alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §15371. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15371 was editorially reclassified as section 20971 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
### §14137b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14137b was editorially reclassified as section 40743 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
APPENDIX D – FLIGHT/SAFETY MANUAL FOR RUSSELL M. SQUIRE AND SLY DOG PRODUCTIONS

Flight Environment Requirements:

1. The aircraft shall not be used in severe weather conditions defined as sleet, rain, snow fog or 

hail or in winds exceeding 17 miles per hour.

2. We only fly in open areas and never around tall or metal structures as this may affect the 

accuracy of the onboard compass and GPS system.

3. We avoid all obstacles, crowds, high voltage power lines, trees and bodies of water.

4. To minimize interference we avoid any areas with high levels of electromagnetism, including 

base stations and radio transmission towers.

5. We never fly our UAS at altitudes exceeding 19,685 feet above sea level as this can affect the 

performance of the battery and the aircraft per the manufacturer.

6. We will not fly in conditions where the ambient temperature is above 100 degrees Fahrenheit or 

below 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

Flight Limits and No Fly Zones:

We will abide by all regulations set forth by the FAA and ICAO.

We always operate our UAS in P-Mode which limits height, distance and detects No-Fly Zones to 

manage flight safety.

Our maximum flight altitude is 200 feet and our radius limits from home base are set at 1,000 feet.

In accordance with these settings our UAS will only fly in a restricted cylinder per the parameters 

outlined above.

All remaining safety procedures are fully covered in the 57 page DJI Phantom 3 Professional Users 

Manual attached to this application as Appendix A.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3413 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the ‘‘Private Isaac T. 

Cortes Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2011 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Ms. 

BUERKLE, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. 

GRIMM, Mr. HANNA, Ms. HAYWORTH, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. 

ISRAEL, Mr. KING of New York, Mrs. LOWEY, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. 

MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. 

RANGEL, Mr. REED, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. TONKO, Mr. 

TOWNS, Mr. TURNER of New York, and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as 

the ‘‘Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIVATE ISAAC T. CORTES POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3413 IH

1 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Private 

2 Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Private Isaac T. 

7 Cortes Post Office’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 970.401 Financial responsibility. ( a ) Before the Administrator may certify an application for an exploration license he must find that the applicant has demonstrated that, upon issuance or transfer of the license, the applicant will be financially responsible to meet all obligations which he may require to engage in the exploration proposed in the application.
( b ) In order for the Administrator to make this determination, the applicant must show to the Administrator's satisfaction that he is reasonably capable of committing or raising sufficient resources to carry out, in accordance with the provisions contained in this part, the exploration program set forth in his exploration plan.
### §13295. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title IV, §401(b), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3282

Section, Pub. L. 102–486, title VI, §625, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2905, related to electric utility participation study.
B.C.D. 01-36

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Safe Handling Rail, Inc.

APR 2 3 2001

This is the determination ofthe Railroad Retirement Board concerning the status of

Safe Handling Rail, Inc. (SHR), as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act

(45 U.S.C. § 231 et seep) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45

U.S.C. § 351 et seep).

Information regarding SHR was provided by Ford S. Reich, President of SHR.

According to Mr. Reich, SHR entered into a Lease and Operating Agreement on

November 27, 2000, with the State of Maine to perform certain carrier operations,

and began operations December 6, 2000.

In Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 33968, SHR filed a notice of

exemption to acquire by assignment and operate approximately 5.76 miles ofrail

line from Maine Coast Railroad Corporation, an employer under the Acts (B.A.

No. 3121). SHR interchanges with Springfield Terminal Railway Company, also

an employer under the Acts (B.A. No. 2112).

The evidence ofrecord establishes that SHR is a carrier operating in interstate

commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that SHR is an employer within the

meaning ofsection 1 (a)( 1 )(i) ofthe Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §

23 l(a)(l)(i)) and the corresponding provision ofthe Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act as of December 6, 2000, the date as ofwhich it commenced

operations.

BA# 2133
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

Chairman Burns 

COMSECY-16-0016: PROPOSED REVISION TO THE 

NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR FORCE-ON-FORCE 

INSPECTIONS 

Approved _x_ Disapproved _ Abstain Not Participating _ 

Comments: Below Attached None X 

Entered in STARS 

Yes x ---

No --- 4 August 2016 

DATE 
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI 

COMSECY-16-0016: PROPOSED REVISION TO THE 

NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR FORCE-ON-FORCE 

INSPECTIONS 

Approved XX Disapproved _ Abstain Not Participating _ 

Comments: Below 

Entered on " STARS" 

Attached None XX 

08/ /16 DATE 

Yes _JNo_ 
TO: 

FROM : 

SUBJECT: 

Approved x 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

Commissioner Baran 

COMSECY-16-0016: PROPOSED REVISION TO THE 

NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR FORCE-ON-FORCE 

INSPECTIONS 

Disapproved Abstain Not Participating --- ---

COMMENTS: Below x Attached None 

Less than 10 months ago, the Commission approved the staff's proposal in 

COMSECY-15-0025 to revise the process for notifying licensees of force-on-force ( FOF) 

exercises, increasing the advance notice from 8-to-12 weeks to 9-to-15 months. The change 

was intended to better align the notifications with the 18-month timeline for Reactor Oversight 

Process (ROP) inspection notifications and to minimize disruptions in inspection scheduling. 

