alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control , Brush Management, Early Successional Habitat Development/Mgt., Field Border, Filter Strip, Firebreak, Fish Passage, Forest Stand Improvement, Grassed Waterway, Herbaceous Weed Control, Integrated Pest Management, Multi-Story Cropping, Nutrient Management, Prescribed Grazing, Recreation Area Improvement, Riparian Herbaceous Cover, Shallow Water Development and Management, Stream Crossing, Stream Habitat Improvement and Management, Streambank and Shoreline Protection, Structure for Water Control, Subsurface Drain, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Tree/Shrub Pruning, Tree/Shrub Site Preparation, Underground Outlet, Upland Wildlife Habitat Management, Wetland Creation, Wetland Enhancement, Wetland Restoration, Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management, Woody Residue Treatment.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC StaffInstructions for Completing Nuclear MaterialTransaction Reports: (DOE/NRCForms 741 and 740M) (NUREG/

# Instructions for Completing Nuclear Material Transaction Reports: (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 740M) (NUREG/BR-0006, Revision 9) - Final Report

This NUREG-series publication was issued for public comment.  The comment period is now closed.

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0006, Revision 9 (PDF – 6.87 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2020**Date Published:** August 2020

**Prepared by**Mirabelle Shoemaker

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

## Abstract

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations require licensees who ship, receive, or adjust their physical inventory of source or special nuclear material (SNM) to document and report such activities. The reports are submitted using U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/NRC Form 741, "Nuclear Material Transaction Report." Licensees may need to provide additional information on some imports or exports of source or SNM. The additional information is reported using DOE/NRC Form 740M, "Concise Note." This NUREG contains instructions for preparing these forms.

**Paperwork Reduction Act Statement**

The information collections contained in this NUREG are covered by DOE/NRC Forms 741 and 740M, which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved under approval numbers 3150-0003 and 3150-0057. The estimated burden per response to comply with this mandatory collection request is 1 hour 15 minutes for DOE/NRC Form 741 and 45 minutes for DOE/NRC Form 740M. The information is required for International Atomic Energy Agency accounting reports that show changes in the inventory of nuclear materials. Send comments on burden estimates to the NRC Information Services Branch (T-6 A10M), Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0003, 3150-0057), OMB, Washington, DC 20503.

**Public Protection Notification**

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, July 23, 2021
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM May 2022

Subsurface Drain (606)

2. A graded subsurface conduit made of 

corrugated plastic tubing, tile, or pipe 

installed beneath the ground

D.5 (+) Cost for 

installation and 

maintenance 

D.2 (+) Infiltration

Initial setting: High water table limiting crop or forage 

production or otherwise restricting access or use of 

an area that is not in a designated wetland

C.3 (+/-) Income and

income stability 

(individuals and

community)

I.7 (+/-) Aquatic habitat

I.3 (+/-) Sediment 

and particulate 

contaminants to 

surface waters

C.2 (+/-) Fishable and swimmable waters, health and safety issues for humans, 

domestic and wild animals 

C.1 (+/-) Quality of 

receiving waters 

I.6 (+) Dissolved 

contaminants 

to receiving 

waters

I.8 (+) Crop or 

forage 

production

I.10 (+/-) Net return to 

producer

D.6 (-) Subsurface 

water level

D.3 (-) Onsite surface 

water

D.4 (+) Offsite 

surface water 

I.2 (-) Soil erosion 

I.11 (-) Soil 

compaction

C.4 (+/-) Soil health 

I.12 (-) 

Equipment 

operation 

and 

maintenance 

costs

Start

1. Trenching and bedding for conduit 

installation

D.1 (+) Exposed soil 

(erosion potential)

Critical Area 

Planting (342)

Pest Management 

Conservation System (595)

Nutrient Management (590)

I.13 (-) Soil 

organic matter

I.4 (+) 

Degradation 

of pesticide 

residues

I.9 (+) Income 

Streambank potential

and Shoreline 

Protection 

(580)

I.1 (-) Onsite 

runoff

D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

I.5 (+) 

Channel and 

Stream Bank 

Erosion
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|November 18, 2005 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                     
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                  | Marc N. Teal                                         
|                  | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC IV Assignor Corp.
|                  |
#### Margaret Armstrong *v.*Simonton’s adm’r.

From Iredell.

