alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71847-71848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27151]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Of Consent Decree Under The Clean Air Act

    Consistent with Departmental policy and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that on November 29, 2004, a proposed consent decree in 
United States v. Global Companies, LLC. et al., Civil Action No. 04-CV-
12495-DPW, was lodged with the United States District Court for the 
District of Massachusetts.
    In this action, the United States sought a civil penalty for 
violations of Section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545, and its 
implementing

[[Page 71848]]

regulations. The Consent Decree requires settling defendants Global 
Companies, L.L.C. and Global Petroleum Corp. to pay a $500,000 civil 
penalty and to perform a three-year ``Compliance Assurance Program'' to 
ensure future compliance with the requirements for importing and 
blending reformulated and conventional gasoline. The Department of 
Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of 
this publication comments relating to the consent decree. Comments 
should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. Global 
Companies, LLC. et al., D.J. Ref. <greek-i>90-5-2-1-07738.
    The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse Way, John 
Joseph Moakley Courthouse, Boston, MA 02210 (contact AUSA George B. 
Henderson), and at U.S. EPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 (contact Jocelyn L. 
Adair). During the public comment period, the consent decree also may 
be examined on the Department of Justice Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy of the consent decree also may be 
obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or e-
mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#265249484f4708404a4343525149494266535542494c08414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9ddc6c7c0c887cfc5ccccdddec6c6cde9dcdacdc6c387cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>), fax 
no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In 
requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $4.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) 
payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Bruce S. Gelber,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27151 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 147.9 Intimidation and retaliation prohibited.

No person may discharge, intimidate, retaliate, threaten, coerce or otherwise discriminate against any person because such person has filed a complaint, furnished information, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, review, hearing or any other activity related to the administration of, or exercise of authority under, or privilege secured by Section 508 and the regulations in this part.

[84 FR 37578, Aug. 1, 2019]
§ 33.7 Conditions for claims. ( a ) Unless there is clear and convincing credible evidence that the seizure did not meet the requirements of the Act, payment of claims will be made when: ( 1 ) A covered vessel is seized by a foreign country under conditions specified in the Act and the guaranty agreement; and
( 2 ) The incident occurred during the period the guaranty agreement was in force for the vessel involved.
( b ) Payments will be made to the owner for: ( 1 ) All actual costs (except those covered by section 3 of the Act or reimbursable from some other source) incurred by the owner during the seizure or detention period as a direct result thereof, including: ( i ) Damage to, or destruction of, the vessel or its equipment; or
( ii ) Loss or confiscation of the vessel or its equipment; and
( iii ) Dockage fees or utilities;
( 2 ) The market value of fish or shellfish caught before seizure of the vessel and confiscated or spoiled during the period of detention; and
( 3 ) Up to 50 percent of the vessel's gross income lost as a direct result of the seizure and detention.
( c ) The exceptions are that no payment will be made from the Fund for a seizure which is: ( 1 ) Covered by any other provision of law (for example, fines, license fees, registration fees, or other direct charges payable under section 3 of the Act);
( 2 ) Made by a country at war with the United States;
( 3 ) In accordance with any applicable convention or treaty, if that treaty or convention was made with the advice and consent of the Senate and was in force and effect for the United States and the seizing country at the time of the seizure;
( 4 ) Which occurs before the guaranty agreement's effective date or after its termination;
( 5 ) For which other sources of alternative reimbursement have not first been fully pursued (for example, the insurance coverage required by the agreement and valid claims under any law);
( 6 ) For which material requirements of the guaranty agreement, the Act, or the program regulations have not been fully fulfilled; or
( 7 ) In the view of the Department of State occurred because the seized vessel was undermining or diminishing the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures recognized by the United States, or otherwise contributing to stock conservation problems pending the establishment of such measures.
}nW!QN 

May 21, 2010 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

West Building Ground floor. Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sirs: 

This letter is to petition the U.S. Department of Transportation on behalf of American Helicopters, Inc. 

for an exemption from the requirement for a separate drug and alcohol testing program for both 91.147 

operations and 135 operations. 

American Helicopters, Inc. located at 10503 Wakeman Drive, Manassas, Virginia 20110 operates 

passenger-carrying flights for compensation or hire under 14 CFR §91.147(c)(7) and a charter operation 

under 14 CFR §135. We are petitioning to combine the drug and alcohol requirements (§91.1047 and 

§§120.1,120.3 and 120.5) as both operations are 100% owned and operated by American Helicopters, 

Inc. The 135 pilot is already participating in the drug and alcohol testing program under the 91.147 

operation, therefore; it is redundant to have two separate drug and alcohol testing programs. It is a 

financial and administrative hardship for American Helicopters, Inc. to maintain two programs. 

American Helicopters, Inc. strives to maintain an exceptionally high level of safety. Combining these 

operations under one drug and alcohol testing program would in no way jeopardize safety as the pilot is 

already enrolled the American Helicopters, Inc. testing program and is subject to random drug and 

alcohol testing. He has already tested negative for his pre-employment drug test and is in the testing 

pool for random selections. 

