alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 81897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23296]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2459-286]


Lake Lynn Generation, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness of Withdrawal 
of Request for Temporary Variance

    On July 16, 2024, Lake Lynn Generation, LLC filed a temporary 
variance request for the Lake Lynn Hydroelectric Project No. 2459. On 
September 11, 2024, Lake Lynn Generation, LLC filed a notice of 
withdrawal of the request for temporary variance.
    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, 
and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. 
Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure,\1\ the withdrawal of the request for temporary variance 
became effective on September 26, 2024, and this proceeding is hereby 
terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2024).

    Dated: October 2, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-23296 Filed 10-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
eaui_ex107.htm


Exhibit 10.7














SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE







This Second Amended and Restated Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is made this 7th day of August, 2014, by and between EAU Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Theodore C. Jacoby, Jr., a resident of Missouri (“Lender”).







BACKGROUND







WHEREAS, Company and Holder executed and delivered that certain Amended And Restated Promissory Note to the Original Note, dated November 18, 2013 (the “First Amendment”); and







WHEREAS, Company and Holder executed and delivered that certain Promissory Note, dated May 15, 2013, in the original amount of $50,000 (the “Original Note”).







WHEREAS, Company and Holder desire to execute and deliver this Second Amendment to the Original Note.







NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:







1.           Section 4(a) of the Original Note is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is hereby inserted in its place:







   Maturity Date.  Accrued interest and the outstanding principal balance shall be due and payable in a single lump-sum payment on May 15, 2015 (the “Maturity Date”).







2.           Except as expressly set forth herein, the Original Note shall remain unchanged and unmodified and in full force and effect.







3.           All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in the Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Original Note.







4.           This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto were in the same instrument.







(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)


 


 




  





 











  






 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement on the date first written above.







 




	 	 
COMPANY:

	 
	 	 	 
	 	EAU TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Brian D. Heinhold	 
	 	 	 
Brian D. Heinhold

	 
	 	 	 
Chief Financial Officer

	 
	 	 	 	 







 




	 	 
LENDER:

	 
	 	 	 
	 	 
THEODORE C. JACOBY, JR.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Theodore C. Jacoby, Jr.	 
	 	 	
Theodore C. Jacoby, Jr.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 















2
#### WICHITA FALLS BUILDING & LOAN ASS’N et al. v. COWLING et al.

No. 12383.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

April 25, 1932.

E. M. Mann, of Wichita Falls, for appellants.

Milburn E. Nutt and Kay & Akin, all of Wichita Falls, for appellees.

CONNER, C. J.

With one exception, to be hereinafter noted, we think appellees in their brief sufficiently answer and refute all propositions of error upon which appellants base this appeal. We will therefore not undertake the extended discussion that would be necessary to dispose of each proposition in its order, but content ourselves by adopting the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, excepting only a modification necessitated by an error complained of in appellants’ third proposition.

The court rendered judgment in appellees’ favor for $287.28 as the aggregate amount of principal and interest due on the certificate. This is 90 per cent, of the cost of the improvements by virtue of the certificate in question, instead of 75 per cent, as authorized by article 1088, Rev. Civ. Statutes. This is urged as error in appellants’ third proposition.

The question of whether such an excess is authorized was also presented in the case of Elizabeth Huff v. City of Wichita Falls and certified by this cotlrt to the Supreme Court for determination on November 14, 1930. We are now informed in behalf of appellees that the Supreme Court has answered the question as follows [48 S.W.(2d) 580], to wit:

> “The city of Wichita Falls did not have the authority, after the adoption of the Street Improvement Act, to assess 98 per cent, of the cost of the improvements against abutting property owners or their..property, but was limited to 75 per cent, of such cost,' ab provided by Revised Statutes, art. 1088.

