alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
5/1/2002 responses is adequate. If there were no comments made during the notice period or at the hearing, please indicate N/A to the left.CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST (Electronic Format)

TECHNICAL MATERIALS

Note: All documents and forms should be in electronic format.

Not

Attached Attached N/A

RULE EVALUATION FORM: See instructions for completing the Rule Evaluation Form and the accompanying sample form.

NON

- EPA TEST METHODS: Attach all test methods that are referenced in
your rule tha t do not appear in 40 CFR 51, 60, 61, 63, or have not been
previously submitted to EPA. EPA methods used in other media such as SW846 for solid waste are not automatically approved for air pollution applications. Submittal of test methods that are not EP A

- approved should include the information and follow the procedure described in Region 9’s “Test

Method Review & Evaluation Process.”

MODELING SUPPORT: Provide if appropriate. In general, modeling support is not required for VOC and NOx rules to determine their impacts on ozone levels. Modeling is required where a rule is a relaxation that affects large sources ( > 100 TPY) in an attainment area for SO2, directly emitted PM10, CO, or NOx (for NO2 pu rposes). In cases where EPA is concerned with the impact on air quality of rule revisions which relax limits or cause a shift in emission patterns in a nonattainment area, a reference back to the approved SIP will be sufficient provided the approved SIP a ccounts for the relaxation and provided the approved SIP used the current EPA modeling guidelines. If
current EPA modeling guidelines were not used, then new modeling may be
required.

ECONOMIC AND T ECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVIATIONS FROM

EPA POLICIES : The District staff report or other information included with the submittal should discuss all potential relaxations or deviations from RACT, RACM, BACT, BACM, enforceability, attainment, RFP, or oth er relevant EPA requirements. This includes, for example, demonstrating that exemptions or emission limits less stringent than the presumptive RACT (e.g., a CTG) meet EPA’s 5 percent policy, and demonstrating that all source categories exempted from a RAC M/BACM rule are de minimus according to EPA’s RACM/BACM policy.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS : Provide District staff reports and any other supporting information concerning development of the rule or rule c hanges. This information should explain the basis for all limits and thresholds

contained in the rule.
Editorial Note on Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 151.01-10 Application of vessel inspection regulations. ( a ) The regulations in this part are requirements which may be in addition to, supplement, or modify requirements in other subchapters in this chapter. When a specific requirement in another part or section in another subchapter in this chapter is in conflict with or contrary to requirement or intent expressed in this part, the regulations in this part shall take precedence.
( b ) Every unmanned tank barge which carries or is intended to carry in bulk any liquid or liquefied gas listed in Table 151.05 and has flammability or combustibility characteristics as indicated by a fire protection requirement in Table 151.05 shall be inspected and certificated under the provisions in subchapter D (Tank Vessels) of this chapter and the regulations in this part.
( c ) Every unmanned tank barge prior to the carriage in bulk of any liquid or liquefied gas listed in Table 151.05 which does not have the flammability or combustibility characteristics as indicated by the fire protection requirement in Table 151.05 shall be inspected and certificated under the applicable provisions of subchapter D or subchapter I of this chapter, at the option of the barge owner, in addition to the regulations in this part. However, unless the barge owner notifies the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection of his option to have the barge inspected and certificated under subchapter I at the time he submits the application for inspection (Form CG-3752), the unmanned tank barge shall be inspected and certificated under the provisions of subchapter D of this chapter and the regulations in this part. (c-1) Each unmanned tank barge constructed on or after September 6, 1977, that carries in bulk a cargo listed in Table 151.05 and that is certificated under subchapter I of this chapter must meet the loading information requirements in § 31.10-32 of this chapter.
( d ) The provisions of subchapter D of this chapter shall apply to all unmanned tank barges which carry in bulk any of the liquids or liquefied gases listed in Table 30.25-1 of this chapter. The provisions of this part shall not apply to such barges unless it is also desired to carry one or more of the liquids or liquefied gases listed in Table 151.05.
( e ) Manned barges which carry or intend to carry in bulk the cargoes specified in Table 151.05 will be considered individually by the Commandant and may be required to meet the requirements of this subchapter and of subchapter D (Tank Vessels) or I (Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels) of this chapter as applicable.
[CGFR 70-10, 35 FR 3714, Feb. 25, 1970] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting § 151.01-10, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*
# C_2008173EN.01000301.xml

| 8.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/3

---

Communication from the Commission concerning the prolongation of the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 173/03)

The Framework on State aid to shipbuilding (1) (‘the Framework’) applies until 31 December 2008.

