alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31985R3678 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31985R3678

**Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 3678/85 of 20 December 1985 adapting the representation and special-duty allowances for the President and members of the Commission and the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice **

*
Official Journal L 351 , 28/12/1985 P. 0001 - 0001 Spanish special edition: Chapter 01 Volume 5 P. 0039 Portuguese special edition Chapter 01 Volume 5 P. 0039 *

*****

COUNCIL REGULATION (ECSC, EEC, EURATOM) No 3678/85

of 20 December 1985

adapting the representation and special-duty allowances for the President and members of the Commission and the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 427/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice (1), as last amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 3822/81 (2), and in particular Article 4 (4) thereof,

Whereas the representation and special-duty allowances provided for under Article 4 (2) and (3) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom should be increased,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

With effect from 1 January 1986:

- the amounts listed in Article 4 (2) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom shall be as follows:

- President: Bfrs 45 905,

- Vice-President: Bfrs 29 500,

- Other members: Bfrs 19 670,

- the amounts listed in the first subparagraph of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom shall be as follows:

- President: Bfrs 45 905,

- Judge or Advocate-General: Bfrs 19 670,

- Registrar: Bfrs 17 940,

- the amount listed in the second subparagraph of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom shall be replaced by the sum of Bfrs 26 240.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussel, 20 December 1985.

For the Council

The President

R. KRIEPS

(1) OJ No L 187, 8. 8. 1967, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 386, 31. 12. 1981, p. 4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Celines Ramirez, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 480]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 25, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that she had violated a condition thereof, upon her admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her previous conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that her admission to violating a condition of her probation was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636 [1983]; *People v Carden,*27 AD3d 573 [2006]; *People v Eherts,*21 AD3d 905 [2005]; *People v Padilla,*18 AD3d 578 [2005]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admitted that she violated a condition of her probation *(see People v Carden, supra; People v Padilla, supra; People v Melvin,*274 AD2d 435 [2000]). Moreover, the court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a competency hearing since the defendant responded appropriately to the court’s inquiries, and there is no evidence that she lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against her *(see People v Matos,*27 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]; *People v Pryor,*11 AD3d 565 [2004]; *People v Gomez,*256 AD2d 356 [1998]; *People v Hollis,*204 AD2d 569 [1994]).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly sentenced her on the violation of probation without obtaining an updated presentence report is also unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Gambichler,*25 AD3d 722 [2006]; *People v Freeman,*2 AD3d 648 [2003]; *People v Ortega,*1 AD3d 533 [2003]), and in any event, is without merit *(see People v Kuey,*83 NY2d 278 [1994]; *People v Fernandez,*7 AD3d 886 [2004]; *People v Ortega, supra; People v Viruet,*288 AD2d 407 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman and Lunn, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129437 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

In re DEMARCUS DEVON DAVIS, Minor. 

_________________________________________/ 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 129437 

 COA: 254527 

Berrien Juvenile Div Ct: 

2003-000923-DJ 

DEMARCUS DEVON DAVIS,

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2005 

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. 

CAVANAGH, KELLY, and MARKMAN, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

p0419 

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. 