> “[Signed] C. M. Cureton

> “Chief Justice.’?-

It is admitted that the opinion of the Supreme Court is not final, no motion for re-¡ hearing having been acted upon. Appellees, nevertheless, for the purpose of obviating thet force of the objection and in order to expedite the disposition of the present case, have filed an application to remit as of the date of the judgment below the excess complained, of. We think the application should be grant-' ed, the remittitur duly entered, and the judgment reformed.

We accordingly conclude that all propositions of error other than proposition 3 should be overruled, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law not in conflict with, said opinion of the Supreme Court should be adopted and the judgment reformed, and as so reformed affirmed, with the cost of appeal taxed against appellees, and it is so adjudged.
Steve Soong, Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

(California)

February 24, 2016

Boundary conditions: Trinidad Head measurements 

compared to MOZART model outputs 

(2 pages)
Mozart and Trinidad Head Ozon

Layer 1: 16 meter

0.0

10.020.030.040.050.060.0

1

36

71

106

141

176

211

246

281

316

351

386

421

456

491

526

561

596

631

666

701

736

771

806

841

876

911

946

981

1016

1051

1086

1121

1156

1191

1226

1261

1296

1331

1366

1401
Mozart and Trinidad Head Ozo

Level 5: 208 meter

0.0

10.020.030.040.050.060.070.0

1

36

71

106

141

176

211

246

281

316

351

386

421

456

491

526

561

596

631

666

701

736

771

806

841

876

911

946

981

1016

1051

1086

1121

1156

1191

1226

1261

1296

1331

1366

1401
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000481

12-OCT-2015

10:46 AM
#                                                     Semilore O  Abiodun-Adeniyi                                            

### 

## Contact

abiodunadeso@ornl.gov
(logo)Rialto 

         CAPITAL

 

 

 

 

**2017 AnnualStatement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

           

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofNovember 1, 2012 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset ReceivingCorporation as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as successor Special Servicer toTorchlight Loan Services LLC, U.S. Bank National Association  as Trustee,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, PayingAgent and Custodian and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisorrelating to the COMM 2012-CCRE4 Mortgage Trust, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates  **(COMM 2012-CCRE4)**

 

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officerof Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”)herein certifies to the following:

 

1.      All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.      A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicerfor the period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”)in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted undermy supervision.

 

3.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer Date:                     March 1, 2018

     Adam Singer,Managing Director
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Kunal K. Singh, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust2012-C8 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

KeyBank National Association (as successor to KeyCorp Real EstateCapital Markets, Inc.), as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Divisionof PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as SeniorTrust Advisor, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as ServicingFunction Participant for the Certificate Administrator on and afterNovember 1, 2021, and Computershare Trust Company, National Association,as Servicing Function Participant for the Custodian on and after November 1,2021.

 

 

 

Dated:March17, 2022

 

 

/s/ Kunal K. Singh

Kunal K. Singh

President and Chief Executive Officer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
# News

                                Sholl selected as UT-ORII executive director                            

                                Dealing with stress in large-scale additive manufacturing                            

                                Dilling named associate laboratory director for neutron sciences                             

## Filter News

### Area of Research

            - (-)Earth Sciences(1)
            - Advanced Manufacturing(34)
            - Biological Systems(18)
            - Biology and Environment(177)
            - Biology and Soft Matter(5)
            - Building Technologies(12)
            - Chemical and Engineering Materials(4)
            - Chemistry and Physics at Interfaces(11)
            - Clean Energy(522)
            - Climate and Environmental Systems(14)
            - Computational Biology(6)
            - Computational Chemistry(5)
            - Computational Engineering(5)
            - Computer Science(19)
            - Data(1)
            - Electricity and Smart Grid(3)
            - Energy Frontier Research Centers(14)
            - Energy Sciences(5)
            - Fossil Energy(3)
            - Fuel Cycle Science and Technology(3)
            - Functional Materials for Energy(16)
            - Fusion and Fission(54)
            - Fusion Energy(17)
            - Geographic Information Science and Technology(3)
            - Isotope Development and Production(3)
            - Isotopes(35)
            - Materials(432)
            - Materials Characterization(2)
            - Materials for Computing(36)
            - Materials Synthesis from Atoms to Systems(13)
            - Materials Under Extremes(12)
            - Mathematics(1)
            - National Security(78)
            - Neutron Data Analysis and Visualization(4)
            - Neutron Science(190)
            - Nuclear Science and Technology(74)
            - Nuclear Systems Modeling, Simulation and Validation(3)
            - Nuclear Systems Technology(1)
            - Quantum Condensed Matter(4)
            - Quantum information Science(9)
            - Reactor Technology(1)
            - Renewable Energy(4)
            - Sensors and Controls(5)
            - Supercomputing(311)
            - Transportation Systems(11)

