alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011092EN.01000801.xml

| 24.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/8

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 21 March 2011

appointing the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Luxembourg, Malta and Austria

2011/C 92/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

1

Having regard to the list of nominations for appointment submitted to the Council by the governments of the Member States and by the employers’ and the employees’ organisations,

Having regard to the lists of members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Decision of 22 November 2010 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 8 November 2010 to 7 November 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Decision of 22 November 2010 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 8 November 2010 to 7 November 2013.

2

| (2) | The Government of Malta and the employees’ organisations have submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled for Luxembourg, Malta and Austria, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Government of Malta and the employees’ organisations have submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled for Luxembourg, Malta and Austria,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following shall be appointed members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 7 November 2013:

I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternate members |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Malta | Mr Mark GAUCI | Mr Vince ATTARD |

Country

Members

Alternate members

Malta

Mr Mark GAUCI

Mr Vince ATTARD

II.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES’ ORGANISATIONS

| Country | Members | Alternate members |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Luxembourg | Mr Marcel GOEREND | Mr Raffaele PAOLETTI |
| Malta | Mr Jesmond BONELLO | Mr Joseph CARABOTT |
| Austria | Ms Julia NEDJELIK-LISCHKA | Mr Alexander HEIDER |

Country

Members

Alternate members

Luxembourg

Mr Marcel GOEREND

Mr Raffaele PAOLETTI

Malta

Mr Jesmond BONELLO

Mr Joseph CARABOTT

Austria

Ms Julia NEDJELIK-LISCHKA

Mr Alexander HEIDER

Article 2

The Council will appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 21 March 2011.

For the Council

The President

MARTONYI J.

---

(1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 322, 27.11.2010, p. 3.

2

---
Clay Ceramics NESHAP

– Confidential Business Information Documents

This list of files is provided as a reference only. The information contained in these files is
Confidential Business Information and may not be viewed by anyone without specific clearance

under the Clean Air Act.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Florida Tile, Lawrenceburg, KY. Dated 8/28/08, 8 pages and 1 CD; Dated 9/17/08, 1 page and 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: American Marazzi Tile, Sunnyvale, TX. Dated 8/13/08, 1 page and 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Dal

- Tile, Dallas TX. Dated 8/13/08, 1 page and 6 CDs: (1) Lewisport Manufacturing Plant, (2) Conroe Manufacturing Plant, (3) Muskogee Manufacturing Plant, (4) Dallas Manufa cturing Plant, (5) El Paso Manufacturing Plant, (6) Fayette Manufacturing Plant.

Site Visit: Dal

- Tile, Dallas, TX. Date of visit: 9/11/08. Site Visit Report: Final Plant Transmittal Version. Dated 3/18/09, 5 pages.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Interceramic, Garland, TX. 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Kohler Co.'s, Spartanburg, SC, Brownwood, TX, and Kohler, WI. Dated 9/9/08, 1 page and 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Monarch Ceramic Tile, Inc., Mesquite, TX. Dated 6/25/09, 2 pages and 1 CD.

Characterization of Dioxin Emissions from Sources that Use Ball Clays

- Emission Test Report: Unimin Corporation, Gleason, TN. Dated 3/17/2010, 296 pages.

Tile Council of America 2010 114 Survey Comments. Letter from Guida, Slavich, & Flores, on behalf of the Tile Council of America regarding recommendations for representative unit testing for 2010 114 Survey. Dated 2/8/10, 22 pages.

Clay Ceramics Test Data Review. Email from Howard Gilberg, challenge to potential u se or reliance on selected HF and HCl data. Memorandum attachment, dated 03/25/13, 4 pages.
2018-0103.

#### State v. Patterson.

Stark App. No. 2017CA00153, 2017-0hio-9001. On appellant’s motion to dismiss the motion for stay and abeyance. Motion granted.
#### United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., Respondent, v Textron, Inc., Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 201]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 28, 2016, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court correctly determined at this pleading stage that the “bordereaux” (statements of premium and loss data) that plaintiff insurer provided to defendant policy holder on a monthly basis reflected a course of conduct between the parties that established an open, mutual, current account (CPLR 206 [d]; *Green v Disbrow,*79 NY 1, 5-9 [1879]), and that the amended complaint provided sufficient specificity to provide defendant with notice of the transactions forming the basis for the breach of contract cause of action *(see e.g. Harris v Seward Park Hous. Corp.,*79 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur— Friedman, J.P, Moskowitz, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adrian Covington, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 806]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered March 20, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
No. 12-8570.

#### Washington *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Health Fair draws hundreds

/ Published Oct. 17, 2019
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
More than 350 federal civilian and contract workers participated in the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center Occupational Health Unit’s annual Health Fair Oct. 16 in Battle Creek, Michigan. 

About 20 public and private organizations brought informational displays, stress balls, massages, giveaways and a variety of other treats for local federal employees. A free flu shot clinic was manned by nurses from the local Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Bronson Battle Creek Hospital. More than 100 employees received their influenza virus vaccine dose in expectation of what health experts say could be a particularly bad flu season.

Exhibitors included the American Red Cross, Health and Energy Acupuncture, JQ Massage, Battle Creek Hearing Services, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, the Susan G. Komen organization, The Salon Professional Academy, RX Optical, Dept. of Veteran’s Affairs, Bronson Health, Stars and Stripes Learning Station, Priority Health, Morale Welfare and Recreation, Federal Occupational Health, Ascension At Work, the HDI Ergonomics Committee and the local Sexual Assault Prevention and Response office.