April 26, 2006 

Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.236 Specific requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval and fabrication. The certificate holder and applicant for a CoC shall ensure that the requirements of this section are met. ( a ) Specifications must be provided for the spent fuel to be stored in the spent fuel storage cask, such as, but not limited to, type of spent fuel (*i.e.,* BWR, PWR, both), maximum allowable enrichment of the fuel prior to any irradiation, burn-up (*i.e.,* megawatt-days/MTU), minimum acceptable cooling time of the spent fuel prior to storage in the spent fuel storage cask, maximum heat designed to be dissipated, maximum spent fuel loading limit, condition of the spent fuel (*i.e.,* intact assembly or consolidated fuel rods), the inerting atmosphere requirements.
( b ) Design bases and design criteria must be provided for structures, systems, and components important to safety.
( c ) The spent fuel storage cask must be designed and fabricated so that the spent fuel is maintained in a subcritical condition under credible conditions.
( d ) Radiation shielding and confinement features must be provided sufficient to meet the requirements in §§ 72.104 and 72.106.
( e ) The spent fuel storage cask must be designed to provide redundant sealing of confinement systems.
( f ) The spent fuel storage cask must be designed to provide adequate heat removal capacity without active cooling systems.
( g ) The spent fuel storage cask must be designed to store the spent fuel safely for the term proposed in the application, and permit maintenance as required.
( h ) The spent fuel storage cask must be compatible with wet or dry spent fuel loading and unloading facilities.
( i ) The spent fuel storage cask must be designed to facilitate decontamination to the extent practicable.
( j ) The spent fuel storage cask must be inspected to ascertain that there are no cracks, pinholes, uncontrolled voids, or other defects that could significantly reduce its confinement effectiveness.
( k ) The spent fuel storage cask must be conspicuously and durably marked with— ( 1 ) A model number;
( 2 ) A unique identification number; and
( 3 ) An empty weight.
( l ) The spent fuel storage cask and its systems important to safety must be evaluated, by appropriate tests or by other means acceptable to the NRC, to demonstrate that they will reasonably maintain confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and credible accident conditions.
( m ) To the extent practicable in the design of spent fuel storage casks, consideration should be given to compatibility with removal of the stored spent fuel from a reactor site, transportation, and ultimate disposition by the Department of Energy.
( n ) Safeguards Information shall be protected against unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the requirements of § 73.21 and the requirements of § 73.22 or § 73.23 of this chapter, as applicable.
[64 FR 56126, Oct. 15, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 50617, Aug. 21, 2000; 73 FR 63573, Oct. 24, 2008; 76 FR 8891, Feb. 16, 2011]
§ 52.8 Combining licenses; elimination of repetition. ( a ) An applicant for a license under this part may combine in its application several applications for different kinds of licenses under the regulations of this chapter.
( b ) An applicant may incorporate by reference in its application information contained in previous applications, statements or reports filed with the Commission, provided, however, that such references are clear and specific.
( c ) The Commission may combine in a single license the activities of an applicant which would otherwise be licensed separately.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Vincent R. Henriquez, Appellant, v Everett W. Jones, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 13, 1979 in Washington County, which denied appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. The application for a writ of habeas corpus does not comply with CPLR article 70 and more specifically with the provisions of CPLR 7002 (subd [c]) thereof, and is insufficient on its face. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
#### P. BALLANTINE & SONS, Respondents, v. CORBETT, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by P. Ballantine & Sons against James B. Oorbett.

No opinion. Order, in so far as appealed from, affirmed, with ~1O costs and disbursements.
842.1202 Responsibility for executing

agreements.

To avoid duplication of effort on the part of VA contracting offices in preparing and executing

agreements to recognize a change of name or successor in interest involving multiple contracts

issued by VA activities, only one agreement will be prepared and executed between the Government

and the parties (transferor and transferee) and will be processed as forth in FAR 42.1203. The Office

of Acquisition and Logistics, Risk Management and Compliance Service will, in each case, designate

a cognizant HCA responsible for assigning a contracting officer. The designated contracting officer

shall be responsible for taking all necessary and appropriate actions with respect to either

recognizing or not recognizing a successor in interest or recognizing a change of name agreement

and processing and executing the agreements as set forth in VA procedures.

Parent topic: Subpart 842.12 - Novation and Change-of-Name Agreements
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

TIMOTHY RODENIUS AND THE 

PEOPLE, 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

AND CORREALE F. STEVENS, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 92 WM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto and 

Mandamus is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
§ 60.24 Updating of application and environmental impact statement. ( a ) The application shall be as complete as possible in the light of information that is reasonably available at the time of docketing.
( b ) The DOE shall update its application in a timely manner so as to permit the Commission to review, prior to issuance of a license: ( 1 ) Additional geologic, geophysical, geochemical, hydrologic, meteorologic and other data obtained during construction.
( 2 ) Conformance of construction of structures, systems, and components with the design.
( 3 ) Results of research programs carried out to confirm the adequacy of designs.
( 4 ) Other information bearing on the Commission's issuance of a license that was not available at the time a construction authorization was issued.
( c ) The DOE shall supplement its environmental impact statement in a timely manner so as to take into account the environmental impacts of any substantial changes in its proposed actions or any significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
[46 FR 13980, Feb. 25, 1981, as amended at 54 FR 27872, July 3, 1989]
PGI 232.603 Debt determination.

Upon transfer of a case to the contract financing office, the contracting officer shall close the debt

record by reference to the date of transfer.

