alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11820]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6605-3]


Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Advisory 
Committee; Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 920423, ``The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act,'' notice is hereby given of a series of 
meetings of the Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts 
Advisory Committee established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. S300f et seq.). All meetings are scheduled from 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time, and will be held at RESOLVE, Inc., 1255 
23rd Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington DC 20037. The meetings are open 
to the public, but due to past experience, seating will be limited.
    The meetings are scheduled for: June 1-2, to discuss results of 
Technical Working Group analysis; June 27-28, to continue discussions 
on results of Technical Working Group analysis; and draft Agreement in 
Principle; and July 27, to finalize Agreement in Principle.
    Statements from the public will be taken if time permits.
    For more information, please contact Martha M. Kucera, Designated 
Federal Officer, Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts 
Advisory Committee, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking 
Water, Mailcode 4607, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20460. The telephone number is 202-260-7773 or E-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#503b25333522317e3d3122243831103520313d31393c7e3520317e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="177c6274726576397a7665637f76577267767a767e7b3972677639707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
Cynthia C. Dougherty,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 00-11820 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 1918.91 Housekeeping. ( a ) *General.* Active work areas shall be kept free of equipment, such as lashing gear, and materials not in use, and clear of debris, projecting nails, strapping and other objects not necessary to the work in progress.
( b ) *Slippery surfaces.* The employer shall eliminate conditions causing slippery walking and working surfaces in immediate areas used by employees.
( c ) *Free movement of drafts.* Dunnage shall not be placed at any location where it interferes with the free movement of drafts.
( d ) *Dunnage height.* Dunnage racked against sweat battens or bulkheads shall not be used when the levels of such racks are above the safe reach of employees.
( e ) *Coaming clearance.* Dunnage, hatch beams, tarpaulins or gear not in use shall be stowed no closer than three feet (.91 m) to the port and starboard sides of the weather deck hatch coaming.
( f ) *Nails.* ( 1 ) Nails that are protruding from shoring or fencing in the work area shall be rendered harmless.
( 2 ) Dunnage, lumber, or shoring material in which there are visibly protruding nails shall be removed from the work area, or, if left in the area, the nails shall be rendered harmless.
( g ) *Ice aloft.* Employees shall be protected from ice that may fall from aloft.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4851 

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

315 Addicks Howell Road in Houston, Texas, as the ‘‘Deputy Sandeep 

Singh Dhaliwal Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 23 (legislative day, OCTOBER 19), 2020 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 315 Addicks Howell Road in Houston, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Deputy Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPUTY SANDEEP SINGH DHALIWAL POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 315 Addicks Howell Road in 

7 Houston, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Deputy Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal Post Office Building’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4851 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Deputy Sandeep 

5 Singh Dhaliwal Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
§ 1918.88 Log operations. ( a ) *Working in holds.* When loading logs into the holds of vessels and using dumper devices to roll logs into the wings, the employer shall ensure that employees remain clear of areas where logs being dumped could strike, roll upon, or pin them.
( b ) *Personal flotation devices.* Each employee working on a log boom shall be protected by a personal flotation device meeting the requirements of § 1918.105(b)(2).
( c ) *Footwear.* The employer shall provide each employee that is working logs with appropriate footwear, such as spiked shoes or caulked sandals, and shall ensure that each employee wears appropriate footwear to climb or walk on logs.
( d ) *Lifelines.* When employees are working on log booms or cribs, lifelines shall be furnished and hung overside to the water's edge.
( e ) *Jacob's ladder.* When a log boom is being worked, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of § 1918.23 shall be provided for each gang working alongside unless other safe means of access (such as the vessel's gangway) is provided. However, no more than two Jacob's ladders are required for any single log boom being worked.
( f ) *Life-ring.* When working a log boom alongside a ship, a U.S. Coast Guard approved 30-inch (76.2 cm) life-ring, with no less than 90 feet (27.4 m) of line, shall be provided either on the floating unit itself or aboard the ship close to each floating unit being worked.
( g ) *Rescue boat.* When employees are working on rafts or booms, a rescue boat capable of effecting an immediate rescue shall be available. Powered rescue boats are required when the current exceeds one knot.
( h ) *Log rafts.* When an employee is working logs out of the water, walking sticks[11] (safety sticks) shall be provided as follows: ( 1 ) They shall be planked and be no less than 24 inches (.61 m) wide;
( 2 ) They shall extend along the entire length of all rafts on the side(s) of the vessel being worked, and to the means of access to the log raft(s); and
( 3 ) They shall be buoyant enough to keep the walking surface above the waterline when employees are walking on them.
Footnotes -
1918.88
[11] A “walking stick” is two logs bolted or otherwise secured together with two or three planks firmly attached on top that serves as a floating walking and working surface and that is used in the loading of logs onto vessels from the water.
secondamendramsey.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    SECOND
AMENDEMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     

    This Second Amendment to Employment
Agreement is made as September 15, 2009 (“Amendment”), by and between Ecology Coatings, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (“Company”) and Sally J.W. Ramsey (“Executive”) and amends
the Employment Agreement between Company and Executive dated January 1, 2007
(“Agreement”).

