alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit



    
	
			
	 
	 
	Exhibit 10.1



    



SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
FOREST CITY REALTY TRUST, INC.
1994 STOCK PLAN
(As Amended and Restated as of December 31, 2015)


Effective on March 24, 2017, the Board of Directors of Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. approved and adopted this Second Amendment to the Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. 1994 Stock Plan (As Amended and Restated as of December 31, 2015) (as further amended by the First Amendment to the Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. 1994 Stock plan, effective May 25, 2016, the “Plan”).  Words and phrases used herein with initial capital letters that are defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined, except as amended herein.


Article 2, Section BB – RETIREMENT of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


RETIREMENT, with respect to an employee, means termination of employment with the Company or a Subsidiary at age 65 or older and after five or more years of continuous employment with the Company or a Subsidiary (including employment with Forest City Enterprises, Inc. and its subsidiaries prior to the Effective Time). RETIREMENT, with respect to a Nonemployee Director, means termination of service as a director of the Company at age 65 or older and after five or more years of continuous service as a director of the Company.  Approved absence or leave from the Company or a Subsidiary shall not be considered an interruption of employment or service for purposes of the Plan.


Article 7 – RESTRICTED SHARES, Section C of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


Each such grant or sale to an employee shall provide that the Restricted Shares covered by such grant or sale shall be subject, except (if the Committee shall so determine) in the event of Retirement, death or disability or a Change of Control or other similar transaction or event, for a period of not less than three years, as determined by the Committee at the Date of Grant (which period may lapse on a pro-rated, graded, or cliff basis as determined by the Committee), to a “substantial risk of forfeiture” within the meaning of Section 83 of the Code. Each such grant or sale to a Nonemployee Director shall provide that the Restricted Shares covered by such grant or sale shall be subject, except (if the Committee shall so determine) in the event of death, disability, Retirement, a Change of Control, or other similar transaction or event, for a period of not less than one year, as determined by the Committee at the Date of Grant (which period may lapse on a cliff basis or, to the extent that such  period exceeds one year, on a pro-rated or graded basis as determined by the Committee), to a “substantial risk of forfeiture” within the meaning of Section 83 of the Code.
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6775 Powered patient transfer device. ( a ) *Identification.* A powered patient transfer device is a device consisting of a wheeled stretcher and a powered mechanism that has a broad, flexible band stretched over long rollers that can advance itself under a patient and transfer the patient with minimal disturbance in a horizontal position to the stretcher.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 880.9.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 63 FR 59229, Nov. 3, 1998]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Aggregate Economic Effects of Changes in Social Security Taxes

              																	United States. Congressional Budget Office. 						*Aggregate Economic Effects of Changes in Social Security Taxes*,										August 1978,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/874,			accessed on September 9, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.2786 Hardware and software for optical camera-based measurement of pulse rate, heart rate, breathing rate, and/or respiratory rate. ( a ) *Identification.* The device uses an optical sensor system and software algorithms to obtain and analyze video signal and estimate pulse rate, heart rate, breathing rate, and/or respiratory rates. This device is not intended to independently direct therapy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) A software description and the results of verification and validation testing based on a comprehensive hazard analysis and risk assessment must include: ( i ) A full characterization of the software technical parameters, including algorithms;
( ii ) A description of all mitigations for user error or failure of any subsystem components (including signal detection, signal analysis, data display, and storage) on output accuracy; and
( iii ) Software documentation must include a cybersecurity vulnerability and management process to assure software functionality.
( 2 ) Performance testing must demonstrate the safety of any illuminating optics.
( 3 ) Clinical data must be provided. This assessment must fulfill the following: ( i ) The clinical data must be representative of the intended use population for the device. Any selection criteria or sample limitations must be fully described and justified.
( ii ) The assessment must demonstrate output consistency using the expected range of data sources and data quality encountered in the intended use population and environment.
( iii ) The assessment must compare device output with a clinically accurate patient-contacting relevant comparator device in an accurate and reproducible manner.
( 4 ) A human factors and usability engineering assessment must be provided that evaluates the risk of improper measurement.
( 5 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) A description of what the device measures and outputs to the user;
( ii ) Warnings identifying sensor acquisition factors or subject conditions or characteristics (garment types/textures, motion, etc.) that may impact measurement results;
( iii ) Guidance for interpretation of the measurements, including a statement that the output is adjunctive to other physical vital sign parameters and patient information;
( iv ) The expected performance of the device for all intended use populations and environments; and
( v ) Robust instructions to ensure correct system setup.
[88 FR 976, Jan. 6, 2023]
From: "Palin, Bruce" < BPALIN@idem.IN.gov >