1

The Commission has conducted an assessment of the results of the application of the Framework. Experience gained to date has shown that there have not been many cases of application of the Framework. Two of its provisions, namely closure aid and employment aid, have not been applied. Other provisions, such as export credits, development aid and regional aid, do not seem to have raised particular problems of application. In addition, as regards regional aid, a number of recent Commission Decisions have clarified how the relevant provisions are interpreted by the Commission (2). The Framework contains a provision on innovation aid for the shipbuilding industry which is unique.

2

The Commission considers it appropriate to continue to apply these sector-specific State aid rules for shipbuilding in order to gain more experience with regard to their application.

The Commission has conducted a public consultation on a proposal to prolong the application of the Framework by three years, until 31 December 2011. There was general support for that proposal.

Accordingly, the Commission has decided to continue to apply the Framework until 31 December 2011.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 30.12.2003, p. 11. Communication as amended by Communication 2006/C 260/03 (OJ C 260, 28.10.2006, p. 7).

1

(2)  See Commission Decision 2007/402/EC (OJ L 151, 13.6.2007, p. 33); Commission Decision 2007/255/EC (OJ L 112, 30.4.2007, p. 32); Commission Decision 2007/529/EC (OJ L 195, 27.7.2007, p. 36); Commission Decision 2007/C 188/01 (OJ C 188, 11.8.2007, p. 1).

2

---
§ 15.730 Language requirements. ( a ) The provisions of 46 U.S.C. 8702 relating to language apply generally to vessels of at least 100 GRT except: ( 1 ) Vessels operating on rivers and lakes except the Great Lakes;
( 2 ) A manned barge except a seagoing barge or a barge to which chapter 37 of 46 U.S.C. applies;
( 3 ) A fishing vessel, fish tender vessel, whaling vessel, or yacht;
( 4 ) A sailing school vessel with respect to sailing school instructors and sailing school students;
( 5 ) An oceanographic research vessel with respect to scientific personnel;
( 6 ) A fish processing vessel which entered into service before January 1, 1988, and is not more than 1,600 GRT or which entered into service after December 31, 1987, and has not more than 16 individuals onboard primarily employed in the preparation of fish or fish products; and
( 7 ) All fish processing vessels with respect to those personnel primarily employed in the preparation of fish or fish products or in a support position not related to navigation.
( b ) 46 U.S.C. 8702(b) requires that onboard vessels departing U.S. ports *75 percent of the crew in each department onboard is able to understand any order spoken by the officers.*
( c ) The words *able to understand any order spoken by the officers* relates to any order to a member of the crew when directing the performance of that person's duties and orders relating to emergency situations such as used for response to a fire or in using lifesaving equipment. It is not expected that a member of the deck department understand terminology normally used only in the engineroom or vice versa.
( d ) Whenever information is presented to the Coast Guard that a vessel fails to comply with the specified language requirements the Coast Guard investigates the allegation to determine its validity. In determining if an allegation is factual, the Coast Guard may require a demonstration by the officers and crew that appropriate orders are understood. The demonstration will require that orders be spoken to the individual members of the crew by the officers in the language ordinarily and customarily used by the officers. The orders must be spoken directly by the officer to the crew member and not through an interpreter. Signs, gestures, or signals may not be used in the test. The Coast Guard representative will specify the orders to be given and will include not only daily routine but orders involving emergencies, either of a departmental or of a general nature. This test will be conducted, if possible, at a time reasonably in advance of the vessel's departure, to avoid delays.
[CGD 81-059, 52 FR 38652, Oct. 16, 1987, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11262, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78005, Dec. 24, 2013]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 210 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 210

 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on the 
acquisition of a parcel of land adjacent to Beaufort National Cemetery, 
                       Beaufort, South Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on the 
acquisition of a parcel of land adjacent to Beaufort National Cemetery, 
                       Beaufort, South Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY ON ACQUISITION OF LAND ADJACENT TO BEAUFORT NATIONAL 
              CEMETERY.