### News Type

            - Features(1)

### Date

            - 2014

## Media Contacts

David  Keim

keimdm@ornl.gov

865.576.9122

Morgan  McCorkle

mccorkleml@ornl.gov

865.574.7308

Sara  Shoemaker

shoemakerms@ornl.gov

865.576.9219

## Connect with ORNL

**

**

**

**

**

**

## Get ORNL News

Subscribe

## Oak Ridge National Laboratory Researchers Contribute to Prestigious Climate Report

April 10, 2014

All ORNL News >
1 Date: 06/17/2015 Scott Bourgeois 126 Greythorne Dr. Madison, AL 35758 Dear Sir or Madam: I seek an exemption from the following requirements of 14 C.F.R: ● 61.113(a) & (b) ● 91.7 (a) ● 91.103 ● 91.119(c) ● 91.121 ● 91.151(a) & (b) ● 91.203(a) & (b) ● 91.405(a) ● 91.407(a)(1) ● 91.409 (a)(1) & (2) ● 91.417(a)&(b) to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). I am requesting an exemption in order to commercially fly an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS ) for the purposes of aerial photography, aerial surveying, and other similar activities. Using the UASs and safety measures described below will eliminate virtually all risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel compared to a traditional aircraft performing the same function. The UAS will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights. The operation of small UAS conducted in the strict conditions outlined below, will provi de an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested herein, including exempting the applicant from the requirements of Part 21 and allowing commercial operations. These UASs operate at very slow speeds, close to the ground, as a result, are far safer than conventional operations conducted with turbine helicopters operating in close proximity to the ground and people. I plan to operate two UASs: ● DJIPhantom 3 ● DJIInspire 1 Both UASs are comprised of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and a transportable ground station. The UASs are commercially produced quadcopters and will not exceed a maximum gross weight of 55 pounds. They are equipped with four rotors driven by electric motors powered by batteries. The UA will have a small lightweight camera attached.2 The Pilot, Scott Bourgeois , will provide the following levels of safety: ● I will only operate in reasonably safe environments that are strictly controlled, are away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas. ● I will conduct extensive preflight inspections and protocols, during which safety carries primary importance. ● I will operate the UA below 400 feet above ground level at all times. ● I will operate the UA below the maximum operating speed of 87 knots. ● I will operate the UAS for 80% of battery capacity and reserve 20% for return home and/or emergencies. ● I will land his UAS prior to the manufacturer's recommended minimum level of battery power. ● I will operate his UAS only within visual line of sight (VLOS). ● I will use the UAS global positioning system (GPS) flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost. ● I will contact respective airports if operations will be within 5 miles to advise them of my estimated flight time, flight duration, elevation of flight and other pertinent information. ● I will always obtain all necessary permissions prior to UAS operation. ● I will have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or poten tial danger. Sincerely, Scott Bourgeois
EXHIBIT
32.1
  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Information Systems
Associates, Inc. for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joseph P. Coschera, our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, certify that:
 
 *   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *   information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial
condition and results of operations.
 
  /s/
Joseph P. Coschera
 Joseph P.
Coschera
 President,
Chief Executive Officer
 and Chief
Financial Officer
 
 August
19, 2008
 
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-15124

Agency No. 12-CA-026758

AMBASSADOR SERVICES, INC., 

Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,

versus

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 

Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.

