alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Paul R. Hayden, Petitioner, v Alan G. Hevesi, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 478]

Rose, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner was employed as a Deputy Sheriff for Erie County when he sustained injuries in an automobile accident in May 1999. Petitioner never returned to work. He was placed on unpaid medical leave of absence until May 21, 2000, and ultimately his employment was terminated on August 1, 2000. On August 28, 2001, petitioner filed an application for disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law article 15. Respondent denied the application as untimely and petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the determination.

Retirement and Social Security Law § 605 (b) (2) requires an employee who was placed on unpaid medical leave to file his or her application for disability retirement benefits “not later than twelve months after the date the employee receives notice that *1126his [or her] employment status has been terminated.” We find that respondent’s determination that petitioner’s application was untimely is rational and supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Schwartz v McCall,*300 AD2d 887, 888 [2002]; *Matter of Carmody v McCall,*261 AD2d 765, 766 [1999]). Review of the entire record confirms that petitioner was on unpaid medical leave for a year before his employment was terminated *(cf. Matter of Kennedy v New York State & Local Retirement Sys.,*269 AD2d 669 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 753 [2000]), petitioner received unambiguous and certain notice that his employment was terminated effective August 1, 2000 *(cf. Matter of Sukup v McCall,*264 AD2d 921 [1999]), he understood that he was terminated as of that date and his application for disability retirement benefits was filed more than 12 months after that date. The receipt of a check from the County, indicating payment for accrued vacation and compensation time, subsequent to petitioner’s termination date, created no ambiguity here and does not compel a different conclusion.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
| (1)   | the Report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 17, 2010 | VIBE RECORDS, INC. NEVADA                           |   |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |                                                |   |
|                       |                                                |   |
|                       | By: /s/ Timothy Olphie                              |   |
|                       | Timothy Olphie                                      |   |
|                       | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                       |                                                |   |

----
§ 1260.3 Prohibited stockpiling. ( a ) *Prohibited acts.* Manufacturers and importers of custom window coverings shall not manufacture or import custom window coverings that do not comply with the requirements of this part in any 180-day period between November 28, 2022, and May 30, 2023, at a rate that is greater than 120 percent of the rate at which they manufactured or imported custom window coverings during the base period for the manufacturer.
( b ) *Base period.* The base period for custom window coverings is any period of 180 consecutive dates, chosen by the manufacturer or importer, in the 5-year period immediately preceding November 28, 2022.
US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Combining Flood Risks from Snowmelt, 

Rain & Ice – The Platte River in Nebraska

Douglas J. Clemetson, P.E.

Chief, Hydrology Section

USACE, Omaha District

Omaha, Nebraska

31 January 2013
BUILDING STRONG®

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Platterivermap.jpg/256px-Platterivermap.jpg

Platte River Basin
BUILDING STRONG®
BUILDING STRONG®

Causes of Lower Platte Floods

 Spring Snowmelt and or Rainfall

 Ice-Affected Spring Snowmelt/Rainfall

 Summer Rainfall
BUILDING STRONG®

Ps = Psi + Psq - Psi x Psq (1)

Where,

Ps = probability of a given stage being equaled or exceeded from either an ice-affected event 

or a free flow event

 

Psi = Probability of that stage being equaled or exceeded from an ice affected event

 

Psq = Probability of that stage being equaled or exceeded from a open water event

FEMA Publication 37

Federal Emergency Management Agency, ”Flood Insurance Study Guidelines and 

Specifications for Study Contractors – Appendix 3 Analysis of Ice Jam Flooding”, March 1993
BUILDING STRONG®

If maximum annual stages in the snowmelt season are not always ice affected, the 

term Psi needs to be expanded as:

Psi = Pwi*Ni + Pwo*No (2)

where,

Pwi = probability of a given stage in the snowmelt season that is ice-affected.

