alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

9 November 2015 

14 G 

3 -7)2)11'/e 114' 

4/-"' 

27 February 1963 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRMAN, COMOR 

SUBJECT: Relationship between the NRO and the CCMOE 

Reference: Agreement between the Secretary of Defense and the 

Director of Central Intelligence, 2 May 1962 (BYE 1166-62) 

Further to our recent conversation concerning COMOR relationship 

with the NRO, I think it is desirable to summarize our present understanding. 

The referenced Agreement is quite explicit.: "The NRO will be 

directly responsive to, and only to, the photographic and electronic 

signal (SIGINT) collection requirements and priorities established 

by the USIB and will develop the over-all reconnaissance program to 

satisfy these requirements. " The NBC understands the role of the 

COMOR in preparing such statements for USIB approval, and can work 

directly with COMOR as a subsidiary of USIB on some matters. However, any COMOR guidance having substantive impact. on the National 

Reconnaissance Program or projects of this program must be approved 

specifically by the =B. This includes any guidance for which compliance will result in changes in the configuration of the over-all 

program or any projects of this program, changes in cost, and changes 

in schedules. It also includes any documents which are intended to 

provide guidance as to the type and sized' the program that should be 

developed by the NRO, such an INID3-D-33. 6 /6 , "Intelligence Requirements for Satellite Reconnaissance Systems of which &A MHOS is an 

Example," dated 5 July 1960, and any subsequent guidance intended as 

modifications or revisions of this basic document. 

In regard to the data essential to the actual operation of established 

projects, which do not affect costs or schedules, such as target lists 

and relative priorities of targets for specific projects or launches, the 

NRO will respond directly to guidance from the COMOR without the 

necessity of specific USIB approval. 

5-`4( 

Dir teolscitlet idar lUar Nrto"F alstaff Ir. 

e, 

r r, on. +Ty
Conservation Practice Overview 

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

October 2017 

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Crosswind Ridges (Code 588) 

Crosswind ridges are formed by tillage, planting, or other 

operations; and aligned across the direction of erosive winds.

Practice Information

Best adapted to soils with sufficient amounts of clay to 

produce stable soil clods and ridges, crosswind ridges 

reduce wind velocity and turbulence near the soil surface.

Conservation benefits include— 

• Reduced soil erosion from wind.

• Protection of growing crops from damage by wind-borne soil particles.

• Reduced airborne particulate matter (dust).

Crosswind ridges are established and maintained by normal tillage and planting equipment such as 

chisel plows, drills with hoe openers, and similar implements that form effective ridges.

The ridges must be maintained through the major wind erosion season or until growing crops provide 

enough cover to protect the soil from wind erosion.

Ridges formed with soils such as sands, loamy sands, and certain organic soils will deteriorate

quickly and shorten the protection period and are therefore not well adapted to the establishment of 

crosswind ridges.

Specifications for establishment and maintenance of crosswind ridges vary by soil, climate, crop, and 

crop management operations.

Common Associated Practices

Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Crosswind Ridges (Code 588) is commonly applied with CPSs

Conservation Crop Rotation (Code 328), Cover Crop (Code 340), and Residue and Tillage 

Management, Reduced Till (Code 345). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# C_2005105EN.01000101.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 April 2005

(2005/C 105/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2957 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4460 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67750 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1805 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5374 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 81,67 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1430 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5818 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,499 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 252,51 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2715 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 180 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,58 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,435 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8031 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6565 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6191 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1017 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7669 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1191 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 291,94 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9067 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,7239 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3620 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 386,89 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9236 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,130 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,9890 |
| THB | Thai baht | 51,110 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2957

JPY

Japanese yen

136,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4460

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67750

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1805

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5374

ISK

Iceland króna

81,67

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1430

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5818

CZK

Czech koruna

30,499

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

252,51

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2715

ROL

Romanian leu

36 180

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,58

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,435

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8031

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6565

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6191

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1017

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7669

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1191

KRW

South Korean won

1 291,94

ZAR

South African rand

7,9067

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,7239

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3620

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 386,89

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9236

PHP

Philippine peso

70,130

RUB

Russian rouble

35,9890

THB

Thai baht

51,110

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2005106EN.01002001.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/20

---

Action brought on 8 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-115/05)

(2005/C 106/39)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Braun, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions (1) and, in any event, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions (1) and, in any event, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 1 January 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 28.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7016

CLINTON D. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Kayzon Ru,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SGT. JOHNSON, City of Conway Police Department Officer; ALLAN G. 

HUGGINS, II, City of Conway Police Department Officer; LT. ANDERSON, J. 

