alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 14.8 Lack of requisite qualifications, character and integrity. In addition to those matters specifically referred to in §§ 14.4 through 14.7, the Commission may, after notice and opportunity for hearing in the matter, deny, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of appearing or practicing before it to any person who is found by the Commission by a preponderance of the evidence: ( a ) Not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others; or
( b ) To be lacking in character or integrity; or
( c ) To have engaged in unethical or improper professional conduct either in the course of any adjudicatory, investigative or rulemaking or other proceeding before the Commission or otherwise. With respect to the professional conduct of persons licensed to practice as accountants, “unethical or improper professional conduct” means: ( 1 ) Intentional or knowing conduct, including reckless conduct, that results in a violation of applicable professional principles or standards; or
( 2 ) Either of the following two types of negligent conduct: ( i ) A single instance of highly unreasonable conduct that results in a violation of applicable professional principles or standards in circumstances in which an accountant knows, or should know, that heightened scrutiny is warranted.
( ii ) Repeated instances of unreasonable conduct, each resulting in a violation of applicable professional principles or standards, which indicate a lack of competence to practice before the Commission.
[41 FR 28472, July 12, 1976, as amended at 80 FR 32857, June 10, 2015]
Subpart 532.1 —Financing for Other Than a Commercial Purchase    **Parent topic:** Part 532 - Contract Financing532.103 Progress payments under construction contracts. 		    GSA Form 184 and, to the extent necessary, GSA Forms 184A and 184B, shall be prepared by Government personnel or agents of GSA to document satisfactory progress of work prior to processing each progress payment request submitted by the construction contractor in accordance with FAR 52.232-5 and 552.232-5. Generally, construction contractors are not considered agents of GSA. Certain other contractors, including, but not necessarily limited to, construction management contractors (CMs), however, may be considered agents of GSA if they are authorized to act on behalf of GSA to obtain the information for the referenced forms.532.111 Contract clauses for non-commercial purchases. 		    (a)                   *FAR deviation*. GSA has a FAR deviation that allows use of the clause at 552.232-1 in lieu of the FAR clause at 52.232-1. Insert the clause at 552.232-1, Payments, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price supply contract, a fixed-price service contract, or a contract for nonregulated communication services is contemplated, in lieu of the FAR clause at 52.232-1. 				         				         					          (b)                   *Construction contracts*. Insert the clause at 552.232-5, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price construction contract is contemplated.532.112 Non payment of subcontractors under contracts other than for commercial products and commercial services.    532.112-1 Subcontractor assertions of nonpayment. 		    If the contracting officer determines under FAR 32.112-1 that a contractor’s certification of payment is inaccurate in any material respect, the contracting officer shall report the matter to the Office of Inspector General.
### Part D—Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part D of this subchapter, consisting of section 1395x et seq., was redesignated part E of this subchapter.
Emissions Defect Information Report 

(EDIR Number: 2011.02.16.01) 

1. Manufacturer: Kia Motors Corporation 

2. Description of the defect: 

Some 2009 and 2010 model year Sportage’s equipped with 2.0L engines may experience 

excess NOx production due to a fuel adaptation error when transitioning between fuel 

containing different quantities of ethanol (0-10%). 

The fuel adaption system is capable of recognizing different fuel conditions and adapting the 

fuel/air ratio to address changes in the available fuel being used for peak efficiency. However, 

the adaptation process may not be able to make the full adaption transition without a particular 

sequence of driving conditions. Until the adaption sequence is complete, excess production of 

NOx may occur. 

Kia will alter the programming through a dealer campaign to ensure that excess NOx 

production does not occur during the adaptation sequence. 

3. Description of vehicles potentially affected by the defect: 

Maker Model Model Year Test Group Sales Volume 

Kia Sportage 2.0L 

2009 9KMXT02.0KW5 17,739

2010 AKMXT02.0KW5 5,926

4. The number of vehicles containing the defect and the means by which the number of involved 

vehicles was determined: 

All vehicles in the test groups shown above are affected. 

