alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33833]


The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company--Trackage 
Rights Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has agreed to grant overhead 
trackage rights to The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company 
(BNSF) over UP's rail line between Stockton, CA, in the vicinity of 
UP's milepost 82.3 (Fresno Subdivision), and Fresno, CA, in the 
vicinity of UP's milepost 207.0 (Fresno Subdivision). BNSF will operate 
its own trains with its own crews over UP's line under the trackage 
rights agreement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 29, 1999, BNSF and UP filed a petition for 
exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 33833 (Sub-No. 1), The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company--Trackage Rights 
Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company, wherein BNSF and UP 
request that the Board permit the proposed overhead trackage rights 
arrangement described in the present proceeding to expire on 
February 7, 2000. That petition will be addressed by the Board in a 
separate decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after 
January 15, 2000.
    The purpose of the trackage rights is to allow BNSF to operate over 
an alternate line while BNSF's lines are undergoing maintenance and 
repair.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.-Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 
(1980).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33833, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must 
be served on Yolanda Grimes Brown, Esq., The Burlington Northern and 
Santa Fe Railway Company, P.O. Box 961039, Fort Worth, TX 76161-0039.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: January 11, 2000.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1079 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Order No. 1083] 

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: 

*Whereas,*                     the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “ * * * the establishment. * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;                 

*Whereas,*                     the County of Boundary, Idaho (the Grantee), has made application to the Board (FTZ Docket 26-99, filed 5/24/99), requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone at a site in the Eastport (Boundary County), Idaho area, adjacent to the Eastport, Idaho Customs port of entry;                 

*Whereas,*                     notice inviting public comment has been given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (64 FR 29993, 6/4/99); and,                 

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest;                 

*Now, Therefore,*                     the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 242, at the site described in the application, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.                 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2000. 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

William M. Daley, 

Secretary of Commerce Chairman and Executive Officer. 

Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, 

Acting Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-11175 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### CONSOLIDATED RENDERING CO. v. UNITED STATES

[78 C.Cls. 766; 292 U.S. 656]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court, June 4, 1934.
Emerald Kalama Chemical, LLC

1296 Third Street NW, Kalama, WA 98625 / Phone: 360-673-0317

www.emeraldmaterials.com

Part II, Section B – Industrial Sites Controlled by Others

Process Releases and Exposures to Personnel

Releases described for Industrial Sites Controlled by Others are estimates based on our 

knowledge of the process and a likeness to processes found at our own facility. Our knowledge of the 

process on sites controlled by others extends only as far as the unit operations involved and the means 

of storage for p-isopropyl cinnamic aldehyde. This is shown in more detail in the attachment labeled 

“Expected Use for p-isopropyl cinnamic aldehyde (PICA) – Sites Not Controlled by Emerald Kalama 

Chemical, LLC.”

Exposures described for Industrial Sites Controlled by Others are also estimates based on similar 

(but unrelated) processes at the Emerald Kalama Chemical plant site. Operator schedules, 

responsibilities, and personal protective gear may differ from what is listed. Below is a table containing 

our estimates for personnel exposures to the new chemical substance.

Activity

Total 

Personnel 

Exposed Hrs/Day Days/Yr

New 

Substance 

in 

Material, %

Physical State 

of Material Protective Gear

Offloading Shipping Containers 4 3 3 < 1% Vapors in Air

Safety Glasses/Goggles, Chemical Resistant 

Boots & Gloves, Chemical Apron

Catalyst Filter Changes 4 0.5 30 < 5%

Material is 

Liquid

Safety Glasses/Goggles, Chemical Resistant 

Boots & Gloves, Chemical Apron

Process Sampling 6 0.5 30 < 5%

Material is 

Liquid

Safety Glasses/Goggles, Chemical Resistant 

Boots & Gloves, Chemical Apron

Sample Testing 8 4 7 < 5%

Material is 

Liquid

Safety Glasses/Goggles, Chemical Resistant 

Boots & Gloves, Chemical Apron

Process Maintenance 8 2 6 < 1%

Material is 

Liquid

Safety Glasses/Goggles, Chemical Resistant 

Boots & Gloves, Chemical Apron

Process Cleaning 4 0.5 30 < 5%

Material is 

Liquid

Safety Glasses/Goggles, Chemical Resistant 

Boots & Gloves, Chemical Apron

Connecting containers for offloads, 

emptying drums 4 0.5 3 96%

Material is 

Liquid

Safety Glasses/Goggles, Chemical Resistant 

Boots & Gloves, Chemical Apron
#### Dissolution of Hanover Township Police Pension and Benefit Fund Assn., Inc.

