alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-11-185-E March 01, 2011

Exemption No. 10219 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0147

Mr. Brian Dunaway

President Epic Helicopters, LLC 4201 North Main Street, Suite 109 Fort Worth, TX 76106

Dear Mr. Dunaway:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Epic Helicopters, LLC (Epic Helic opters) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . That exemption, if granted, would allow Epic Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Epic Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Epic Helicopters, LLC an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Epic Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Epic Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Epic Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ James R. Fraiser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 20, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Joint Venture Under ATP Award No. 70NAB4H3055 has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act;s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to  section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: The Dow  Chemical Company, Midland, MI and Veeco Metrology, LLC, Santa Barbara, CA. The nature and objectives of the venture are to develop high speed atomic force microscope capabilities for quantitative nanomechanical measurements.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-26214  Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 303.3 Fibers present in amounts of less than 5 percent. ( a ) Except as permitted in sections 4(b)(1) and 4(b)(2) of the Act, as amended, no fiber present in the amount of less than 5 percent of the total fiber weight shall be designated by its generic name or fiber trademark in disclosing the constituent fibers in required information, but shall be designated as “other fiber.” When more than one of such fibers are present in a product, they shall be designated in the aggregate as “other fibers.” Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the disclosure of any fiber present in a textile fiber product which has a clearly established and definite functional significance when present in the amount contained in such product, as for example: 96 percent Acetate 4 percent Spandex.
( b ) In making such disclosure, all of the provisions of the Act and regulations in this part setting forth the manner and form of disclosure of fiber content information, including the provisions of §§ 303.17 and 303.41 of this part relating to the use of generic names and fiber trademarks, shall be applicable.
[63 FR 7518, Feb. 13, 1998]
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
 NTN Buzztime, Inc. 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 The following table sets forth the compensation for NTN Buzztime, Inc.’s non-employee directors effective as of July 1, 2007: 
 Cash Compensation 
  

				
	 Annual Board Member Retainer
	  	$	30,000
	 Annual Committee Member Retainer
	  		
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	6,000
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	3,000
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	3,000
	 Per Board Meeting Fee (in person or telephonic attendance)
	  	$	750
	 Per Committee Meeting Fee
	  	$	0
	 Additional Annual Retainer for Board Chairman
	  	$	40,000
	 Additional Annual Retainer for Committee Chairman
	  		
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	13,000
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	5,000
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	9,000

 Equity Compensation 
  

			
	Newly Elected Directors	  	Option to purchase 30,000 shares with an exercise price equal to the closing market price on date of grant; 50% vests immediately and 50% vests in equal monthly installments through the date of
the next annual meeting of stockholders
		
	Annual Equity Compensation for Re-elected Directors	  	Option to purchase 20,000 shares with an exercise price equal to the closing market price on date of grant; vests in equal monthly installments over 12 months
No: II-15-019 April 7, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Meetings to Discuss Agency’s Assessment of Summer 

Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Operation and Units 2 and 3 Construction 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house April 16 to discuss the 

safety performance last year of SCE&G’s Summer Nuclear Station, near Jenkinsville, S.C., about 26 

miles northwest of Columbia. A separate meeting will follow to explain inspection and oversight for 

the two new units under construction at the same site. 

The open house will begin at 6 p.m. in the library at the McCrorey-Liston School of 

Technology, 1978 Monticello Rd. (State Highway 215 South), in Blair, S.C.

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

operating unit during 2014 and will serve as the basis for the informal discussion. 

The NRC found that the operating Summer unit met all NRC safety objectives in 2014. That 

performance means the plant will continue to receive the normal detailed NRC inspections this year.

“NRC inspectors continually evaluate each nuclear plant’s safety, and each year we take a 

detailed look at that information to identify any trends and help plan future inspections,” said NRC 

Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “Inspection results are available throughout the year, but these 

annual meetings allow us to talk to local residents and answer any questions they may have.”

Current performance information for the Summer plant is available on the NRC website.