The address of the involved plant: 

Kwangju Assembly Plant, Seo-gu, Kwangju Metropolitan City, Korea 

5. Evaluation of the emission and driveability impact of the defect: 

Tier2 - BIN5 Exhaust Emission [g/mile] 

NMOG CO NOx 

50K Standard 0.075 3.2 0.05 

Sportage 2.0L 09MY 0.026 (35%) 0.163 (5%) 0.090 (180%) 

Listed above is a representative emission test result of a vehicle with improperly adapted 

air/fuel ratio. An improperly adapted vehicle may exhibit increased NOx emissions. 

Although the air/fuel ratio may be adversely affected during the transition period, this issue 

does not noticeably affect driveability. 

EPA EDIR# 4172 

Received: February 18, 2011
6. Available emission data, which relates to the defect: 

Please see Item 5 above. 

7. Anticipated follow-up by Kia:

Kia will modify the fuel adaptation programming to address this programming deficiency via 

an informal dealer campaign. Kia will issue a TSB to dealers providing instructions for the 

reprogramming process. 

EPA EDIR# 4172 

Received: February 18, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69392-69393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--American Public Transportation Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 22, 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''), American Public 
Transportation Association (``APTA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose

[[Page 69393]]

of involving 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 name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: American 
Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC. The nature and scope 
of APTA's standards development activities are: APTA participates in 
five major voluntary standards development programs. These programs cut 
across all transit modes and are focused on key elements of transit 
operations and maintenance including the design of bus and rail 
vehicles, the development of operating practices, inspection and 
maintenance guidelines for vehicles and facilities, the 
interoperability and interchangeability of component systems and parts, 
as well as the adoption of definitions for data structures so that 
electronic components can exchange information.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26197 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No: 14-013 February 28, 2014

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Meeting March 13-14 in Rockville, Md., Seeks Input on

Reactor Fuel Behavior During Postulated Accidents 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with the public, industry representatives and 

other interested parties March 13 and 14 in Rockville, Md., to discuss technical issues the agency 

should consider in upcoming research on nuclear fuel safety. 

The meeting will run from noon-5 p.m. on March 13, and from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. on March 14, in 

the Commission Hearing Room at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville. Staff from the NRC’s Offices of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research and Nuclear Reactor Regulation will discuss their work to date on how 

high-burnup nuclear fuel pellets might fragment under certain conditions during an accident where a 

reactor loses cooling water. The staff will also discuss whether fuel pellet fragments might be released 

through breaks in the fuel pin cladding.

The NRC staff invites the public to join the meeting’s discussions with academic and industry 

researchers, utilities, and international regulators. The meeting includes a teleconference and Webinar 

for those unable to attend in person. Call-in and Webinar information is available by contacting 

Michelle Flanagan at 301-251-7547 or michelle.flanagan@nrc.gov.

The staff is also interested in discussing how the research into fuel behavior could affect 

analysis of specific postulated accidents:

• A reactor ejecting a control rod out of the core;

• A break in the piping carrying steam to the plant’s turbine; and

• A single pressurized-water reactor coolant pump locking up or breaking its drive shaft.

Anyone interested in making a presentation on these topics should contact Michelle Flanagan by 

March 5. Presentation proposals should include how much time the presenter expects to need.
No: IV-16-023 December 12, 2016 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Columbia Generating Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the Columbia 

Generating Station to review circumstances surrounding the shipment of some low-level waste to a 

disposal facility. The plant, operated by Energy Northwest, is located near Richland, Wash.

On Nov. 9, workers at the plant shipped a single package of low-level nuclear waste to the 

U.S. Ecology disposal facility about 10 miles away. When the package containing contaminated filters 

arrived, workers at the disposal facility noted a discrepancy between the radiation levels specified in the 

shipping manifest and dose rates they measured on the shipping container. U.S. Ecology personnel 

measured radiation levels more than seven times higher than documented in the shipping manifest. The 

package was rejected and taken back to the plant where it is currently being stored.

The following day, the Washington State Department of Health notified Columbia Generating 

Station officials that their disposal permit privileges to U.S. Ecology were being suspended until a 

written plan containing corrective actions was approved and an on-site inspection conducted by state 

officials is completed.

“The purpose of the NRC’s special inspection is to better understand the circumstances 

surrounding this event, which revealed weaknesses in the licensee’s process for packaging and 

preparing radioactive waste shipments,” NRC Region IV Administrator Kriss Kennedy said. “While 

there was no undue risk to the public, had a transportation accident occurred, there was a potential that 

members of the public could have been exposed to radiation levels in excess of NRC regulatory limits.”