Reuben Long Detention Employee; OFFICER COSTELLO, J. Reuben Long 

Detention Employee; OFFICER STRICKLAND; OFFICER FOUTZ,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:20-cv-01664-SAL)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leslie A. Cotter, Jr., Carmen Vaughn 

Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; 

J.W. Nelson Chandler, CHANDLER & DUDGEON LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing two defendants for failure to effect 

service upon on them, and awarding summary judgment to the remaining defendants on 

Johnson’s claims alleged in his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Johnson’s informal brief and other appellate filings do not challenge the bases for the 

district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10KSB FOR
THE YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STAETMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,520,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  712,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    326,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,318,000
<PP&E>                                      50,620,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,834,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,156,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,306,000
<BONDS>                                     23,693,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    26,536,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,864,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,156,000
<SALES>                                     30,909,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,909,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,109,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (768,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,435,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,032,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,273,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,759,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,671,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Home Loan Trust 1996-1
$ 153,521,000 7.15% Asset Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 2003




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %

          __________________________________________________________________
 Jan-2003           0     120,137       5,399    0.32%    2,173,035   10.77%
 Feb-2003   2,156,800     120,137     (41,728)  -2.60%    2,008,260   10.41%
 Mar-2003          (0)    107,287      (5,576)  -0.36%    1,629,421    8.87%
 Apr-2003           0     107,287     (19,618)  -1.36%    1,473,080    8.48%
 May-2003   2,861,636     107,287     (47,422)  -3.48%    1,445,398    8.84%
 Jun-2003           0      90,236     (39,570)  -3.10%    1,240,070    8.08%
 Jul-2003           0      90,236      17,193    1.41%    1,366,622    9.37%
 Aug-2003   2,397,285      90,236       6,492    0.57%    1,470,269   10.77%
 Sep-2003           0      75,952     (38,424)  -3.58%    1,140,954    8.86%
 Oct-2003           0      75,952     (27,910)  -2.75%    1,260,334   10.36%
 Nov-2003   1,518,459      75,952     (24,811)  -2.60%    1,113,602    9.74%
 Dec-2003           0      66,905     (41,612)  -4.62%    1,097,859   10.16%

          _____________________________________
  Totals    8,934,181   1,127,604    (257,586)

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
# C_2005135EN.01000201.xml

| 2.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3768 — BBVA/BNL)

(2005/C 135/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 27 April 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3768. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3768. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                                       OF
                            U.S. PLASTIC LUMBER CORP.





      U.S. PLASTIC LUMBER LTD. SUBSIDIARY:
      ------------------------------------
      The Eaglebrook Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation

      CLEAN EARTH, INC. SUBSIDIARIES:
      -------------------------------
      Advanced Remediation of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      Allied Waste Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      Barbella Environmental Technologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
      Carteret Biocycle Corporation, a Delaware corporation
      Clean Earth of New Castle, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      Clean Rock Industries, Inc., a Maryland corporation
      Clean Rock Properties, Ltd., a Maryland corporation
      Consolidated Technologies, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
      Integrated Technical Services, Inc. a Delaware corporation
      S & W Waste, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
      Soil Remediation of Philadelphia, Inc., a Delaware corporation

      U.S. PLASTIC LUMBER FINANCE CORPORATION SUBSIDIARY:
      ---------------------------------------------------
      U.S. Plastic Lumber IP Corporation, a Delaware corporation
# C_2004300EN.01003101.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (15th Chamber) by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of Matratzen Concord AG against Hukla Gemany SA

(Case C-421/04)

(2004/C 300/57)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Audiencia Provincial (Provincial Court) (15th Chamber), Barcelona (Spain) of 28 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Matratzen Concord AG against Hukla Gemany SA on the following question:

‘May the validity of the registration of a trade mark in a Member State, where that trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character or serves, in trade, to designate the product which it covers or its kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or other characteristics of goods, in the language of another Member State when that language is not the language spoken in the first Member State, as may be the case so far as concerns use of the Spanish trade mark “MATRATZEN” to designate mattresses and related products, constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States?’

---
#### Wright, Respondent, vs. Swift & Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of Outagamie county dated April 9, 1927: TheodoRE Berg, Judge.

Personal injuries. Automobile accident. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Keller & Keller*of Appleton, attorneys, and Quarles, *Spence & Quarles*of Milwaukee, of counsel.

For the respondent: *Bradford & Bradford*of Appleton.

*By the Court.-*— -Judgment affirmed.
, 

./ 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08512 

AF IN : 14392 (8 Oct 68 )N/bw 

UNCLASSIFIED 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR· FORCE 

STAFF MESSAGE BRANCH 

INCOMING MESSAGE 

ACTION: SAFSS~3 INFO: NIN-4, SPD-2, DIA/JCS-l (11) 

gtlB E142 RrTl£YUN RIJJJOKDA54S8 2~0946 .. UUUt}-- RlEF'H~. 