Parent topic: PGI 232.6 -CONTRACT DEBTS
#### TENEMENT HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NOS. 200 AND 202 MANHATTAN AVE., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Action by the Tenement House Department of New York against Nos. 200 and 202 Manhattan Avenue., A. Kaplan, of New York City, for appellant. J. P. O’Brien, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
p. 1


# OAR Box 1490 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 33 ) IV-C- 6 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/4/200811:51:46

AM Sheet 33 of 273P. 2 

### A-94-5 2 IV-C- 6 Keit h Barnet tTo : Michae l Blankestyn <Michael.Blankestyn@rmtinc.com > CC * js^ 11/19/200 1 08:1 1 AM Sub j ect : Re : Reinforced Plasti cComposites Productio n MACT ® Ther e i s n o provisio n i n th e propose d rul e concernin g facilitie s tha tus e hig h HA P rein s t o eliminat e ge l coat . Excep tfo rthi s facility , I don' tknowo fanyon e els e doin g this
. Th e rul e wa s propose d o n Augus t2 . Th e commen tperio d close d Octobe r1 , thoug h i twa s informall y extende d unti l Novembe r1 . W e ar e reviewin g th e comment s receive d an d wil l b e makin g appropriat e revision s t o th e rule
. Th e fina l rul e wil l b e publishe d abou t1 yea rfro m proposal
. Keit h W
. Barnet t US/EP AOAQPS , ESD/GROU P C504-0 5 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 

### 919-541-560 5 bamett.keith@epa.go v Michae l Blankesty n <Michael.Blankestyn@rmtinc.com >

Michae l Blankesty n <I-Ak**hael.Blankestyn @rmtih<tcom > 

### 11/15/200 1 03^ 4 P

M To : Keit h Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc : Subject : Reinforced Plasti cComposites Produ p J nMAC T

Keith , I don' t kno wi f yo u remembe r me , b\3 >fe sI^Bf>ok e wit hyo u a coupl e o f time s a fe w month s ag o about th e Reinforce dPiastre s MACT . I wor k fo r a consultin g fir m andon e o f ou r client s wil l b e aff^te d rJj-xthi s MACT . The yhav e a hig h styren e (non-corrosio nresistant r conten t r*es*sij i s o tha t the yd o no t hav e t o us e ge l coa t o nal l thei r part>S . Thi s cause s th^ mt o b e abov e MAC T limits , bu t thei r overal l emissions/ar e lo wbecaus e the yab*!. 11 d o a lo t o f gel-coating . Th e las t tim e I ha dspoke nwit hyou , yo u tol dm e tha t thereXdurin g th e MAC T development , a facilit ytha t use s hig hconten t styren e resi nt o eliminat e th e ge l coa t operatio nwasn' t considered . I s thi s stil l th e case ? Also , d o yo u kno wwhat th e jKtatus o f thi s MAC T is ? Whe ni s th e propose dfina l is^lin g date ? Than k yo u £6 r you r time . I ca nb e reache dthroug hemai l o r a t (614 ) 793-0026 . I f I donAxtal k t o yo u i nth e nex t coupl e o f days , hav e a nic e holiday . -Mik<? r Blankesty n RMT , Inc .
i

Progress in Water Quality:

An Evaluation of the National Investment

in Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Prepared by:

Tetra Tech, Inc.

Fairfax, VA

and

Andrew Stoddard & Associates

Hamilton, VA

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management

Washington, DC

June, 2000
ii
iii

Dedication

This effort to document the water quality benefits associated with

the federal funding provided through the Construction Grants Program

and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program to help

plan, design and construct publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

was initiated at the request of Michael J. Quigley while he served as

Director of the Office of Municipal Pollution Control. It is dedicated to

the many hardworking and conscientious individuals—including the

program advocates and critics alike—who help manage, direct (or in

some cases redirect), and implement the Construction Grants and

CWSRF Programs, which are among the Nation’s largest public works

programs, in a highly professional and effective manner. They include

many EPA and state program managers and staff and local wastewater

authority managers and staff, as well as the many highly qualified

consultants and contractors who help the local authorities conduct the

necessary studies, develop the required facilities plans and project design

documents, and construct and operate the treatment facilities that were

established or upgraded with funding from these highly successful public

works programs.

The document could not have been written without the extensive

water quality monitoring efforts across the country undertaken by a legion

of highly qualified field staff and researchers for many local authorities,

state and federal agencies, and colleges and universities. Their efforts

produced the extensive water quality data available in the STORET

database system and local reports, as well as the water quality models

and local assessments that served as the basis for the analyses undertaken

and reported on in this document.
iv
Jump to main content.