The three-member NRC team will spend about a week on site evaluating the licensee’s cause 

analysis and the adequacy of corrective actions. An inspection report documenting the team’s findings 

will be publicly available within 45 days of the end of the inspection.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 21, 2012 

d0514 

Order 

 

May 21, 2012 

144554 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144554 

 COA: 301200 

Berrien CC: 2010-002063-FH 

WILLIAM KELLEY WATSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Clara Krieger, Respondent. Edward Corsi, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 1.75 Delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk to establish an alternative compliance schedule to comply with futures commission merchant acceptance for clearing. ( a ) The Commission hereby delegates to the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk or such other employee or employees as the Director may designate from time to time, the authority to establish an alternative compliance schedule for requirements of § 1.74 for swaps that are found to be technologically or economically impracticable for an affected futures commission merchant that seeks, in good faith, to comply with the requirements of § 1.74 within a reasonable time period beyond the date on which compliance by such futures commission merchant is otherwise required.
( b ) A request for an alternative compliance schedule under this section shall be acted upon by the Director of the Division of Clearing and Risk within 30 days from the time such a request is received, or it shall be deemed approved.
( c ) An exception granted under this section shall not cause a registrant to be out of compliance or deemed in violation of any registration requirements.
( d ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any case in which a Commission employee delegated authority under this section believes it appropriate, he or she may submit to the Commission for its consideration the question of whether an alternative compliance schedule should be established. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the Commission, at its election, from exercising the authority delegated in this section.
[77 FR 21307, Apr. 9, 2012]
No: II-16-008 March 15, 2016

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss Robinson Nuclear Plant 2015 Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for March 23 to discuss 

the agency’s assessment of the Robinson nuclear plant during 2015.

The plant, operated by Duke Energy, is located near Hartsville, S.C., 26 miles northwest of 

Florence.

The open house, which will include informational posters, is scheduled from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. at 

the Hartsville Public Library, 147 W. College Ave., in Hartsville.

NRC resident inspectors and other staff members will be available to answer questions on the

safety performance and regulatory oversight of the Robinson plant, as well as highlights of NRC

inspections. 

“We invite the public to visit with us and find out what we’re doing to ensure Robinson and 

other nuclear plants are operated safely,” said NRC Region II Administrator Cathy Haney. “These 

annual meetings offer an opportunity for everyone, and especially people who live near the plant, to 

learn about our inspection and oversight programs.”

The NRC’s annual assessment letter to plant officials addressing 2015 Robinson plant 

performance will serve as the main focus of the open house, but NRC staff members will be available 

to answer other questions about the NRC’s role at the plant. 

The NRC review of the Robinson plant for 2015 concluded that the plant operated in a manner 

that preserved public health and safety and protected the environment. Because of that performance, it

will continue to receive the detailed routine or baseline inspections this year that all nuclear power 

plants receive.

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess plant 

performance. The colors start with green, which has very low safety significance, and then progress to 

white, yellow or red, based on the significance of the issues. All inspection findings and performance 

indicators for Robinson were green in 2015.

Current performance information, as well as more detailed information about NRC inspection 

and oversight, is available at www.nrc.gov. Specific plant performance indicators and inspection 

reports are updated at least quarterly.
No: II-15-032 April 21, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

 Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

 

NRC Schedules Open House April 29 to Discuss Agency’s 

2014 Assessment of Robinson Nuclear Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have scheduled an open house for April 29 to provide 

information on the agency’s assessment of the Robinson nuclear plant during 2014. 

The informal open house is scheduled from 5 to 6 p.m. in the Hartsville Public Library, 

147 W. College Ave. in Hartsville, S.C. There will be informational posters and NRC staff will be 

available to answer questions about the safety performance of the Robinson plant as well as overall 

NRC oversight and inspection. 

The Robinson plant, which is operated by Duke Energy, is located near Hartsville, 26 miles 

northwest of Florence.

Overall, the NRC staff concluded that the one nuclear unit at the Robinson site operated safely 

in 2014, and the plant will continue to receive the detailed routine or baseline inspections conducted at 

all nuclear power plants.

“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.”