Tn detinue, the husband and wife must join for the slave which belonged to the wife before coverture, when the person in possession holds *adversely.*

But when the person has possession under a bailment from the wife made while sole, he is ,a trustee for the husband, and his possession is that of the husband, who may bring suit in his own name.

Detinue for a negro woman and her three children. — . Simonton intermarried with the daughter of the Plaintiff and removed to Georgia. Afterwards, when Simon-ton was on a visit in North-Carolina, the Plaintiff who was then a widow, gave or loaned the negro woman, then a girl to Simonton and he carried her to Georgia on his return. The testimony left it uncertain whether it was a loan or gift — declarations of Simonton were given in evidence in which lie said it ’.vas a loan, and other *352declarations in which he stated that if be survived Plaintiff the negro was his, and if she survived, it was hers. op ]oan# the Plaintiff intermarried with ^rnistr0ng who afterwards died before Siraonton, having taken no steps for the recovery of the negroes.

It was'left to the jury to say whether it was a gift or’ loan to SimontQn for his life with a contingent remainder to the Plaintiff, or whether it was a loan determina-Me at the will of the Plaintiff 3 if the first, then the jury was instructed that it was too remote *;*and if the second then by the intermarriage of Plaintiff the property became Armstrong’s and the right was now in his executors. There was a verdict for Defendant, and the case stood on a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial.

Ham, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

If tiie Plaintiff’s husband had thought proper to have brought an action of detinue for the negroes in question, and it would have been necessary to have joined his wife with him in the action, it follows that as no action was brought, the property has survived to her. And it has been decided in *Johnston et ux*v. *Pasteur, (Conf. Rep.*464,) as well as in several other cases, that it was necessary to make the wife a party, because she was the meritorious cause of action.

But we think those cases arc unlike the present, because there the Defendant hold *adversely;*here the Defendant claims under the bailment of the wife when sole and it seems to be admitted in the case of *Johnston et ux*v. *Pasteur,*that when the Defendant is a trustee for the husband, then the husband may bring suit in his own name,* in other words, that the possession of the bailee was the possession of the husband and tit at therefore the right of the husband was complete.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.31

                                    AMENDMENT

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Startek Pacific, Inc.
Manufacturing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated January 1, 1998 between Startek
Pacific, Ltd. ("Startek") and Mentor Media Ltd. ("Mentor"); the parties agree to
amend the Agreement as follows:

     1.   Startek agrees that Mentor may, at any time during or after the
          Agreement, enter into any agreements directly with Microsoft
          Corporation ("Microsoft") to provide manufacturing and other services
          (such as Licensing and Programs) for any business other than Full
          Packaged Product covered under the Agreement. However, such
          restriction on the Full Packaged Product shall not apply upon
          termination of the Agreement and Mentor shall then be entitled to
          contract with Microsoft directly to manufacture or conduct any other
          business with Microsoft.

     2.   Startek agrees that Mentor may communicate directly with Microsoft in
          Mentor's capacity as a subcontractor to Startek under the Agreement on
          such issues as assembly process improvements and pricing.

     3.   Startek and Mentor agree that the termination date of the contract
          will be extended from June 30, 2001 to December 31, 2001.

     4.   It is agreed that pricing may be negotiated at Microsoft's option with
          either Startek or Mentor. In those cases where Microsoft negotiates a
          price directly with Mentor, Startek will acquire such product from
          Mentor and resell such product to Microsoft in amounts to be agreed
          upon between Startek and Mentor.

     5.   Clauses 2(c), 2(f), 4 (b), 8, 10(c) and 10(e) of the Agreement shall
          not restrict Mentor from directly contracting with and communicating
          with Microsoft pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 above and Mentor shall
          not be considered to have breached the Agreement for so contracting
          and communicating directly with Microsoft.

     6.   This agreement shall be effective January 1, 2001.


STARTEK PACIFIC, LTD.

/s/ E. Preston Sumner, Jr.
-------------------------------------
By

E. Preston Sumner, Jr.
-------------------------------------
Name

Chief Operating Officer
-------------------------------------
Title

April 19, 2001
-------------------------------------
Date

MENTOR MEDIA LTD.

/s/ Wong Yat Foo
-------------------------------------
By

Wong Yat Foo
-------------------------------------
Name

MD
-------------------------------------
Title

April 23, 2001
-------------------------------------
Date
# C_2004228EN.01004406.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/44

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-242/03 (1)

1

(2004/C 228/106)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 25 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-242/03, Ulf Jacoby v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.