In summary, American Helicopters, Inc. seeks an exemption from the need for two separate drug and 

alcohol testing programs because both our operations fall under one company and management and it 

is redundant to maintain two programs. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any questions or concerns 

regarding this petition. 

Ann Rychlik 

Drug Program Manager 

10503 Wakeman Drive Manassas Regional Airport (KHEF) tAanassas, Virginia 20110 

(703) 368-9599 office (703) 368-9445 fax www.americanheli.com
### §3217. Maintenance and public inspection of list of approved applications for financial assistance

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall—

(1) maintain as a permanent part of the records of the Department a list of applications approved for financial assistance under this chapter; and

(2) make the list available for public inspection during the regular business hours of the Department.

#### (b) Additions to list

The following information shall be added to the list maintained under subsection (a) as soon as an application described in subsection (a)(1) is approved:

(1) The name of the applicant and, in the case of a corporate application, the name of each officer and director of the corporation.

(2) The amount and duration of the financial assistance for which application is made.

(3) The purposes for which the proceeds of the financial assistance are to be used.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title VI, §607, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3615.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3217, Pub. L. 89–136, title VII, §707, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 573; Pub. L. 94–273, §26, Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 380, required annual report to Congress on operations under this chapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(b)(3).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
### Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ Project No.: 0172.07.005.504 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1 _ of __1

_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 3/17/2010 Time: 10:30 am EST

Company Name: Former Koppers

(MO0120294) Contact Name: Dave Rayna

Phone No.: 412-208-0413

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group

GENERAL SUBJECT : TCDD concentrations reported to DMR in 2008



## TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I called Former Koppers Facility on March 17, 2010, to speak w ith Robert Fisher (412-208-8860), on March 17,

2010. Mr. Fisher forwarded my information to Dave Rayna wh o called me back later that day. I explained to

Mr. Rayna who I was and why I was calling; we briefly discussed the Former Koppers Facility and TCDD

concentrations reported to DMR in 2008.

Mr. Rayna explained that the facility is no longer in o peration, and that the only thing that remains is the land.

He stated that they only monitor the two storm water di scharges at the site (Outfalls 004 and 005). Mr. Rayna

explained that the TCDD concentrations are almost alwa ys non-detect. He stated that he would look through all

of the monthly reports to confirm all non-detect measur ements for 2008. At about 3:30 pm, Mr. Rayna called

me back confirming that all TCDD concentrations were re ported below the detection limit in 2008 for Outfalls

004 and 005. BDL indicators should be added to the 2008 TCDD concent rations.
# Úradný vestník C 391/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 391 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6316. novembra 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 391

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6316. novembra 2020

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informácie |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Rada |
| 2020/C 391/01 | Rozhodnutie Rady z 10. novembra 2020, ktorým sa vymenúva predseda odvolacích senátov Úradu Európskej únie pre duševné vlastníctvo | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Rada

2020/C 391/01

Rozhodnutie Rady z 10. novembra 2020, ktorým sa vymenúva predseda odvolacích senátov Úradu Európskej únie pre duševné vlastníctvo

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Rada

| 16.11.2020 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 391/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 391/1

---

ROZHODNUTIE RADY

z 10. novembra 2020,

ktorým sa vymenúva predseda odvolacích senátov Úradu Európskej únie pre duševné vlastníctvo

(2020/C 391/01)

RADA EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE,

so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,

so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2017/1001 zo 14. júna 2017 o ochrannej známke Európskej únie (1), a najmä na jeho článok 166 ods. 1,

keďže:

Rade bol 8. júna 2020 doručený od správnej rady Úradu Európskej únie pre duševné vlastníctvo (EUIPO) zoznam kandidátov, ktorí sú navrhnutí na funkciu predsedu odvolacích senátov EUIPO,

PRIJALA TOTO ROZHODNUTIE:

Článok 1

1.   Pán João Nuno MAROCO AMARAL NEGRÃO, narodený 2. novembra 1970 v Lisabone (Portugalsko), sa týmto vymenúva za predsedu odvolacích senátov Úradu Európskej únie pre duševné vlastníctvo (EUIPO) na obdobie piatich rokov.

2.   Dátum začatia päťročného obdobia uvedeného v odseku 1 určí správna rada EUIPO.

Článok 2

Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť dňom jeho uverejnenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.

V Bruseli 10. novembra 2020

Za Radu

predseda

M. ROTH

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 154, 16.6.2017, s. 1.

1

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY WHITLOCK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEPSI AMERICAS,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-02742 SI

AMENDED

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: June 18, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is August 27, 2010.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS(non economic) :PLTF 9/10/10; DEFT: 11/12/10. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF( non economic) is Pltf: 10/29/10, Deft: 1/14/11.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by February 4, 2010; 

Opp. Due March 18, 2011; Reply Due April 8, 2010;

 and set for hearing no later than April 29, 2011 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: June 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: July 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

The Court will issue a separate judgment as to the following parties: 1) Dalton, 2) Chalmer, and 3) M.