Routine inspections are carried out by the NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant and by 

inspection specialists from the Region II office in Atlanta.

The annual assessment letter for the Robinson plant, as well as current performance 

information, is available on the NRC website.
Exhibit 10.10



 





Exhibit 10.10




DTS Licensing Limited

Universal House

Co. Clare

Ireland




June 22, 2007




Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc.

Desper Products, Inc.




Attention: Henry Mandell




Dear Henry:




     Reference is made to that certain Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 18,
2006 (the “Purchase Agreement”), by and among Spatializer Audio
Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Desper Products, Inc., a California corporation
and wholly-owned subsidiary of Seller, DTS, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Purchaser”), and DTS (BVI) Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the
British Virgin Islands and a subsidiary of Purchaser (“Purchaser Subsidiary”) and
to the fact that, pursuant to Section 10.12 of the Purchase Agreement, Purchaser and
Purchaser Subsidiary have assigned all of their rights, interests and obligations under the
Purchase Agreement to DTS Licensing Limited, a company organized under the laws of Ireland
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Purchaser Subsidiary (“DLL”).



     Further to our recent conversation this letter will confirm that DLL would, subject to
satisfaction of the conditions to closing in the Purchase Agreement, like to target July 2,
2007 as the closing date for the transactions contemplated by the Purchase Agreement. To
this end, pursuant to Section 10.10 of the Purchase Agreement, DLL hereby agrees that the
references to “June 30, 2007” in Sections 7.1(c) and 7.1(d) shall be extended to July 2,
2007.



Regards,



Jon Kirchner, Director




Acknowledged and Agreed

on behalf of Spatializer Audio

Laboratories, Inc. and Desper

Products, Inc.




Henry Mandell



 




Henry Mandell, President
#### § 23.7 Disclosure of surface-layer application of rhodium.

It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose a surface-layer application of rhodium on products marked or described as precious metal.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 ***** 

 AFFIRMATION SESSION 

 *** 

 PUBLIC MEETING

 *** 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Commission Hearing Room 

11555 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, Maryland 

October 20, 2016 

The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 9:25 AM., 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman, presiding. 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 

STEPHEN G. BURNS, Chairman of the Commission 

KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, Member of the Commission 

JEFF BARAN, Member of the Commission 

STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE: 

MARGARET DOANE, General Counsel 

ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK, Secretary of the Commission 
2 

 DISCLAIMER 

This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission on October 20, 2016, in the Commission=s office at One White Flint North, 

Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This 

transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. 

The transcript is intended solely for general information purposes. As provided by 

10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. 

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. 

No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, 

or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 

authorize. 
3 

[9:25 AM] 

 P R O C E E D I N G S 

 CHAIRMAN BURNS: I call this meeting to order. We have an affirmation 

session to begin this morning. I ask the Secretary to lead us through the item before us. 

 ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK: This is on Duke Energy Florida, LLC (Levy 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2): Mandatory Hearing Decision. The Commission is being asked to 

act on a Memorandum and Order addressing the required findings in 10 C.F.R. §§ 52.97(a) and 

51.107(a) and the issues discussed at the uncontested hearing on July 28, 2016, concerning 

the combined license application of Duke Energy Florida, LLC to construct and operate two 

AP1000 reactors at the Levy Nuclear Plant site in Levy County, Florida. 

The Commission has voted to approve a Memorandum and Order that authorizes issuance of 

the combined licenses. 

Would you please affirm your votes? 

 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Aye 

 COMMISSIONER SVINICKI: Aye 

 COMMISSIONER BARAN: Aye 

 ANNETTE VIETTI-COOK: Thank you. That’s all I have. 

 CHAIRMAN BURNS: Thanks 
4 

 CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission entitled: 

TITLE OF MEETING: Affirmation Session 

 (PUBLIC MEETING) 

PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Maryland 

DATE OF MEETING: October 20, 2016 

was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the 

original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 

me or under the direction of the court reporting company. 

Transcriber: Brenda Akstulewicz 

Reporter: (TAPE RECORDING)
#### § 660.1 Scope.

This part applies to furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies that are motor vehicle dealers as defined by § 660.2 of this part (referred to as “furnishers”).

[86 FR 51821, Sept. 17, 2021]