Ni = fraction of years during the snowmelt season that stages are ice-affected

Pwo = probability of a given stage in the snowmelt season from open water

No = fraction of years during the snowmelt season that stages are from open water

Combining Equations (1) & (2):

Ps = Pwi*Ni+ Pwo*No + Psq – [Pwi*Ni+ Pwo*No] x Psq (3) 
BUILDING STRONG®

Hydrologic Data Needs

 Flow Frequency

►Ice-Affected Season

►Open Water Season

 Stage Discharge

►Ice-Affected

►Open Water

 Percent of Years Stages Ice Affected
BUILDING STRONG® 99 95 90 80 50 20 10 5 1 0.1

2 5 10 20 100 1000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

Peak Flow (cfs)

Percent Chance Exceedance

Platte River Flow Frequency

Snowmelt Computed

Rainfall Computed

Snowmelt Annual Peak

Rainfall Annual Peak

Return Period 
BUILDING STRONG®

1162

1164

1166

1168

1170

1172

1174

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000

Stage in feet

Discharge in cfs

Platte River Stage Discharge Relationship

Ice-Affected

Open Water
BUILDING STRONG®

0.9 0.5 0.1 0.01 0.001

1160

1162

1164

1166

1168

1170

1172

1174

Stage (Feet)

Annual Chance Exceedance

Platte River Stage-Frequency

Snowmelt Ice Snowmelt Open Rainfall
BUILDING STRONG®

0.9 0.5 0.1 0.01 0.001 1E-4

1162

1164

1166

1168

1170

1172

1174

Stage (Feet)

Annual Chance Exceedance

Platte River Stage-Frequency

Snowmelt-Ice Snowmelt-Open Rainfall Snowmelt Combined Annual Combined

Note: Ice affects stages 1 in 3 years

Ni = 0.33, No = 0.67
BUILDING STRONG®
BUILDING STRONG®

Questions/Discussion
§ 930.43 State agency objection. ( a ) In the event the State agency objects to the Federal agency's consistency determination, the State agency shall accompany its response to the Federal agency with its reasons for the objection and supporting information. The State agency response shall describe: ( 1 ) How the proposed activity will be inconsistent with specific enforceable policies of the management program; and
( 2 ) The specific enforceable policies (including citations).
( 3 ) The State agency should also describe alternative measures (if they exist) which, if adopted by the Federal agency, would allow the activity to proceed in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program. Failure to describe alternatives does not affect the validity of the State agency's objection.
( b ) If the State agency's objection is based upon a finding that the Federal agency has failed to supply sufficient information, the State agency's response must describe the nature of the information requested and the necessity of having such information to determine the consistency of the Federal agency activity with the enforceable policies of the management program.
( c ) State agencies shall send to the Director a copy of objections to Federal agency consistency determinations.
( d ) In the event of an objection, Federal and State agencies should use the remaining portion of the 90-day notice period (*see* § 930.36(b)) to attempt to resolve their differences. If resolution has not been reached at the end of the 90-day period, Federal agencies should consider using the dispute resolution mechanisms of this part and postponing final federal action until the problems have been resolved. At the end of the 90-day period the Federal agency shall not proceed with the activity over a State agency's objection unless: ( 1 ) the Federal agency has concluded that under the “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” standard described in section 930.32 consistency with the enforceable policies of the management program is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency and the Federal agency has clearly described, in writing, to the State agency the legal impediments to full consistency (See §§ 930.32(a) and 930.39(a)), or
( 2 ) the Federal agency has concluded that its proposed action is fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the management program, though the State agency objects.
( e ) If a Federal agency decides to proceed with a Federal agency activity that is objected to by a State agency, or to follow an alternative suggested by the State agency, the Federal agency shall notify the State agency of its decision to proceed before the project commences.
### §1395w–103. Access to a choice of qualified prescription drug coverage

#### (a) Assuring access to a choice of coverage

#### (1) Choice of at least two plans in each area

The Secretary shall ensure that each part D eligible individual has available, consistent with paragraph (2), a choice of enrollment in at least 2 qualifying plans (as defined in paragraph (3)) in the area in which the individual resides, at least one of which is a prescription drug plan. In any such case in which such plans are not available, the part D eligible individual shall be given the opportunity to enroll in a fallback prescription drug plan.