    (a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
conduct a study on the acquisition, in accordance with chapter 24 of 
title 38, United States Code, of the parcel of land described in 
subsection (b) to be used for the expansion of the Beaufort National 
Cemetery, Beaufort, South Carolina.
    (b) Parcel Described.--The parcel of land described in this 
subsection is a parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.9 acres 
located on 17th Street in Beaufort, South Carolina, as depicted on tax 
map number 120-1-238 dated May 4, 1998.
    (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection 
(a).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008126EN.01000502.xml

| 23.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/5

---

Notice relating to the establishment of administrative cooperation between New Zealand and the European Community

(Published under Article 18(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 (OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1))

(Published under Article 18(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 (OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1))

(2008/C 126/04)

The Commission hereby gives notice that New Zealand has sent it all the relevant information on checking operations (examples of certificates of conformity, specimens of the stamp imprints, names and signatures of authorised inspectors) under the administrative cooperation provided for in Article 18(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and established between New Zealand and the European Community. The Commission forwarded this information to the Member States' coordination authorities on 14 April 2008.

The approval of New Zealand in accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 therefore applies from the date on which this notice is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
§ 79.21 Discovery. ( a ) The following types of discovery are authorized: ( 1 ) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
( 2 ) Requests for admission of the contents or authenticity of any relevant document or of the truth of any revelant fact;
( 3 ) Written interrogatories; and
( 4 ) Depositions.
( b ) For the purpose of this section and §§ 79.22 and 79.23, the term *documents* includes information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the creation of a document.
( c ) Unless mutually agreed to by the parties, discovery is available only as ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ shall regulate the timing of discovery.
( d ) *Motions for discovery.* ( 1 ) A party seeking discovery may file a motion with the ALJ. Such a motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the requested discovery, or in the case of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition.
( 2 ) Within ten days of service, a party may file an opposition to the motion and/or a motion for protective order as provided in § 79.24.
( 3 ) The ALJ may grant a motion for discovery only if he or she finds that the discovery sought— ( i ) Is necessary for the expeditious, fair, and reasonable consideration of the issues;
( ii ) Is not unduly costly or burdensome;
( iii ) Will not unduly delay the proceeding; and
( iv ) Does not seek privileged information.
( 4 ) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
( 5 ) The ALJ may grant discovery subject to a protective order under § 79.24.
( e ) *Depositions.* ( 1 ) If a motion for deposition is granted, the ALJ shall issue a subpoena for the deponent, which may require the deponent to produce documents. The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the deposition will be held.
( 2 ) The party seeking to depose shall serve the subpoena in the manner prescribed in § 79.8.
( 3 ) The deponent may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order within ten days of service.
( 4 ) The party seeking to depose shall provide for the taking of a verbatim transcript of the deposition, which it shall make available to all other parties for inspection and copying.
( f ) Each party shall bear its own costs of discovery.
#### TRUSTEES SYSTEM COMPANY OF NEWARK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL A. LISENA ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided June 21, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

Eor the plaintiff-respondent, *Haines & Chanalis.*

For the defendants-appellants, *George A. Henderson.*

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought in the East Orange District Court to recover the sum of $223.64, the balance'due on a promissory note. The case was tried by the court with a jury, resulting in a directed verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $297.30.