ZNR UUUUU 

R 080725Z OCT 68 

J1Y1 SPACE DEF'EN~ CENTER ENT AF'B COLO 

ro RlMMF'VAl14AF' 14 COP 14EDC HIT AF'B COLO 

RtEF'HQAI OSAF' ~lASH DC 

RlEF'HQAl1127 USAF'F'LDACTGP FT BELVOIR VA 

RlJ.~MF'HAlDET 1 AF'SCF' SMOTC-IIC SUNNYVALE CALIF' 

RLEDJlI1A1SMITHSONIAN OB~RJATORY CAMBRIDGE r·1ASS 

RtEHO'DEPT OF' STATE 

RtMOGI-W COAD-7 CAPE KENr£DY AF'S F'LA 

RlEDFIF/FTD TDAMF Ts)( WPAFB OHIO 

~Ja1BBlSa..TERWARN ESSA BOlLDER ca..o 

Sf 

LNCLAS FROM NCOC-SC. 14COP FOR PRIEF'ING OFF'IVER. OSAF' 

WiSH DC FOR SAFSS PRO..ECT TIP. 1127 ATTN: PRO..ECT 

MJONDUST. SAO ATTN: MOO Ma/AT CH. DEPT OF Sf ATE ATTN: SIS 

R'1 8645. 

1. 3408/1968-78A1US 

2.. 18 ~P 68 

FORM 

AFHQ .JAN GIl O-S0ge t UNCWSlflED 

Pg 1 of2 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08512 

'---
-, 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08512 

iIF IN 14392 

UNCLASSIFIED 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

STAFF MESSAGE BRANCH 

INCOMING MESSAGE 

3. ~V 309 DESCENDING/8 ocr 0333Z 

4. 56. 7 S/ 127. 5 E 

PAm 2 RUvOKDA5488 UNCLAS 

5. PLUS OR MINUS 20 MINtrrES 

Pg 2 of2 

&. TRAJ:CTORY PRIOR TO IECAY WAS PORTO ALEffiE, BRAZIL TO 

ANGYJAGSSALIK, GREENLAND TO F£KING, CHINA TO MAKAS4R, CELEBES TO 

ESPERANCE, AUSfRALIA TO IMPACT 

7. THIS IS Tl-E FINAL MESSArE \J.JLESS FURT1-ER ANALYSIS 

WARRANTS OTHERWISE • 

. r-..NNN 

FORM 

AFHQ .JAN 115 0-309C 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 08512 

." .. .,: 
INDEX NO.2 

• Code ASC 

:0 

!~ SOUTH 

" 

., 

i; 

:; mc.,k"/°'l8 II '""-------

H3 tj0 8 1;1&$ - 78/1 'vs I . /1 "- . 

i/riV/{/(/h'C i) /g ~ tB .;~c.~£U /{£tl3;9D 

r 8 ocT, O~33'C­ l_6C-4Tl~i~ 0;:- ;»(/4C/ 

,; f>-('.7 Sov7N 

,·-/27.6E46/' 

( 

~-) 

l~ 

'f!IJAL 

'/{Efh;ei 

'''.bli,hd Chorl. 0 

. Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 COS108512 

SPADAT LOCATOR CHART (SOUTJ:l) . 

SS-4 FORM 0-5B 17Aug6~) 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C05108512 

C) 

JrlOF:X rlO.~; 

Code ASC 

:. 

CURRENf AS Of 1 .A\Y:; . 

.'
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.1


                     AMENDMENT ONE TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
                  1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS
                            OF WOLVERINE TUBE, INC.

This Amendment One to Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan for Outside
Directors of Wolverine Tube, Inc. dated March 22, 2001.

Section 6.07 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

"6.07 Transferability. Options shall be nontransferable other than by will or
the laws of descent and distribution and, during the life of the Outside
Director, such Options shall be exercisable only by the Outside Director;
provided, however, that this sentence shall not preclude the Outside Director
from (i) designating a Beneficiary who shall be entitled to exercise the Option
in the event of the Outside Director's death during the exercise period
specified in Section 6.03 above, (ii) transferring Options to a revocable trust
under circumstances where the grantor Outside Director is the trustee or
co-trustee of such revocable trust and the trust beneficiaries are limited to
the grantor Outside Director and, in the event of the Outside Director's death,
the grantor's spouse, lineal descendants and lineal ancestors, or (iii) to, or
for the benefit of, the Outside Director's Immediate Family (including, without
limitation, to a trust for the benefit of the Outside Director's Immediate
Family or to a partnership or limited liability company whose only partners or
members are the Outside Director and/or the Outside Director's Immediate
Family). The transferee shall remain subject to all the terms and conditions
applicable to the Option prior to such transfer. The term "Immediate Family"
shall mean the Outside Directors's spouse, children, and grandchildren (and,
for those purposes, shall also include the Outside Director). Written notice of
the Outside Director's intent to transfer Options under this Section 6.07 must
be delivered to the Administration Committee prior to such transfer. Any
transfer is subject to such limits as the Administration Committee may
establish."