#### (2) Requirement for different plan sponsors

The requirement in paragraph (1) is not satisfied with respect to an area if only one entity offers all the qualifying plans in the area.

#### (3) Qualifying plan defined

For purposes of this section, the term "qualifying plan" means—

(A) a prescription drug plan; or

(B) an MA–PD plan described in section 1395w–21(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title that provides—

(i) basic prescription drug coverage; or

(ii) qualified prescription drug coverage that provides supplemental prescription drug coverage so long as there is no MA monthly supplemental beneficiary premium applied under the plan, due to the application of a credit against such premium of a rebate under section 1395w–24(b)(1)(C) of this title.

#### (b) Flexibility in risk assumed and application of fallback plan

In order to ensure access pursuant to subsection (a) in an area—

(1) the Secretary may approve limited risk plans under section 1395w–111(f) of this title for the area; and

(2) only if such access is still not provided in the area after applying paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide for the offering of a fallback prescription drug plan for that area under section 1395w–111(g) of this title.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1860D–3, as added Pub. L. 108–173, title I, §101(a)(2), Dec. 8, 2003, 117 Stat. 2081.)
#### In the Matter of Bertha Vasiliow et al., Stockholders in Robert Schmitt Company, Appellants. Robert Schmitt Company, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 734.]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CentennialSpecialty Foods Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the periodended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey R. Nieder, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) 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 results of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
|                              | /s/ JEFFREY R. NIEDER   |   |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                              | Jeffrey R. Nieder       |
|                              | Chief Executive Officer |
|                              |
| Dated:  August 22, 2005 |

 

----
### Part A—General Authority and Duties of Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26398]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7843-7]


Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Notice of Meeting

    Summary: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the 
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) on November 19, 1990, to 
provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues 
associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The 
Committee advises on economic, environmental, technical scientific, and 
enforcement policy issues.
    Open Meeting Notice: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10 (a) 
(2), notice is hereby given that the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 
will hold its next open meeting on Thursday, December 16, 2004, from 
approximately 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Renaissance Mayflower 
Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Seating will be 
available on a first come, first served basis. Subcommittee meetings 
will be held on, December 15, 2004, from approximately 8:30 a.m to 3:30 
p.m. at the Renaissance Mayflower, the same location as the full 
Committee. The Mobile Source Technical Review Panel will not meet at 
this time. The agenda for the meeting will be posted on the CAAAC Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.
    Inspection of Committee Documents: The Committee agenda and any 
documents prepared for the meeting will be publicly available at the 
meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with CAAAC meeting 
minutes, will be available by contacting the Office of Air and 
Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket item A-94-34 
(CAAAC). The Docket office can be reached by telephoning 202-260-7548; 
FAX 202-260-4400.
    For Further Information Contact: Concerning the CAAAC , please 
contact Pat Childers, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA (202) 564-
1082, FAX (202) 564-1352 or by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of Air and 
Radiation (Mail code 6102 A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20004. For information on the Subcommittee meetings, 
please contact the following individuals: (1) Permits/NSR/Toxics 
IntegrationB Debbie Stackhouse, 919-541-5354; and (2) Linking 
Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality Concerns B Robert Larson, 734-
214-4277; and (3) Economic Incentives and Regulatory Innovations B 
Carey Fitzmaurice, 202-564-1667. Additional Information on these 
meetings, CAAAC and its Subcommittees can be found on the CAAAC Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.