However, in December 2015, the ROP inspection notification timeline changed from 18 months 

to 24 months. As a result, the staff is now asking the Commission to again expand the advance 

notice for FOF inspections, this time from 9-to-15 months to 24 months. 

I am disappointed that the staff did not factor the expected ROP inspection notification 

timeline changes into its original proposal to provide additional notice of FOF inspections. It is 

also unfortunate that the staff's original proposal did not take into account that the efficiencies of 

coordinating FOF inspections with ROP inspections and other onsite activities could best be 

achieved by integrating the FOF planning into the Reactor Program System Inspection Planning 

scheduling documents, which provide licensees with advance notice of expected inspections 

and regulatory activities. 

If I thought this revised notification timeline would in any way compromise the 

effectiveness of the FOF exercises, I would disapprove the staff's request. However, FOF 

exercises are not intended to be surprise unannounced inspections and I do not view earlier 

notification as changing the dynamics of the exercises. The frequency of FOF inspections will 

remain once every three years for each site. Category 1 fuel cycle facilities would be notified 

along similar timeframes under this revised approach. Therefore, I approve this request to 

increase the notification timeframe to 24 months. 

Entered.in STARS 

Yes \I 

No 

DATE
Exhibit
10.2


AMENDMENT
NO. 1


TO THE


NORTHWEST
AIRLINES CORPORATION


2007
STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


(Effective
as of June 28, 2007)


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
THE NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORPORATION 2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Amendment”) is
hereby adopted and approved by the Board of Directors of Northwest Airlines
Corporation (the “Company”) as of the date set forth above.


1.             Amendment
of 2007 Stock Incentive Plan. 
Section 2.1(q) of the Northwest Airlines Corporation 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:


“(q) “Participant” means
a member of the Board of Directors of the Company and any Eligible Employee
selected by the Committee to receive an Award under the Plan.”


2.             Definitions.
Except as otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms used but not
defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Plan.


3.             General.  References to the “Plan” contained in the
Plan shall mean the Plan as amended by this Amendment.  Except as herein provided, the Plan shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


Adopted by the Board of Directors on June 28, 2007
No. II-09-012 March 18, 2009 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 562-4416 

NRC SCHEDULES OPEN HOUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON 

2008 PERFORMANCE OF VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for Thursday, 

March 26, and will be available to discuss and answer questions about the agency’s assessment of 

safety performance during 2008 at the Vogtle nuclear power plant. The plant, operated by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., is near Waynesboro, Ga., about 26 miles southeast of Augusta. 

The open house is informal and scheduled to run from 2-4 p.m. in the Burke County 

Courthouse, 602 Liberty Street in Waynesboro. 

NRC staff will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the Vogtle 

plant, as well as the NRC role in ensuring safe plant operation. Although this open house is 

specifically designed to answer questions about the plant’s performance during the previous year, 

NRC staff members will also be available to address general issues regarding license renewal for 

the operating units and the NRC’s role in the two additional units planned at the Vogtle site. 

“Throughout the year, we inspect and review the performance of the Vogtle plant and all 

commercial nuclear plants,” NRC Region II Administrator Luis Reyes said. “We issue several 

inspection reports during the year and an overall annual assessment. This open house allows us to 

discuss that assessment with local officials and people near the plant, and answer any questions 

they may have.” 

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

the plant during 2008 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the 

NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/vog_2008q4.pdf. 

The NRC found that Vogtle’s 2008 performance met all NRC safety objectives. With the 

exception of some generic inspections, such as ground water protection and operator licensing 

exams, the agency plans only routine or baseline inspections at the plant in 2009. Both Vogtle 

units had issues that resulted in additional inspections and oversight through the first three quarters 

of last year. However, performance in the fourth quarter of 2008 resulted in both units receiving 

less NRC oversight. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov 
Current performance information for Vogtle Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at: 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG1/vog1_chart.html. Current performance 

information for Unit 2 is at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VOG2/vog2_chart.html. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
City ofVisaRa 

425 'East OaiJlvenue, Suite 301, 'UisaRa, CA 93291 

Bob Link 

Mayor 

AmyShukliaa^ 

Vice Mayor 

E. Warren Gubler 

Councilmember 

Michael Lane 

Councilmember 

Steven A. Nelsen 

Councilmember 

D<rr- 6«.T-2/>e4- [<\^i(a 

office of the Mayor 

Tec- (559) 713-4512 TOOQ (559) 713-4800 

July 7, 2010 

C J 

o> 

-•: ~-a 

O 

Dennis J. DeVany, Chief : 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

400Seventfi Street, SW, Roome4m " :V 

Washington, DC- 20590 -^ "^ 

Re: Order No. 2008-5-42 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Thank you for the correspondence dated June 4, 2010, requesting final community comments on 

Order 2010-5-4. Even though there was only one proposal submitted for our community, the City 

of Visalia appreciates the opportunity to comment on the response to this order. 