Petitions for Review of a Decision of the

National Labor Relations Board

(November 15, 2013)

Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ,

* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

 

*

Honorable J. Frederick Motz, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, 

sitting by designation.

Case: 12-15124 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Ambassador Services, Inc. (“Ambassador”) petitions this Court for review 

of the National Labor Relations Board’s Decision and Order, which found

Ambassador in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor 

Relations Act (the “NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (5). The Board crosspetitions for enforcement of its order. 

On appeal, Ambassador asserts that the Board lacked a quorum to issue its 

order because—at the time that the Board issued its decision and order—three of 

the Board’s five members were intra-session recess appointments made without 

Senate consent. We first conclude that Ambassador did not waive the right to raise 

the issue of the Board’s authority to act. As to the Board’s authority to act, we do 

not write on a clean slate given our precedent in Evans v. Stephens. See 387 F.3d 

1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (interpreting the Constitution’s Recess 

Appointments Clause). While there are certainly some differences between this 

Court’s opinion in Evans and this case, the reasoning in Evans persuades us that 

Ambassador’s quorum claim lacks merit and that the authority of the Board to act

does not affect our subject matter jurisdiction over the merits issues in this case. 

See Evans, 387 F.3d at 1222 n.1, 1224-27; see also NLRB v. RELCO 

Locomotives, Inc., No. 12-2111, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4420775, *26-28 (8th Cir. 

Aug. 20, 2013); GGNSC Springfield LLC v. NLRB, 721 F.3d 403, 406-07 (6th 

Cir. 2013).

Case: 12-15124 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Proceeding to the merits, Ambassador claims that substantial evidence did

not support the Board’s decisions that 

• John Martin was a statutory supervisor;

• Donnie May’s conduct violated NLRA § 8(a)(1); 

• Ambassador’s safety rule prohibiting “walking off the job” 

violated NLRA § 8(a)(1); 

• Ambassador did not establish that a majority of employees 

signed the decertification petition; and

• Ambassador unlawfully failed and refused to recognize and 

bargain with the Union.

After oral argument and careful consideration of the entire record and all of the 

merits issues, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the Board’s 

determinations. Thus, we affirm the Board’s decision and grant the Board’s 

petition for enforcement.

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Ambassador’s petition for review and 

GRANT the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order in full.

Case: 12-15124 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 3 of 3
# OSHA Interpretations

Current OSHA Letters of Interpretation

- Update to Enforcement Procedures for Failure to Submit Electronic Illness and Injury Records under 29 CFR 1904.41(a)(1) and (a)(2) Update to Enforcement Procedures for Failure to Submit Electronic Illness and Injury Records under 29 CFR 1904.41(a)(1) and (a)(2) - [1904.41; 1904.41(a)(1); 1904.41(a)(2); 1904.41(c); 1904 Subpart E App A; 1904 Subpart E App B]
- Suspended scaffold and fall protection requirements applicable to elevator construction Suspended scaffold and fall protection requirements applicable to elevator construction - [1926.450(b); 1926.451(g); 1926.451(h); 1926.500(b); 1926.502(d)]
- OSHA Noise PEL and extended workshifts OSHA Noise PEL and extended workshifts - [1910.95(a); 1910.95(b)(1); 1910.95(b)(3)]
- Updating OSHA's Lead Standards' requirements for medical removal of employees based on hazardous blood lead levels Updating OSHA's Lead Standards' requirements for medical removal of employees based on hazardous blood lead levels - [1910.1025; 1915.1025; 1926.62]
- Application of OSHA standards when an employer is using the "Focused Electrode Leak Locator" (FELL) Application of OSHA standards when an employer is using the "Focused Electrode Leak Locator" (FELL) - [1910.302; 1910.303; 1910.307(c)(1); 1910.307(c)(2); 1910.307(c)(3); 1910.399; 1910.146]
No. 72-1160. No. 72-6232.

#### Lucas *v.*United States; and Jiminez *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.