*Thomas P. Gill,*for Commonwealth.

*Nelson A. Bryan*and *Edward D. Morgan,*contra.

*67January 31, 1958.

Pinola, J.,

The Attorney General seeks to intervene in these proceedings in order to protect the interests of the Commonwealth in connection with the distribution of the assets of the association.

' Under the Act of May 12, 1943, P. L. 259, as amended 72 PS §2263.1, the State Treasurer has been paying to the Township of Hanover each year, a share of the amount received from the two percent tax paid upon premiums by foreign casualty insurance companies.

Under the law, these funds were paid over by the township to the association in order to provide pension retirement for the policemen of the township and/or the dependents of such policemen.

The Attorney General contends that unless the funds are used for the purpose for which they were donated, they must be returned.

Counsel for the association object to the intervention of the Attorney General because he does not come within the purview of Pa. R. C. P. 2327.

We agree with counsel for the Commonwealth that the State is not governed by this rule and that its right to intervene is conferred by the Act of May 28, 1915, P. L. 616, sec. 1, as amended, 12 PS §145. That act provides:

> “In all cases at law or in equity, in any court.... in which the Commonwealth .... may have any interest, the Commonwealth shall have the right to intervene, and to appear, plead, prosecute, defend, or appeal, as other parties litigant;.. .

It is urged that when the money is transferred to the association, the transaction is completed and the State loses all interest. Under the Act of May ,28,1943, supra, there is deducted from the entire amount received by the State Treasurer, “the sum of sixty *68thousand dollars ($60,000) to be allocated to the Department of the Auditor General to defray costs and expenses of auditing the funds and accounts receiving disbursement from said entire amount, and the department of the Auditor General shall make such audits of the funds and accounts receiving disbursement from said entire amount.”

It is apparent, therefore, that since the Auditor General is directed to audit the funds distributed to the several pension funds, the State would have an interest in seeing to it that the ultimate disposition of an accumulated fund be made in accordance with the purposes specified by law.

Accordingly, we enter the following

*Order*

Now, January 31, 1958, at 3 p. m., the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is allowed to intervene in this action.
#### RUFFIN *v.*AVERY.

Distribution of fees between old and new sheriff — settlement-—opening up a settlement.

The Couitof Common Pleas has power, by law, to determine what portion of the outstanding fees or execution shall be paid to t(ie *outgoing*sheriff, who assigns over the process.

When the court has fixed the rule, and the yaitíes have acquiesced and settled, the incoming sheriff has no right to retain other fees due to his predecessor, and compel him to open up the settlement and refund. In such case, the court will hold the parties to abide their settlement.

Assumpsit for money had and received. The case was submitted on an agreed state of facts.

*259By the Court.

Ruffin, having been sheriff, went out of office, and Avery succeeded him. There was, at the time, considerable unfinished business on executions. For some time, the parties divided the fees in such cases equally, and the defendant paid over. A dispute arose, and they submitted to the Court of Common Pleas: the court decided that the old sheriff, in such cases, should have but *one third*of the fees. This decision was brought up to the Supreme Court, and that court decided that the statute empowered the Court of Common Pleas to make such appointment; and as that court had exercised the power, they would not disturb it. After this, the defendant, out of the *third*of the fees collected for the plaintiff, retained a sum equal to the difference between the *one-half,*which he had before paid, and *one-third.*To recover that sum, this suit is brought. It is claimed, that the one-half of the fees were paid over, in the several settlements by the defendant, in ignorance of his right, and that he can now retain. If he would have retained more than one-half, he should have done so when he had the fees. He voluntarily settled and paid over what both parties then thought was right, and we cannot disturb these settlements.

Judgment for the plaintiff.
Editorial Note on Part 221
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 221.163 Agents' and other carriers' tariffs shall reflect adoption. If the former carrier is shown as a participating carrier under concurrence in tariffs issued by other carriers or is shown as a participating carrier under power of attorney in tariffs issued by agents, the issuing carriers and agents of such tariffs shall, upon receipt of the adoption notice, promptly file on statutory notice the following amendments to their respective tariffs: ( a ) Cancel the name of the former carrier from the list of participating carriers.
( b ) Add the adopting carrier (in alphabetical order) to the list of participating carriers. If the adopting carrier already participates in such tariff, reference to the substitution notice shall be added in connection with such carrier's name in the list of participating carriers.
§ 23.2605 Installation and operation. ( a ) Each item of installed equipment related to the flightcrew interface must be labelled, if applicable, as to it identification, function, or operating limitations, or any combination of these factors.
( b ) There must be a discernible means of providing system operating parameters required to operate the airplane, including warnings, cautions, and normal indications to the responsible crewmember.
( c ) Information concerning an unsafe system operating condition must be provided in a timely manner to the crewmember responsible for taking corrective action. The information must be clear enough to avoid likely crewmember errors.
12 **Anticipated Operating Area (Range)** North most boundary: Platte City, MO (Just north of KMCI) South most boundary: Ottawa, KS West most boundary: Lawrence, KS East most boundary: Blue Springs, MO
SERVED: APRIL 8, 2011 