1

---
# C_2004262EN.01003402.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/34

---

Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

(Case T-283/04)

(2004/C 262/66)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L., established in Luxembourg, represented by R. Delorey, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office in so far as it held that the mark applied for under No 2 101 277 was devoid of distinctive character throughout the Community in relation to ‘rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper’ and, when giving a new ruling, hold that the mark refused is distinctive. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office in so far as it held that the mark applied for under No 2 101 277 was devoid of distinctive character throughout the Community in relation to ‘rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper’ and, when giving a new ruling, hold that the mark refused is distinctive.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark in the form of a design for kitchen towels. |
| --- | --- |
| Goods or services: | Goods in Class 16 (rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper) — Application No 2 101 277. |
| Decision contested before the Board of Appeal: | Refusal to register by the examiner. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal. |
| Pleas in law: | The contested decision infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
  The sign is clearly capable of being represented graphically for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) and Article 4 of the Regulation.
  The sign is not descriptive or customary and does not consist of a shape resulting from the natureof the goods.
  The sign is sufficiently distinctive to satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation. |

Community trade mark sought:

Three-dimensional mark in the form of a design for kitchen towels.

Goods or services:

Goods in Class 16 (rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper) — Application No 2 101 277.

Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

Refusal to register by the examiner.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

The contested decision infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

The sign is clearly capable of being represented graphically for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) and Article 4 of the Regulation.

The sign is not descriptive or customary and does not consist of a shape resulting from the natureof the goods.

The sign is sufficiently distinctive to satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation.

---
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. IN15-4-000]

With respect to an order issued by the Commission on February 2, 2015 in the above-captioned docket, with the exceptions noted below, the staff of the Office of Enforcement are designated as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2014), they will not serve as advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any offer of settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2201 (2014), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.

Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:

Larry Gasteiger

Sean Collins

Gabriel S. Sterling

Nicole Brisker

Emily Scruggs

Eric Ciccoretti

Jeremy Larrieu

Christopher Onisick

 Dated: February 2, 2015.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-02430 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Justine M. Kasznica

Phone: (412) 209

- 2537

Fax: (412) 209

- 2574

jkasznica@saul.com

www.saul.com

80656.2 05/19/2016 One PPG Place  30 t h Floor  Pitts burgh, PA 15222

Pho ne: (412) 209

- 2500  Fax: (412) 209

- 2570

D E L AW AR E M AR Y L AN D M ASS AC H U S E T T S NE W J E RSE Y NE W Y O R K PE N NS Y L V AN I A WAS H I N GT O N, D C

A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

May 18, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) and Request for

Approval to Operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

and Part 11 of the FARs

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find Near Earth Autonomy, Inc.’s (“Near Earth’s”) Request for

Exemption from FARs and Request for Approval to Operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems Under

Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the FA Rs (the “Petition”). The Petition was

filed on May 18, 2016 using the Federal Docket Management System.

Additionally, we are enclosing Near Earth’s CONFIDENTIAL Proprietary Material

Supplement with this Petition. It has not been filed using the Federal Docket Management

System. We ask that this Supplement be treated as confidential with no public access.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions by phone at +1.412.209.2537 or

by email at jkaszni ca@saul.com . Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Justine M. Kasznica

Counsel for Near Earth Autonomy, Inc.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffWeapons Safety Assessment (NUREG-2264)

# Weapons Safety Assessment – Template Instructions: Chapters 1 and 2 (NUREG-2264, Volume 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2264, Volume 1: Chapters 1 and 2 (PDF – 11.65 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 2022**Date Published:** March 2023

**Prepared by:**P. BrochmanH. StoneD. Davis

P. Brochman, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident ResponseU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The regulations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) require an applicant for combined preemption authority and enhanced weapons authority to submit a Weapons Safety Assessment (WSA) as part of its application. This document sets forth a process that the NRC staff finds acceptable for use by an applicant in developing a WSA. The information in this document can be used by an applicant to evaluate the potential onsite and offsite safety hazards, safety impacts, or safety risks and any onsite security risks that could arise from the deployment and potential use of enhanced weapons (e.g., machine guns) as part of a licensee's protective strategy for defending against malevolent acts. Based on its assessment of these hazards, impacts, or risks, an applicant should identify preventive or mitigative measures that it intends to implement upon the deployment of enhanced weapons.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 03, 2023