At the second public meeting, which is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. in the school’s 

gymnasium, the NRC staff will discuss the agency’s assessment of the construction of the two new 

units in 2014. The NRC has two resident inspectors for the operating unit and four construction resident 

inspectors at the Summer construction site.

A letter sent from the NRC to plant officials addresses the oversight of the construction and will 

serve as the basis for the meeting presentation. The NRC staff found that the units were being 

constructed in a manner that protected public health and safety and met all regulatory objectives.

The NRC website has additional information on the NRC construction reactor oversight 

process.
#### Angelo Patera et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Decorated Metal Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover wage increases alleged to be due under an agreement to pay such increases in the event they were authorized by governmental agencies, it appears that between the time of the making of the alleged agreement and the official authorization of the increases, the appellants left the employ of the corporate respondent and ceased paying dues to the local union represented by the individual respondents. The appeal is from so much of the judgment entered after trial before an Official Referee as dismissed the complaint as to appellants. Judgment insofar as appeal is taken unanimously affirmed, with costs. 3STo opinion. Present — Rolan, P. J.,

Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ.
#### § 1307.1 Scope and application.

This part prohibits the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce or importation into the United States of any children's toy or child care article containing any of the phthalates specified in § 1307.3.
Meeting Summary:
The meeting took place at EPA Region 6 office @ 2:00 PM on July 28,2010. Luminant had requested to meet with EPA. Guy Donaldson, Richard Bartley, and Alan Shar from Region 6 met with the representatives of the Electric Utility Industry listed in the attached document. They were representing companies with coal fired power plants controlled by electrostatic precipitators. They stated the ESPs can not be turned on until the stack gets hot enough or there will be explosion hazards and caking of fly ash on the plates. They are concerned with EPA's proposed partial disapproval of the affirmative defense provisions in the Texas rules that companies would be forced to knowingly violate opacity standards during start up and shut down activities. They acknowledged that with the sunset provisions in the previous Texas SIP revision that it could be

. interpreted to mean that affirmative defense already doesn't apply. We pointed out that EPA policy would allow an affirmative defense for excess emission during start up and

. shut down, but not during maintenance events. Because of the way the Texas rules are

structured with start up/shutdown and maintenance treated together in section 101.222(h),
we could not separate our rulemaking action to disapprove the affirmative defense for
excess emissions during maintenance from the action on start up and shutdown. We mentioned our need to take final action on the SIP revision by October 31. The meeting ended about 3 :00 PM.

## ov S' Sh

12:n up eet
-**Meetin~** 

### EP A**Re~on** 

### 6 and Luminant Name Organization Email Address or Phone

# Li~

# {f~r~'//iA<~**L~"'Ai~~,/** /A."- 

## ,4",k'r" 

# L /h r 

# i_ /,4/,.;@ 

### /L7/,- 1£.
J

## I.J../J/~ (1,llA_lC
. 

# 1M P kr Z;; t/.I

### CCJ,a~**~.wy'~** 0 

# 1-. ,r7 r**""~j**

### .H1~ 

## --

_ ... Yl.l ' J 

# A-'**~~** 

# "'-
.... 

# GaLl-5' 7 

# , 

# ,.. 7 / 

# J.Z,;S At:f**KFX>~** J A 

## &a-e./J i C[) Vh 

# ().S1fA TV «NOr<.. /...UM lAJAN/

### ()~ 

# .fvn-t.L.-v£**l()ytA~~.~**

## ~~ 

# C:-v7;i,-**.s~"V** 

# ;!1? vA' 

# r j.R v 

# liil'**@)S/J?1-e?-~"** /VII /, 

## - 

## el.p v i/lf {**?~** ()j!J 

# $tfN**(2l~~** III

# ,~I q • \ 

## Xl 

## l 

# €:::I 

# Q**~ta~-COYYl** 1\

### t~f It..A,

..... 