The plaintiff’s only witness ivas the manager of the plaintiff company, who testified that he has charge of the records of the company, and that there was paid on account of the *573promissory note the sum of $76.36. The credibility of the witness and the existence of the facts testified to by him, not being admitted, are questions of fact, under our cases, of which the case of *Second National Bank*v. Smith, 91 *N. J. L.*531, is illustrative. It was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff, a jury question was involved. The judgment of the East Orange District Court is therefore reversed.
Order entered March 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 12 - 01269 - CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. TEXAS EZPAWN, L.P. D /B/A EZMONEY LOAN SERVICES, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 12 - 03373 - A 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and appellee’s response opposing the motion. The motion is GRANTED and the supplemental brief, which was filed on March 15, 2013, is considered filed as of the date of this order. No further motions or responses will be permitted.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
§ 136.245 Permit to carry an excursion party or temporary extension or alteration of route. ( a ) A towing vessel must obtain approval to engage in an excursion prior to carrying a greater number of persons than permitted by the COI, or to temporarily extend or alter its area of operation.
( b ) For a vessel utilizing the TSMS option, the vessel may engage in an excursion, if: ( 1 ) In the opinion of the owner, managing operator, or master the operation can be undertaken safely;
( 2 ) The TSMS addresses the temporary excursion operation contemplated; the necessary conditions under which the vessel may safely conduct the operation, including the number of persons the vessel may carry; the crew required; and any additional lifesaving or safety equipment required;
( 3 ) The vessel proceeds as provided in the TSMS; and
( 4 ) The owner, managing operator, or master notifies the cognizant OCMI at least 48 hours prior to the temporary excursion operation. The cognizant OCMI may require submission of pertinent provisions of the TSMS applicable to the vessel for review and onboard verification of compliance. If the cognizant OCMI has reasonable cause to believe that the TSMS applicable to the vessel is insufficient for the intended excursion, additional information may be requested and/or additional requirements may be imposed.
( c ) If the towing vessel is not under a TSMS, or the TSMS applicable to the vessel does not address the temporary excursion operation: ( 1 ) The owner or managing operator must submit an application to the cognizant OCMI. The application must state the intended route, number of passengers or guests, and any other conditions applicable to the excursion that exceed those specified in its COI.
( 2 ) The cognizant OCMI may issue the permit either on Form CG-949, “Permit To Carry Excursion Party,” or in letter form. The cognizant OCMI will indicate on the permit the conditions under which it is issued, the number of persons the vessel may carry, the crew required, any additional lifesaving or safety equipment required, the route for which the permit is granted, and the dates on which the permit is valid. The application may be made electronically, in writing, or orally.
( 3 ) The vessel may not engage in towing during the excursion, unless the cognizant OCMI determines it is safe to do so.
( d ) The cognizant OCMI may require an inspection of the vessel by a Coast Guard Marine Inspector or an examination by a surveyor from a TPO prior to the vessel proceeding.
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 014

Attachment Name

Attachment 14 Novacap process

Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.2, Sec.B, la. (#2)

Does not contain CBI

Report Number

CONS 1 10317786855351
000

00 ( 0

N 4-

on 0

1-4

I (D

0 C-)

0 0 I- -

0 CL

0

S0 0 0 r 4-.

CL0

'(D

co ~~ -. t -

a)0

to u 00V 0 

0.

0 0n 0~~c __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _

0Q

00s c q

00
ADMINISTRATOR, FederalAviation Administration Complainant,
v. VANAIR MANUFACTURING, INC. Respondent. CaseNo. 2014-GL-70-0045 DocketNo.: FAA-2016-4269 Judge: J.E. Sullivan

SUBMISSION OF AGREED DATES FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES The parties, pursuant to a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and the August 31, 2016 Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, hereby files their Submission of Agreed Dates for Expert Disclosures inthe above-captioned matter, and Respondent states the following: 1. A teleconference was held with Complainant on September 14, 2016. During the teleconference, theparties discussed dates for expert disclosure deadlines. 2. The parties agreed that the FAA Expert Disclosure Deadline will be September 23, 2016. 3. Furthermore, the parties agreed that the Respondent Expert Disclosure Deadline will beNovember 18,2016. 4. Lastly, the parties agreed that the Expert Rebuttal Reports Deadline will be January 13,2017.
Dated: September 14, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

Jared2 JohnS. Hoff JaredA. Schneider Cremer, Spina, Shaughnessy, Jansen & Siegert, LLC One NorthFranklin Street, lOth Floor Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 726-3800 Tel. (312) 726-3818 Fax jhoff@cremerspina.com jschneider@cremerspina.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certifythat on September 14, 2016, Ihave sent byU.S. Post, the original and one 

### (I) copy ofthe forgoing document to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20594 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilber Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 In addition, I hereby certify that on September 14, 2016, I have sent by U.S. Post and via facsimile, a copy ofthe foregoing documenttothe following:

#37381Kate Barber, Esq. EnforcementDivision, Midwest Team 2300 East DevonAvenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 kate.barber@faa.gov Fax: (847) 294-7498 Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofT ransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536

3 Jared