    Dated: November 22, 2004.
Robert D. Brenner,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 04-26398 Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Ronald A. Smith et al., Respondents, v Fayetteville-Manlius Central School District, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[821 NYS2d 521]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered September 15, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part defendant’s motion for leave to reargue.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs (see *Empire Ins. Co. v Food City,*167 AD2d 983, 984 [1990]). Present — Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-16-0067:  Annual Status Report: Activities Related to Extended Storage and Transportation Regulatory Program Review

Accession Number: ML16097A082

Date Released: Wednesday, June 15, 2016

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.
    - ML16096A387 - SECY-16-0067:  Annual Status Report: Activities Related to Extended Storage and Transportation Regulatory Program Review (7 page(s), 4/27/2016)
    - ML16096A392 - SECY-16-0067:  References - Activities Related to Extended Storage and Transportation Regulatory Program Review, Enclosure 1 (1 page(s), 5/27/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 1212.14 Qualification testing. ( a ) *Testing.* Before any manufacturer or importer of multi-purpose lighters distributes multi-purpose lighters in commerce in the United States, surrogate multi-purpose lighters of each model shall be tested in accordance with § 1212.4 to ensure that all such multi-purpose lighters comply with the standard. However, if a manufacturer has tested one model of multi-purpose lighter, and then wishes to distribute another model of multi-purpose lighter that differs from the first model only by differences that would not have an adverse effect on child resistance, the second model need not be tested in accordance with § 1212.4.
( b ) *Product modifications.* If any changes are made to a product after initial qualification testing that could adversely affect the ability of the product to meet the requirements of the standard, additional qualification tests must be made on surrogates for the changed product before the changed multi-purpose lighters are distributed in commerce.
( c ) *Requalification.* If a manufacturer or importer chooses to requalify a multi-purpose lighter design after it has been in production, this may be done by following the testing procedures at § 1212.4.
§ 756.3 Judicial review of agency action. ( a ) *Definition.* For purposes of this section, the term *agency action* has the same meaning given such term in 5 U.S.C. 551(13), *i.e.,* includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.
( b ) *Classified national security information.* In any judicial review of any agency action under the EAR, if such action was based in whole or in part on classified national security information as defined in Executive Order 13526 (December 29, 2009), such information may be submitted to the reviewing court *ex parte* and *in camera.* This paragraph (b) does not confer or imply any right to review in any tribunal, judicial or otherwise.
[85 FR 63012, Oct. 6, 2020]
§ 1211.40 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 302-504-7923 and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) Door and Access Systems Manufacturers' Association, International (DASMA), 1300 Sumner Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-2851, Telephone: (216) 241-7333, *http://www.dasma.com/dasma-pages/D-AS-standards.asp .* ( 1 ) ANSI/DASMA 102, Specifications for Sectional Doors, 2011 revision, dated May 19, 2011, into § 1211.6(c).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, Telephone: (800) 344-3555, *http://www.nfpa.org/ .* ( 1 ) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2014 edition, effective August 21, 2013, into § 1211.2(c).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( d ) UL, formerly Underwriters Laboratories, International, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106, Telephone: 1-888-853-3503, *http://ulstandards.ul.com/ .* ( 1 ) UL 325, Standard for Safety: Door, Drapery, Gate, Louver, and Window Operators and Systems, SUPPLEMENT SA—(Normative)—UL 60335-1/CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 60335-1 Based Requirements for the Evaluation of Electronic Circuits, Seventh Edition, May 19, 2017, into §§ 1211.4 and 1211.5.
( 2 ) UL 746C, Standard for Safety: Polymeric Materials—Use in Electrical Equipment Evaluations, Sixth Edition, dated September 10, 2004, into §§ 1211.10(d) and (e) and 1211.12(c).
( 3 ) UL 991, Standard for Safety: Tests for Safety-Related Controls Employing Solid-State Devices, Third Edition, dated October 22, 2004, into §§ 1211.4(c) and 1211.5(b)(3).
( 4 ) UL 1998, Standard for Safety: Software in Programmable Components, Third Edition, December 18, 2013, into § 1211.8(f).
[81 FR 20245, Apr. 7, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 32579, July 13, 2018]
#### In the Matter of Southside Academy Charter School et al., Appellants, v City of Syracuse et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[821 NYS2d 529]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered July 7, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Southside Academy Charter School v City of Syracuse*(32 AD3d 1295 [2006]). Present — Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.