## I 

## v f**"-../~**

## l::){~**f\~~) L~S:l""**  ..... hl!? 

## Dl>r-o. } ) 

## sv", ' v 

## V Ai) 

## p/Po-, 

# ,0 A '('**P/~,,'\..,**

# ~u .. J<""

# 'bj~n..1' l!'f Of Cll., () f**~r,** 10llll- \ /'

# boAI~/ .•

# rtdl.ArJ~dePQ'**~6V** ,**COlJfl~c..'** 

# A 

# \CtV\**Sh~r ~PA**  

# R6 s hac A{ 0lV\ 

# e e 

## p<.\ ·**~C)** \f
### §1397n–7. Limitation on use of funds

Of the amounts made available to carry out this division, the Secretary may not use more than $2,000,000 in any fiscal year to support the review, approval, and oversight of social impact partnership projects, including activities conducted by—

(1) the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships; and

(2) any other agency consulted by the Secretary before approving a social impact partnership project or a feasibility study under section 1397n–3 of this title.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XX, §2058, as added Pub. L. 115–123, div. E, title VIII, §50802(2), Feb. 9, 2018, 132 Stat. 280.)
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Quarterly April - June 2015 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206

Accession Number: ML15181A254

Date Released: Thursday, August 20, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15181A263 - Quarterly April - June 2015 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (3 page(s), 7/17/2015)
    - ML15181A271 - Quarterly 10 CFR 2.206, Requests for Action Under this Subpart Status Report - Enclosure. (22 page(s), 7/17/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 831.1112 Final decision. ( a ) On appeal from or review of an initial decision or a decision of the Associate Director, OPM shall decide the case on the record. The record shall include the notice, answer, transcript of testimony and exhibits, briefs, the initial decision or the decision of the Associate Director, the papers filed in connection with the appeal and opposition to the appeal and all other papers, requests and exceptions filed in the proceeding.
( b ) OPM may adopt, modify, or set aside the findings, conclusions, or order of the presiding officer or the Associate Director.
( c ) The final decision of OPM shall be in writing and include a statement of findings and conclusions, the reasons or basis therefor, and an appropriate order, and shall be served on the parties.
[33 FR 12498, Sept. 4, 1968, as amended at 34 FR 17618, Oct. 31, 1969]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 380 

To provide that no funds made available to the Department of the Treasury 

may be used to implement, administer, or enforce regulations to require 

specific licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2011 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself and Mr. SERRANO) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide that no funds made available to the Department 

of the Treasury may be used to implement, administer, 

or enforce regulations to require specific licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pursuit of Inter5 national Education (PIE) Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 380 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT, AD2 MINISTER, OR ENFORCE REGULATIONS TO 

3 REQUIRE SPECIFIC LICENSES FOR TRAVEL4 RELATED TRANSACTIONS DIRECTLY RE5 LATED TO EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN 

6 CUBA. 

7 (a) LIMITATION.—No funds made available to the 

8 Department of the Treasury may be used to implement, 

9 administer, or enforce the amendments made to para10 graphs (a) and (b) of section 515.565 of title 31, Code 

11 of Federal Regulations (relating to specific licenses for 

12 United States academic institutions and other specific li13 censes), as published in the Federal Register on June 16, 

14 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 33772). 

15 (b) EXCEPTION.—The limitation in subsection (a) 

16 shall not apply to the implementation, administration, or 

17 enforcement of section 515.560(c)(3) of title 31, Code of 

18 Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

REFER TO: M150625 

 July 7, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – BRIEFING ON PROPOSED 

REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 61 AND LOW-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL, 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, 

JUNE 25, 2015, COMMISSIONERS’ CONFERENCE ROOM, 

ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN 

TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed by an external panel and a panel of NRC staff and officials from 

Agreement States on the proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 61 and low-level radioactive waste 

disposal. The external panel included Mike Garner, Executive Director, Northwest Interstate 

Compact; Ralph Andersen, Senior Director, Radiation Safety and Environmental Protection, 

Nuclear Energy Institute; Daniel B. Shrum, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, 

EnergySolutions; J. Scott Kirk, Vice President, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Waste Control 

Specialists; Perry D. Robinson, General Counsel, URENCO USA, Louisiana Energy Services; 

and Matt Pacenza, Executive Director, HEAL Utah. The Agreement State officials included 

Rusty Lundberg, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality; and Charles Maguire, Director, Radioactive Materials Division, Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality. 