To: Nuria Muniz/R5/USEPA/US@EPA,

Cc: "EASTERLY, THOMAS" < TEASTERL@idem.IN.gov >, "OERTEL, BRUCE"

< BOERTEL@idem.IN.gov >, "Dorsey, Peggy" < PDorsey@idem.IN.gov >, "OSBORN,

REX" < ROSBORN@idem.IN.gov >

Date: 02/05/2013 02:34 PM

Subject: Continued Support for Proposed Superfund sites

Ms. Muniz,

The previous support letters sent by IDEM’s Commissioner Easterly for the

Garden City, Beck’s Lake and Keystone sites to be put on the National

Priorities List, was provided under the authority that had been delegated

from the Governor’s office to Commissioner Easterly. As you are probably

aware Governor Pence has selected Mr. Easterly to continue in his

position as Commissioner of IDEM. I have conferred with Commissioner

Easterly and he continues to support the listing of all three sites on

the NPL.

I hope that this provides the assurance you need and if you have any

questions please feel free to contact me or my staff.

Bruce H Palin

Assistant Commissioner

Office of Land Quality

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

317/233-6591
39387.

#### TURNER *et al.*v. WALTERS, by Next Friend.

Jordan, Judge.

Ronald Howard Walters, by next friend, filed suit in the Superior Court of DeKalb County on February 6, 1958, to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendants, J. E. Turner and Norman E. Turner, d/b/a Ponce de Leon Dairy. On March 20, 1958, the defendants filed their general demurrer to the petition, and a plea in bar wherein it was contended that the plaintiff could not proceed with his common-law action based upon negligence, but must proceed under the workmen’s compensation laws of the State of Georgia. The trial court on November 5, 1958, overruled the defendants’ general demurrer to the petition, and on May 8, 1959, the court overruled the renewed general demurrers to the petition as amended. Various other pleadings were filed by the parties and on November 15, 1961, the case proceeded to trial on the defendants’ plea in bar. The jury returned a directed verdict against the defendants on said plea and their verdict was made the judgment of the court on November 15, 1961. Subsequently, the defendants filed their bill of exceptions, in which they assigned error on the orders of November 5, 1958, and May 8, 1959, overruling *853the general demurrers to the petition, and on the orders of November 15, 1961, overruling the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the plea in bar and entering judgment against the defendants on said plea. *Held:*

Decided April 3, 1962

Rehearing denied May 3, 1962.

*Woodrujf, Latimer,,Saveli, Lane •& Williams, A. Ed Lane, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*McCready Johnston,*contra.

1. “A judgment on a plea in bar to a plaintiff’s petition is not a judgment to which a writ of error will lie as being either a final judgment or a judgment that would have been final if rendered as contended for by the movant *(Martin v. Green,*188 Ga. 444, 4 SE2d 137; *Levy v. Logan,*98 Ga. App. 584106 SE2d 185), and while the act of 1957 (Ga. L. 1957, pp. 224, 230; *Code Ann.*§ 6-701) allows direct appeals from a judgment of the trial court on certain pleas in bar, to wit, pleas to the jurisdiction and pleas of res judicata, such act cannot be construed as providing for direct writs of error on all judgments dealing with all pleas in bar.” *Besco Corp. v. Buice,*99 Ga. App. 528 (109 SE2d 88).

2. Under the decision of this court in the *Besco*case, supra, the judgment on the defendants’ plea in bar in this case (said plea being substantially the same as the plea in bar under consideration in that case) is not a final judgment within the purview of *Code Ann.*§ 6-701; and since exception was not taken to the antecedent orders of the trial court overruling the defendants’ general demurrers to the petition within 30 days of the entry of said orders, this court has no jurisdiction of the writ of error and it must be

*Dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
§ 876.1300 Ingestible telemetric gastrointestinal capsule imaging system. ( a ) *Identification.* An ingestible telemetric gastrointestinal capsule imaging system is used for visualization of the small bowel mucosa as an adjunctive tool in the detection of abnormalities of the small bowel. The device captures images of the small bowel with a wireless camera contained in a capsule. This device includes an ingestible capsule (containing a light source, camera, transmitter, and battery), an antenna array, a receiving/recording unit, a data storage device, computer software to process the images, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance, “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Ingestible Telemetric Gastrointestinal Capsule Imaging Systems; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA.”
[67 FR 3433, Jan. 24, 2002]
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5660 Multiple autoantibodies immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A multiple autoantibodies immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the autoantibodies (antibodies produced against the body's own tissues) in serum and other body fluids. Measurement of multiple autoantibodies aids in the diagnosis of autoimmune disorders (disease produced when the body's own tissues are injured by autoantibodies).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,864]

      ( print page 37738)    
Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 2, 2009, on behalf of workers of Western/Scott Fetzer Company, Avon Lake, Ohio.

The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. The petitioner was a former company official, but not at the time of the filing of this petition.

Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of July 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-18051 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Subject: Meeting with Portland Cement Association (PCA)

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Research Triangle Park, NC Date: March 15 , 2010 Participants: Industry Andy O’Hare, PCA Hector Ybanez, Holcim Jason Morin, Holcim Curtis L eslie, Ash Grove (by telephone) Mike Pelan, Lafarge John Holmes, Lafarge Craig Campbell, Lafarge (by telephone) Dan Nugent, Buzzi U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Peter Tsirigotis Steve Fruh Keith Barnett Elineth Torres Steve Silverman (b y telephone) RTIInternational Mike Laney Roy Neulicht Breda Munoz Representatives of the portland cement industry met with EPA to discuss the status of THC and HCl data collection efforts and other technical rulemaking issues under both the NESHAP and NSPS. An outline of the items discussed is summarized in the attached agenda.

### Attachment EPA

– PCA Meeting Technical Rulemaking Issues March 15 , 20 10 RTP, NC 1 2 : 00

– 2: 3 0 p.m. Tentative Agenda (Draft , 3 - 10 - 20 10) (888) 387

- 8686, then 4089494 I. Introductions II. Di scussion of PCA comments A. Mercury 1. Kiln Survey s and Variability Anal ys is a. Brief review of survey and findings b. EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps 2. Statistical Review of Vari a bility in Mercury

Data a. Brief review of PCA's technical comments and s tatistical m ethodologies b. EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps 3. Subcategories a. Brief review of PCA's technical comments and statistics show ing need for subcategories b. EPA reactions, thoughts, and next steps B. THC 1. Brief review of PCA's technical comments 2. PCA review of status TH C testing program 3. EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps C. HCl 1. HCl Technology

issues a. Brief review of PCA technical comments b. EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps2. Ongoing HCl Testing Program a. Brief review of PCA's data collection efforts b

. EPA's current th inking on how it might use data c. EPA’s thoughts on the Rfd threshold approach and the 112(d)(4) alternative d. EPA’s timing of final rule given new HCl testing program; need to incorporate data into rulemaking; OMB review; and possible notice and public comment on the new HCl (and perhaps THC) data D. PM 1. Brief review of PCA technical comments 2. Issues with use of 99% and p ossible vi olations 3. EPA reactions, thoughts and next steps I II

. Other Business A. EPA's current thinking on and schedule for NSPS B. Next Steps IV. Adjourn
§ 1.162-11 Rentals. ( a ) *Acquisition of a leasehold.* If a leasehold is acquired for business purposes for a specified sum, the purchaser may take as a deduction in his return an aliquot part of such sum each year, based on the number of years the lease has to run. Taxes paid by a tenant to or for a landlord for business property are additional rent and constitute a deductible item to the tenant and taxable income to the landlord, the amount of the tax being deductible by the latter. For disallowance of deduction for income taxes paid by a lessee corporation pursuant to a lease arrangement with the lessor corporation, see section 110 and the regulations thereunder. See section 178 and the regulations thereunder for rules governing the effect to be given renewal options in amortizing the costs incurred after July 28, 1958 of acquiring a lease. See § 1.197-2 for rules governing the amortization of costs to acquire limited interests in section 197 intangibles.
( b ) *Improvements by lessee on lessor's property* — ( 1 ) In general. The cost to a taxpayer of erecting buildings or making permanent improvements on property of which the taxpayer is a lessee is a capital expenditure. For the rules regarding improvements to leased property when the improvements are tangible property, see § 1.263(a)-3(f). For the rules regarding depreciation or amortization deductions for leasehold improvements, see § 1.167(a)-4.
( 2 ) *Effective/applicability date* — ( i ) *In general.* This paragraph (b) applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, § 1.162-11(b) as contained in 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 2011, applies to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2014.
( ii ) *Early application of this paragraph.* A taxpayer may choose to apply this paragraph (b) to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012.
( iii ) *Optional application of TD 9564.* A taxpayer may choose to apply § 1.162-11T(b) as contained in TD 9564 (76 FR 81060) December 27, 2011, to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, and before January 1, 2014.
[T.D. 6520, 25 FR 13692, Dec. 24, 1960, as amended by T.D. 8865, 65 FR 3825, Jan. 25, 2000; T.D. 9564, 76 FR 81084, Dec. 27, 2011; T.D. 9636, 78 FR 57706, Sept. 19, 2013 ]
EXHIBIT 10.9 (j)