:^\RTM£NrOF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '•'jSPORTAllGM 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS • • t • OPERATiOiVc' 

WASHINGTON, DC 

•-\ '.;•.{ M A .0; 22 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COLGAN AIR, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0016 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2009-0580 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

In view of the impending prospective lapse in FY2011 appropriations funding government 

operations as of April 8, 2011, the Department has directed that all employees in the Office of 

Hearings will be furloughed in the event of such a lapse. Accordingly, in the event of such a 

lapse, the Office of Hearings will close on Friday, April 8,2011, for the duration of the shutdown. 

Any deadline, whether set by regulation or previous order, is suspended and extended for 

the duration of the shutdown. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative L 

Attachment - Service List 
oRiam 

FAA Docket No. CP09EA0016 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

copy 

''-•.!-.),.1 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 . - , 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, A^C-^$p,£^'^^ 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suitte 

Mark A. Dombroff, Respondent's Counsel 

Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, P.<t. 

1676 International Drive ~ Penthouse 

McLean, V A 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

^'^i ' J-: 

'.•i.. i 

Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, iBJiil>^^' 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3273 i"-

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room EI2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S. E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service ing>Cit«om< 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence A^mCi'.l'f 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, ^GC-43br 

courier, use the foUowiipgfMldi^s: Federal 

bright Building - Suite 2WlObO, Washington, 

*2-
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 Defense

###### Office of Secretary of Defense

Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that closed meetings of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held on May 2, 2000, May 9, 2000, May 16, 2000, May 23, 2000 and May 30, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. in Room A105, The Nash Building, 1400 Key Boulevard, Rosslyn, Virginia.

Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.

However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.

Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

Dated: April 25, 2000.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-11190 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Exhibit
10.1


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO EQUITY RESIDENTIAL 2002 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN 


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“First
Amendment”) TO EQUITY RESIDENTIAL 2002 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN  (“Plan”) is made as of the 7th
day of February 2003.


 


Recitals:


 


1.           The
Board of Trustees of Equity Residential (the “Company”) has determined to adopt
an amendment to the Plan, which does not require shareholder approval as
permitted under Section 16 (c).


 


2.           Terms
used in this First Amendment which are defined in the Plan have the meanings
given them in the Plan.


 


1.  AMENDMENTS.  Section 3 (b) of the Plan is hereby deleted and the following
Section 3 (b) is substituted therefore:


 


(b)                       Board of Trustees. Each
member of the Board of Trustees will receive an annual award of Share Awards
and Options equal to $50,000 in value on the same day as the annual grant of
Share Awards and Options to the Company’s executive officers.  The annual $50,000 award will be allocated
between Options (valued by using the same valuation criteria utilized by the Committee
in its employee option grants made as of the same date) and Share Awards
(valued at the closing price of the Company’s common shares on the date of
grant), in the same ratio as approved by the Committee for the annual long term
incentive awards to the Company’s executive officers.  The Share Award will vest in full on the third anniversary of the
Grant Date.  The Options will vest in
equal installments six months, twelve months and twenty-four months from the
Grant Date.


 


2.  PLAN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.  After giving effect to this First Amendment,
the Plan remains in full force and effect.
# C_2020390EN.01005001.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/50

---

Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Alessio and Others v ECB

(Case T-620/20)

(2020/C 390/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Alessio (Turin, Italy) and 56 other applicants (represented by: M. Condinanzi and L. Boggio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions and declare them null and void, after finding them unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions and declare them null and void, after finding them unlawful;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision to dissolve the administrative and supervisory bodies of the supervised entity (Banca Carige S.p.A.) and to replace them with three temporary administrators and a supervisory committee for the purposes of Articles 69-octiesdecies, 70 and 98 of Legislative Decree No 385 of 1 September 1993 — ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019, and against the decision extending the special administration of the supervised entity approved by ECB decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 on the basis of Articles 69-octiesdecies, 70 and 98 of Legislative Decree No 385 of 1 September 1993 — ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13, as well as against subsequent measures resulting therefrom and, in particular, decisions extending the special administration of the supervised entity.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-612/20, Malacalza Investimenti v ECB.

---