The City of Visalia's Air Service Subcommittee has reviewed the proposal submitted by Great 

Lakes and the City Council wishes to express their support for the proposal by Great Lakes 

Aviation with the preference for service to LAX. 

Great Lakes has been in active discussions with community leaders, py^r the past months, with 

regards to the continuation of service and their plans for changing the hub.cjty for local travelers! 

As a result of these discussions, the City of Visalia believes that LAX presejits the greatest 

opportunity to increase passenger loads immediately. 

Historically, dating back to the late 90's, our local travelers have proven that there is a demand 

for LAX service and we believe that service to this hub airport provides us with the greatest 

opportunity to grow the service and ultimately operate subsidy free. 

The City of Visalia, appreciates the Essential Air Service program and the opportunity it. offers the 

community to continue to have air service. Providing air service is an jmpdrtarit aspect of our 

economic development efforts, and Is also key,to our long-term alternative transportation and air 

quality objectives. 

Respectfully, , . , • ., 

^~^)OIJ ^ 

Bob Link 

Mayor 

®
### Part B—University Year for VISTA
### §1397k–2. Research protections

#### (a) Guidelines

The Secretary shall promulgate guidelines to assist researchers working in the area of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, with issues relating to human subject protections.

#### (b) Definition of legally authorized representative for application of regulations

For purposes of the application of subpart A of part 46 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, to research conducted under this subpart, the term "legally authorized representative" means, unless otherwise provided by law, the individual or judicial or other body authorized under the applicable law to consent to medical treatment on behalf of another person.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XX, §2023, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title VI, §6703(a)(1)(C), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 789.)
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
 Dated: August 22, 2005
    /s/ Robert F. KendallName:
    Robert F. Kendall, CPATitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
NO. SEMS ID DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES

1 45654 10/5/90 U.S. EPA File Administrative Record Site Index for the Removal Action at the Torch Lake Superfund Site ( Documents contained on this index are incorporated by reference into the Deletion Docket) 1

2 45661 etc. 4/29/92 -

12/29/08 U.S. EPA File Administrative Record for the Remedial Action at the Torch Lake Superfund Site ( Documents contained on the index are incorporated by reference into the Deletion Docket) 28

3 205374, 238553 5/3/04 -

7/21/05 U.S. EPA File Administrative Record Site Index for the Removal Action at the Torch Lake Operable Unit 3: Quincy Smelter Site (Documents contained on this index are incorporated by reference into the Deletion Docket) 2

4 428471 6/10/13 Wyant, D., MDEQ Karl, R., U.S.

EPA Letter re: State of Michigan

Concurrence with the Proposed Deletion of Torch Lake Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, Quincy Smelter and Calumet Lake 2 

## Torch Lake Superfund Site U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Remedial Action

Deletion Docket For


## Operable Unit 3: Quincy Smelter and Calumet Lake

June XX, 2013 SEMS ID: 

## Houghton County, Michigan
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jami R. Skinner, Appellant. Nathan Littauer Hospital, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 293]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 7, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a licensed practical nurse without good cause. The record establishes that in lieu of terminating claimant’s employment due to absenteeism, the employer granted claimant’s request to transfer to the night shift. Claimant, however, refused to accept the new schedule because of the employer’s caveat that she would not be permitted to return to the day shift. Inasmuch as continuing work was available to claimant, we will not disturb the Board’s decision that claimant’s dissatisfaction with the condition of the requested work schedule did not constitute good cause to leave her employment (see *Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor],*20 AD3d 844 [2005]; *Matter of Adorisio [Commissioner of Labor],*18 AD3d 942 [2005]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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 September 21, 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”), Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (“IEST”) 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 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 name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology, Rolling Meadows, IL. The nature and scope of IEST's standards development activities are: (1) To develop Recommended Practices for nonmandatory use in the contamination control, design and test, and product reliability industries; and (2) to serve by appointment for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as Administrator of the U.S. Technical Advisory Committee to ISO Technical Committee 209 Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled Environments.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-26616  Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Nelnet Education Loan
Funding, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jim Kruger, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

               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:  November 14, 2003                 /s/ Jim Kruger
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Jim Kruger, Secretary and Treasurer
                                             (Principal Financial Officer)