                       ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

         THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into
this 1st day of November 2002 by and between Sunswipe Australasia Pty Ltd, of
Bickhams Court East St. Kilda, Victoria 3183, Australia ("Assignor") and Cohero
Group, Inc., of 253 5th Avenue 7th Floor, New York, NY 10016, ("Assignor"), and
I.T. Technology, Inc. a Delaware corporation, of 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite
900, Sherman Oaks, California 91403 ("Assignee").

         Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, in exchange for the
satisfaction of $119,641.78 (USD) of obligations owed by Assignor to Assignee in
connection with the loan arrangements reached in February 2002, Assignor hereby
assigns, conveys, transfers and delivers all of its right, title and interest in
and to $119,641.78 (USD) of that certain Promissory Note (Loan Agreement) dated
January 11, 2001 (the "Loan") that Stampville.com, Inc. a New York corporation
(the "Obligor") to Assignor (the "Note Assignment").

         In connection with and limited to the Note Assignment, Assignee hereby
agrees to assume all of Assignor's obligations under that certain Loan Agreement
dated January 11, 2001 between Assignor and the Obligor.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor, Assignee and the Obligor have duly
executed this Assignment and Assumption Agreement as of the date first above
written.


                                                   SUNSWIPE AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD.

                                                   By: /s/Lisa Mochkin
                                                   Name: Lisa Mochkin
                                                   Title: Director


                                                   COHERO GROUP, INC.

                                                   By: /s/ Mendel Mochkin
                                                   Name: Mendel Mochkin
                                                   Title: Managing Director


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
THIS 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER  2002

STAMPVILLE.COM, INC.

By: /s/ Jonathan Malamud
Name: Jonathan Malamud
Title: President
J' 10 srqT ~

s 

## W y e

o`

4~ 114 PROZW UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

~ AIR AND RADIATION

b David Moody, Ph.D. Manager, Carlsbad Field Office NQy 3 0 2009 U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090

Dear Dr. Moody:

On May 6, 2009, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve a proposed Tier 1(T1) change to characterize certain retrievably stored, remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) debris (S5000) waste (referred to as SETF waste) for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). During November 1978 — November 1991, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) generated and packaged a debris waste at their Solvent Extraction Test Facility (SETF). This letter approves the proposed T1 change based on the results of our T1 evaluation discussed in the enclosed report (EPA Docket No. A-98-49; II-A4-120) and placed in the Agency's public docket. ORNL may dispose of the SETF waste at the WIPP.

The Central Characterization Project (CCP) characterized the SETF debris waste using the system of controls that the EPA approved in February 2009 (see EPA Docket No. A-98-49, II-A4-111). EPA conducted the evaluation of the T 1 change July 7-8, 2009, and identified two concerns which the CCP satisfactorily resolved. EPA determined that the procedure and processes used by ORNL-CCP for the SETF RH TRU wastes were adequate. EPA, therefore, approves this T1 change to add SETF waste generated and packaged from November 1978 through November 1991 to ORNL's baseline approval.

If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422.

ector sion



### Enclosure

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable ® Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: Electronic Distribution

Christine Gelles, DOE EM Alton Harris, DOE EM Vernon Daub, CBFO J R Stroble, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Bill McMillan, ORNL D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP Allison Pangle, CTAC W.ayne Ledford, CTAC Steve Zappe, NMED Lloyd Generette, EPA Region 4