     

    1. The
parties agree to amend Section 4.1 of the Agreement as follows:

     

    The
Company shall pay the Executive an annual salary for her services under the
Agreement of $75,000 (“Base Salary”).  The Base Salary shall be
reviewed by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors for
possible adjustment annually.  Such salary shall be payable
semi-monthly, subject to applicable withholding and other taxes.

     

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              In
      all other respects, the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force
      and effect.

            


    

     

    


     

    ECOLOGY
COATINGS, INC.

     

    


     

    By:  /s/ JB
Smith                                                      By:  /s/ Sally J.W.
Ramsey

     

                                                                                                                                                                          Sally J.W.
Ramsey

     

    


     

    Its:  Board
Member
#### In the Matter of Charles W. Gerena, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 750]

—Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered November 12, 1998 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

As the result of a November 1997 determination denying his application for parole, petitioner, an inmate at a State correctional facility, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Prior to service of an answer, respondent moved to dismiss the petition for failure to conform to the requirements of CPLR 3014. Supreme Court granted the motion resulting in this appeal.

CPLR 3014 sets forth certain technical requirements of pleadings providing, *inter alia,*that “[e]very pleading shall *762consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs” and that “[e]ach paragraph shall contain, as far as practicable, a single allegation.” These requirements must be read in light of CPLR 3026 which provides for the liberal construction of pleadings and states that “[d]efects shall be ignored if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced.” Consequently, where a party has failed to separately set forth and number allegations of a pleading as required by CPLR 3014, the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the pleading with leave to replead (see, *e.g., Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.,*84 AD2d 736; *Joffe v Rubenstein,*24 AD2d 752, *appeal dismissed*21 NY2d 721; *see generally,*Siegel, NY Prac § 212, at 308 [2d ed]).

In this proceeding, Supreme Court dismissed the petition without granting petitioner an opportunity to replead. We note that respondent failed to demonstrate that it would suffer prejudice by petitioner’s submission of an amended petition complying with the requirements of CPLR 3014. Although Supreme Court made a brief reference to the merits of petitioner’s claim in its decision, an adjudication of the merits was premature absent respondent’s answer to a petition complying with the requirements of CPLR 3014. Accordingly, under the particular circumstances presented herein, petitioner should have been granted permission to cure the technical defects in his petition.

Mikoll, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as denied petitioner leave to replead; leave to replead granted and petitioner shall have 20 days from the date of this Court’s decision to serve an amended petition complying with the requirements of CPLR 3014 upon respondent; and, as so modified, affirmed.
#### ORDNANCE ENGINEERING CORP. v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. ORDNANCE ENGINEERING CORP.

[68 C. Cls. 301; 73 C. Cls. 379; 84 C. Cls. 1; 302 U. S. 708]

Petitions for cross-writs of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court October 11, 1937.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6930

In Re: DAVID J. OAKES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-03-227-5-BO)

Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: October 28, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David J. Oakes, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David J. Oakes petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the

district court has unduly delayed acting on his emergency motion

for a temporary restraining order. He seeks an order from this

court directing the district court to act. Our review of the

docket sheet reveals that the district court entered an order

denying Oakes’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.

Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Oakes’

case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0346 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0346

**98/346/EC: Commission Decision of 19 May 1998 amending Decision 97/569/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 154 , 28/05/1998 P. 0035 - 0036 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 19 May 1998 amending Decision 97/569/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products (Text with EEA relevance) (98/346/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs (1), as last amended by Decision 97/34/EC (2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,

Whereas provisional lists of establishments in third countries producing meat products have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/569/EC (3) as last amended by Decision 98/220/EC (4);

Whereas New Zealand has sent a list of establishments producing poultry meat products and for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishment is in accordance with the Community rules;

Whereas a provisional list of establishments producing poultry meat products can thus be drawn up for New Zealand; whereas Decision 97/569/EC should therefore be amended accordingly;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex I of Decision 97/569/EC is amended as follows:

(a) after point 5 of the legend the following text is added:

'PMP= poultry meat products

RMP= rabbit meat products

FMP= farmed game meat products

WMP= wild game meat products`;

(b) the Annex to this Decision is added to Annex I.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 10 May 1998.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 May 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 13, 16. 1. 1997, p. 33.