“It was wonderful to be able to interact with a large number of associates and provide vital information about health and wellness resources available in the local area,” said Robin Rogers, the DLA Disposition Services sexual assault and response coordinator and wellness committee chair.

Federal Occupational Health provides information and resource coordination for everything from alcohol awareness to weight loss and women’s health at their website. They support the federal Employee Assistance Program, offering free counseling for challenging physical and mental health issues.

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

*Exhibitors and information provided were for awareness purposes and does not constitute endorsement by the federal government, Department of Defense or the Defense Logistics Agency.*
|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                      
|                                                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                                
|No chart available.                                                                                
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                   

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W  
|2022                                                                                                                              |     | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W  
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
2017-1184.

#### State v. Carter.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104653, 2017-Ohio-5573. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted. Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.
No. 12-580.

#### Beineke *v.*Kappos, Director, Patent and Trademark Office.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 801 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 1 06 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
James E. Steward 

5212 Springdale Ln. 

McHenry, IL 60050 

815-578-8070 

jsteward529 @comcast.net 

January 12, 2016 

Petition for Section 333 Exemption 

I hereby formally request FAA authorization for James E. Steward (hereafter "PETITIONER") to 

operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes other than for recreation or hobby. 

-~ ~---,--~PETtnONERrequests to~ be' exempted from 14 CFR9§ 61.23(a} Efri<f(cJ; o-r.ror(e){4) and (--=s) ....... , -- _,~_,_ -,~--

61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow PETITIONER to 

operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging. 

PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS within the United States. 

PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use of UAS models including the DJI 

Inspire Pro/RAW, or other similar commercially-available and widely-av~ilable UAS models. 

PETITIONER will conduct its use of UAS in a manner which will minimize risk to the UAS, other 

persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a preflight inspection before each flight to examine airworthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially 

altered from commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS 

will not be flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within line of sight to operator(s) 

pursuant to Section 333(b)(1 ), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes exceeding those allowed, (6) 

UAS will never reach speeds exceeding 50 mph, (7) operator will perform a preflight visual 

inspection of the NAS to determine nearby dangers such as low-flying manned or unmanned 

aerial vehicles, power lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper 

connection to remote control, and proper performance at a very low altitude before reaching the 

UAS, and (9) non-participating spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away from the 

flight path of the UAS and its landing location. PETITIONER has over 30 years experience 

operating a UAS and RG aircraft. 

This petition will benefit the public interest. PETITIONER will provide a safe means of obtaining 

imagery which is not otherwise possible to be captured without the use of a UAS, which will 

assist companies to which the images may be sold, will enhance the public understanding of 

nature photographed by the UAS, and PETITIONER will be able to provide UAS safety 

information to those with whom he comes in contact. 

Ple~,}Jran.t the reques. ted exem. ption under Section 333. 

q~s~~ James E. Steward
#### The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Formerly Known as The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., Respondent, v John D. Claypoole, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[55 NYS3d 19]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 15, 2016, which, inter alia, denied defendant John D. Claypoole’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declar*506ing the “first mortgage” a valid lien and directing that the satisfaction of mortgage be vacated and expunged, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered May 31, 2016 and June 1, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order and judgment.

The satisfaction of mortgage was void ab initio, because the party that filed it had already assigned away its interest under the mortgage. Consequently, this action seeking to vacate the satisfaction of mortgage pursuant to RPAPL article 15 is not time-barred under CPLR 213 (6) (see *Faison v Lewis,*25 NY3d 220, 224 [2015]; see *also Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v Munroe,*10 NY3d 18, 24 [2008]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14332]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United 
States v. Armstrong Rubber, Co., Civil No. 88-419, and United States v. 
Atlantic Richfield Co., Civil No. 3-91-CV-248, consolidated by the 
court under the heading B.F. Goodrich v. Murtha et al., Civil No. N-87-
52, was lodged on May 13, 1998, with the United States District Court 
for the District of Connecticut. The decree resolves claims against 
Armstrong Rubber Co., The Eastern Co., Gerald Metals, Inc. and Kerite 
Co. in the above-referenced action under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 
for contamination at the Laurel Park Landfill Superfund Site in the 
Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut (the ``Laurel Park Site'') and at the 
Beacon Heights Superfund Site in Beacon Falls, Connecticut (the 
``Beacon Heights Site''). In the proposed consent decree, the settling 
defendants agree to reimburse the United States for $2.45 million in 
past response costs incurred by the United States, and to waive and 
dismiss their counterclaims against the United States. The Consent 
Decree includes a covenant not to sue by the United States under 
Sections 106, 107 and 113 of CERCLA.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to B.F. 
Goodrich v. Murtha et al. DOJ Ref. Numbers 90-11-2-703 and 90-11-3-
132B.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, Connecticut Financial Center, 157 Church St., 
New Haven, CT 06510, the New England Region Office of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211; and at 
the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, 
D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may 
be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 
G Street, N.W. 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy, 
please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount 
of $8.25 for the Consent Decree (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-14332 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```
No. 12-740.

#### Smith *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### Com. v. Navedo

03/23/2016

653 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1118
No. 12-6649.

#### Refine *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.