decision and order, the Under Secretary shall issue a written order affirming, modifying or vacating the recommended decision and order of the administrative law judge. If he/she vacates the recommended decision and order, the Under Secretary may refer the case back to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. Because of the time limits, the Under Secretary's review will ordinarily be limited to the written record for decision, including the transcript of any hearing, and any submissions by the parties concerning the recommended decision.
( d ) *Delivery.* The final decision and implementing order shall be served on the parties and will be publicly available in accordance with § 766.20 of this part.
[61 FR 12907, Mar. 25, 1996, as amended at 75 FR 33683, June 15, 2010]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 Tabatha II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, John Ballard, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/   John BallardJohn Ballard, President and Chief Financial Officer

September 27, 2005