Radon

Contact Us**Search:**All         EPAThis         Area

    - You are here:  EPA Home
    - Air
    - Indoor Air Quality
    - Radon
    - Publications
    - Reducing Radon Risks

----

# "Reducing Radon Risks" 

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

Office of Air and Radiation (6601)
§ 76.33 Application procedures. ( a ) *Filing requirements.* ( 1 ) An application for a certificate of compliance must be tendered by filing the application with the Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, with copies sent to the NRC Region III Office and appropriate resident inspector, in accordance with § 76.5. If the application is to be submitted electronically, see Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the Commission at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html .*
( 2 ) The application must include the full name, address, age (if an individual), and citizenship of the applicant. If the applicant is a corporation or other entity, the application must indicate the State where it was incorporated or organized; the location of the principal office; and the names, addresses, and citizenship of its principal officers. The applicant shall include any known information concerning the control or ownership, if any, exercised over the applicant by any alien, foreign corporation, or foreign government.
( b ) *Oath or affirmation.* An application for a certificate of compliance must be executed in a signed original by a duly authorized officer of the Corporation under oath or affirmation.
( c ) *Pre-filing consultation.* The Corporation may confer with the Commission's staff before filing an application.
( d ) *Additional information.* At any time during the review of an application, the Corporation may be required to supply additional information to the Commission's staff to enable the Commission or the Director, as appropriate, to determine whether the certificate should be issued or denied, or to determine whether a compliance plan should be approved.
( e ) *Withholdable information.* If an application contains Restricted Data, National Security Information, Safeguards Information, Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information, proprietary data, or other withholdable information, the applicant shall ensure that the withholdable information is separate from the information to be made publicly available.
[64 FR 44649, Aug. 17, 1999, as amended at 68 FR 58822, Oct. 10, 2003; 74 FR 62685, Dec. 1, 2009]
§ 429.122 Notice of proposed civil penalty. ( a ) The General Counsel (or delegee) shall provide notice of any proposed civil penalty.
( b ) The notice of proposed penalty shall: ( 1 ) Include the amount of the proposed penalty;
( 2 ) Include a statement of the material facts constituting the alleged violation; and
( 3 ) Inform the person of the opportunity to elect in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice to have the procedures of § 429.128 (in lieu of those of § 429.126) apply with respect to the penalty.
PGI 253.209 CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS       NO CURRENT PGI TEXT    **Parent topic:** PGI Part 253 - FORMS
**NS Servicing II, LLC**

**590 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor**

**New York, New York 10022**

** **

** **

**ANNUAL OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE**

 

Reference is hereby made toMorgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C8, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-C8 (the “Trust”), issued pursuant tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2013 (the“Agreement”), by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial MortgageInc., as depositor (the “Depositor”), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as servicer (the“Servicer”), NS Servicing II, LLC, as special servicer (the “SpecialServicer”), U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”}, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as certificate administrator, certificateregistrar and authenticating agent (the “Certificate Administrator”) and, inits capacity as Custodian (the “Custodian”), and Situs Holdings, LLC, as trustadvisor (the “Trust Advisor”). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 ofthis Agreement, I, Scott D. Freeman, Vice President, of Colony CapitalOperating Company, LLC, as the sole member of Colony Capital OP Subsidiary,LLC, the sole Member of Colony Capital Investment Holdco, LLC, the sole memberof Colony AMC, LLC the sole Member of the Special Servicer, does hereby certifyin my capacity as an officer of Colony Capital Operating Company, LLC andwithout personal liability:

 

1.       A review of the activities of the SpecialServicer during the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) andof its performance under the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision; and

 

2.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 9th day ofMarch 2018.

 

 

/s/ Scott D. Freeman

Scott D. Freeman

Vice President

Colony Capital OperatingCompany, LLC
#### § 719.14 Will the Department notify the contractor concerning the adequacy or inadequacy of the submitted Legal Management Plan?

The Contracting Officer or Department Counsel will notify the contractor of any non-compliance or inadequate information relating to requirements in § 719.12 within 30 days of the contractor's submission of the plan. The contractor must either correct matters identified within 30 days of notification or file a letter with the General Counsel disputing the determination of a deficiency.