(3) OJ L 234, 26. 8. 1997, p. 16.

(4) OJ L 82, 19. 3. 1998, p. 47.

ANEXO - BILAG - ANHANG - ÐÁÑÁÑÔÇÌÁ - ANNEX - ANNEXE - ALLEGATO - BIJLAGE - ANEXO - LIITE - BILAGA

>TABLE>
NO. 07-06-0211-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C DECEMBER 7, 2006

______________________________ ERSKINE L.T. ALLEN , JR., Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 137 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 22,580; HON. CECIL PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Abatement and Remand

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Erskine L.T. Allen, Jr. (app ellant) perfected an appeal from the trial court’ s denial of his moti on for DNA testin g. Pending before this court is his appointed counsel ’s motion to withdraw . From the contents of the motion, i t app ear s that a conflic t of interest ex ists between appellant and hi s appo int ed counsel. Thus, we gran t the motion of counsel to withdraw . We further abate and remand the case to the 137 th Judicial D istrict C ourt and order the judge of

that court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appe al.2

The name, add r ess, telephone number , and state bar n umber of the newl y appointed attorney shall be inc luded in the order of appointment. The tri al judge sha ll also caus e the order appointing new counsel to be filed with thi s court, on or before January 5, 2007, via
a supplemental clerk’s record. Finally, the appellant ’s brief (wh ich may inc lude an Anders brief if war ranted) w ill be due on or before February

5, 2007. It is so or

dered. Per Curiam
Do not publish

.
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0252 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0252

**1999/252/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1999 amending Decision 93/197/EEC on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production (notified under document number C(1999) 754) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 096 , 10/04/1999 P. 0031 - 0031 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 26 March 1999

amending Decision 93/197/EEC on animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production

(notified under document number C(1999) 754)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/252/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and imports from third countries of equidae(1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Articles 14, 15(a) and 16 thereof,

(1) Whereas Commission Decision 93/197/EEC(2), as last amended by Decision 1999/236/EC(3), establishes the animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production;

(2) Whereas paragraph (d) of Chapter III of the health certificates A, B, C, D and E in Annex II of Decision 93/197/EEC was amended by Decision 93/510/EEC(4) in order to allow the imports into the Community of registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production from third countries before the required residence period of 90 days prior to dispatch has elapsed, if these equidae were directly imported into the dispatching third country from Member States during that period;

(3) Whereas, however, it was omitted to align the corresponding wording in the declaration of the owner or representative of the owner of the equine animal; whereas therefore for the sake of clarity the wording of the declaration must be aligned with the wording of paragraph (d) of Chapter III of the Annex II, health certificates A, B, C, D and E;

(4) Whereas Decision 93/197/EEC must be amended accordingly;

(5) Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Point 2 of the declaration of the owner or representative of the animal in animal health certificates A, B, C, D and E of Annex II of 93/197/EEC is replaced by the following: "2. The animal has either remained in...(exporting country)

since birth (3), or has been imported directly from a Member State of the European Community during the past 90 days (3), or entered the exporting country at least 90 days prior to this declaration (3)."

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 42.

(2) OJ L 86, 6.4.1993, p. 16.

(3) OJ L 87, 31.3.1999, p. 13.

(4) OJ L 238, 23.9.1993, p. 44.
§ 1977.10 Proceedings under or related to the Act. ( a ) Discharge of, or discrimination against, any employee because the employee has “instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act” is also prohibited by section 11(c). Examples of proceedings which could arise specifically under the Act would be inspections of worksites under section 8 of the Act, employee contest of abatement date under section 10(c) of the Act, employee initiation of proceedings for promulgation of an occupational safety and health standard under section 6(b) of the Act and part 1911 of this chapter, employee application for modification of revocation of a variance under section 6(d) of the Act and part 1905 of this chapter, employee judicial challenge to a standard under section 6(f) of the Act and employee appeal of an Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission order under section 11(a) of the Act. In determining whether a “proceeding” is “related to” the Act, the considerations discussed in § 1977.9 would also be applicable.
( b ) An employee need not himself directly institute the proceedings. It is sufficient if he sets into motion activities of others which result in proceedings under or related to the Act.