Weber.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02742-SI Document 105 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 1
#### §§ 1510.131-1510.139 [Reserved]
### §300x–51. Opportunity for public comment on State plans

A funding agreement for a grant under section 300x or 300x–21 of this title is that the State involved will make the plan required in section 300x–1 of this title, and the plan required in section 300x–32 of this title, respectively, public within the State in such manner as to facilitate comment from any person (including any Federal or other public agency) during the development of the plan (including any revisions) and after the submission of the plan to the Secretary.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1941, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title II, §203(a), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 403.)
#### Maude K. Hayes, Appellant, v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Judgment and order dismissing second amended complaint as to certain defendants unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party and motion denied, without costs and without prejudice to the right to renew in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: The motion to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice should have been denied as to all defendants. The motions under rules 90 and 102 to separately state and number and to make more definite and certain should have been granted in the interests of orderly practice and procedure and to enable the court to pass intelligently upon the sufficiency of this very garbled complaint. After such motions are made and granted, the defendants or any of them may move to dismiss under said subdivision 4 of rule 106 or may make such other motions addressed to the complaint as they may be advised, whether or not such motions have been previously made. (Appeal from judgment and order of Oneida Special Term dismissing the second amended complaint as to the defendants Utica Mutual Insurance Company and three other defendants. The order appealed from dismissed the complaint as to the four defendants but denied the motion as to the other defendants with certain exceptions, in an action for slander.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Exhibit 34.2

 

 

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2022, except forservicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv),  which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2022, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

May 26, 2022

 

----
Memo to: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0218

Subject: 6-25-14 meeting with Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to discuss preparations for the July 10, 2014 

consultation between EPA and the Tribe on EPA’s current proposed regulation at 40 CFR 61

From: Reid J Rosnick, Radiation Protection Division

Members of EPA: Reid Rosnick, Tom Peake, Pat Childers, Jed Harrison, Angelique Diaz, Scott Patefield, 

Scott Jackson, Art Palomares

Ute Mt. Ute Tribe representatives: Scott Clow, Celine Hawkins, Colin Larrick, Mike Keller, Tomoe Natori 

Scott Clow noted that the consultation is scheduled for July 10, 2014 beginning at approximately 9 am, 

MDT. He will arrange for a conference call-in line. EPA noted that members of Region 8 will attend while 

members of ORIA will call in. The consultation will be about the proposed Subpart W rulemaking, but 

may dovetail into other areas the Tribe has discussed. For instance, if any time remains, we could 

discuss the off-site or alternate feed issues. It was noted that Region 8, the Tribe and the state of Utah 

will be holding a meeting in a month or so to discuss issuers related to enforcement and the off-site rule.

EPA, Scott and Celine discussed the questions/answers to be discussed during the consultation: 

The meeting was then adjourned.
#### Anthony Cinelli, Appellant, v. Cuthbert R. Sager et al., Respondents.

Motion granted to appeal on typewritten papers; appeal dismissed unless records and briefs are filed and served on or before November 1, 1960. Respondent’s brief must be filed on or before November 17, 1960 if appeal is to be argued at November 1960 Term.
### §§2661 to 2666. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 2661 to 2666 were superseded in the general amendment of part B of title I of Pub. L. 88–164 (this subchapter) by Pub. L. 94–103, title I, §105, title III, §303, Oct. 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 486, 507, effective with respect to appropriations under Pub. L. 94–103 for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1975.

Section 2661, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §121, Oct. 31, 1963, 77 Stat. 284; Pub. L. 90–170, §2(a), (b), (d), Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 527; Pub. L. 91–517, title II, §201(a), (b), Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1325, related to authorization of appropriations.

Section 2661a, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §122, as added Pub. L. 91–517, title II, §202, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1326; amended Pub. L. 93–45, title III, §301(a), June 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 95; Pub. L. 94–103, title I, §101(a), Oct. 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 486, related to demonstration and training grants and authorization of appropriations for such grants.

Section 2662, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §123, formerly §122, Oct. 31, 1963, 77 Stat. 284; renumbered §123 and amended Pub. L. 91–517, title II, §§202, 203, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1326, related to applications for grants and conditions for approval by Secretary.

Section 2663, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §124, formerly §123, Oct. 31, 1963, 77 Stat. 285; renumbered §124 and amended Pub. L. 91–517, title II, §§202, 204, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1326, related to amount of grants, including maximum payments, advances or reimbursement, and conditions for payment.

Section 2664, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §125, formerly §124, Oct. 31, 1963, 77 Stat. 285; renumbered §125 and amended Pub. L. 91–517, title II, §§201(c), 202, 205, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1326, related to recovery of expenditures under certain conditions.

Section 2665, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §126, formerly §125, Oct. 31, 1963, 77 Stat. 285; amended Pub. L. 90–170, §2(c), Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 527; renumbered §126 and amended Pub. L. 91–517, title II, §§201(c), 202, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1326, related to nonduplication of grants.

Section 2666, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §127, as added Pub. L. 91–517, title II, §206, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1326, related to maintenance of effort.
#### § 223.5 Agency representative.

The General Counsel shall appoint an agency representative to present evidence and otherwise participate in the hearing.