There were no requirements identified for staff action. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
§ 680.26 Delivery of opt-out notices. ( a ) *In general.* The opt-out notice must be provided so that each consumer can reasonably be expected to receive actual notice. For opt-out notices provided electronically, the notice may be provided in compliance with either the electronic disclosure provisions in this part or the provisions in section 101 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001 *et seq.*
( b ) *Examples of reasonable expectation of actual notice.* A consumer may reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the affiliate providing the notice: ( 1 ) Hand-delivers a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
( 2 ) Mails a printed copy of the notice to the last known mailing address of the consumer;
( 3 ) Provides a notice by e-mail to a consumer who has agreed to receive electronic disclosures by e-mail from the affiliate providing the notice; or
( 4 ) Posts the notice on the Internet Web site at which the consumer obtained a product or service electronically and requires the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice.
( c ) *Examples of no reasonable expectation of actual notice.* A consumer may *not* reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the affiliate providing the notice: ( 1 ) Only posts the notice on a sign in a branch or office or generally publishes the notice in a newspaper;
( 2 ) Sends the notice via e-mail to a consumer who has not agreed to receive electronic disclosures by e-mail from the affiliate providing the notice; or
( 3 ) Posts the notice on an Internet Web site without requiring the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice.
#### Cross Development, Inc., Plaintiff, v Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Allied Fire Protection Systems, *1192Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants, and MWT Architecture, P.C., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 705]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (John T. Ward, Jr., A.J.), entered May 3, 2005. The order denied the motion of third-party defendant MWT Architecture, EC. for a permanent stay of the arbitration demanded by third-party plaintiff.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Third-party defendant MWT Architecture, EC. (MWT) appeals from an order denying its motion for a permanent stay of the arbitration demanded by third-party plaintiff, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (Travelers). Travelers had commenced a third-party action against MWT in January 2004, and that action was dismissed by Supreme Court in August 2004 on the ground that the agreement between Travelers’ predecessor in interest and MWT provided for compulsory arbitration. On September 20, 2004, Travelers served a demand for arbitration, resulting in the instant motion for a permanent stay of arbitration.

The claim originally asserted by Travelers in the third-party action and now asserted in the demand for arbitration accrued, if at all, upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building designed by MWT on June 15, 2001. Thus, the demand for arbitration was served after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations governing malpractice actions against architects *(see*CPLR 214 [6]; *Matter of R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband, Architects [McKinsey & Co., Inc.],*3 NY3d 538 [2004]). Contrary to MWT’s contention, however, Supreme Court properly invoked CPLR 205 (a) and denied MWT’s motion to stay the arbitration as untimely commenced. The demand was served well within the six-month extension period afforded by CPLR 205 (a). Moreover, we reject MWT’s contention that CPLR 205 (a) does not apply to a demand for arbitration. Pursuant to the plain language of CPLR 7502 (b), a claim *1193sought to be arbitrated is untimely in these circumstances only if it “would have been barred by limitation of time had it been asserted in a court of the state.” Here, Travelers’ claim, if asserted in “a court of the state” *(id.),*would have been timely commenced under the extension provisions of CPLR 205 (a), and thus the demand for arbitration was timely served *(cf. Matter of Oriskany Cent. School Dist. [Booth Architects],*85 NY2d 995, 997 [1995]; *Marillo v Shearson Hayden Stone,*159 AD2d 1012 [1990]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche and Green, JJ.