Compliance Status. (a) (i) All Tax Returns (as defined below) required to be filed by or on behalf of the Company have been filed on a timely basis with the appropriate governmental authority in all jurisdictions in which such Tax Returns are required to be filed, and all such Tax Returns were (at the time they were filed) true, correct and complete in all material respects; (ii) all Taxes (as defined below) of the Company (whether or not reflected on any Tax Return) have been fully and timely paid; (iii) no waivers of statutes of limitation have been given or requested with respect to the Company in connection with any Tax Returns covering the Company with respect to any Taxes payable by it; (iv) no taxing authority in a jurisdiction where the Company does not file Tax Returns has made a claim, assertion or threat to the Company that the Company is or may be subject to taxation by such jurisdiction; (v) the Company has duly and timely withheld from employee salaries, wages and other compensation and paid over to the appropriate governmental authority all amounts required to be so withheld and paid over for all periods under all applicable laws, and no amounts have been or would be required to be withheld with respect to the lapse of restrictions on Company Common Stock; (vi) there are no liens with respect to Taxes on any of the Company's property or assets other than liens for current Taxes not yet payable; (vii) there are no Tax rulings, requests for rulings or closing agreements relating to the Company that could affect the liability for Taxes or the amount of taxable income of the Company for any period (or portion of a period) after the date hereof; and (viii) no audits or other administrative or court proceedings are presently pending with respect to any Taxes or Tax Returns of the Company.
Compliance Status. Jostens has a process to document non-compliance of any statutory, regulatory or contractual requirement:
Compliance Status. (a) Following a product model’s Certification by NIJ and until that model is withdrawn from NIJ CTP Surveillance, the Applicant or Applicant’s multiple Listees may use the phrase “certified by NIJ” as an indication of a model’s compliance status.
Compliance Status. In March 1993, an agreement was signed by the DOE, Ecology, and EPA Region 10 to identify addi tional measures to accelerate Hanford Site cleanup. As part of the newly renegotiated Tri-Party Agree ment, a new milestone was established focusing on removal of physical hazards and asbestos from the North Slope. This milestone required that the re mediation of the North Slope be completed by October 1994. Remedial actions were completed in September 1994. Remediation consisted of cleaning up 39 waste sites and decommissioning 16 xxxxx. A re cord of decision is expected from the regulators in mid-1995. Hazardous waste removed from the North Slope included the following: 460 m3 (600 yd3) of DDT-contaminated soil, 230 m3 (300 yd3) of petroleum-contaminated soil, several hundred containers of various petroleum-based lu bricants and solvents, and lead-acid battery plates. The soils were disposed of at waste facilities in Ar lington, Oregon and Pasco, Washington. The other wastes were taken to the 100-N storage pad. Addi tionally, several of the water xxxxx had been broken into and used for the disposal of waste motor oil. These xxxxx were cleaned to Ecology standards be fore being decommissioned.
Compliance Status. The 17 priority chemicals targeted for reduction in this program are a subset of the chemicals listed in Section 313 of this Act. The thresholds listed in the Act are used to determine participation. DOE is committed to reducing the releases of these 17 priority chemicals by 50% (compared to the 1988 baseline) by 1995. Each DOE site annually evalu ates its use and release of these 17 priority chemi cals. The information is provided to DOE Head quarters, where it is aggregated for an annual prog ress report provided to the EPA. Hanford did not exceed the reporting threshold for the use of any of the 17 priority chemicals during 1994. The Hanford Site Pollution Prevention Program was designed to meet the requirements of DOE Orders 5400.1, and 5820.2A, the DOE Waste Minimization Cross Cut Plan (DOE 1994e) and EPA program guidance, and State of Washington Pollution Pre vention Planning requirements. The major elements of the program were 1) establishment of manage ment support, 2) identification and implementation of pollution prevention opportunities through an assessment process, 3) setting and measuring the progress of waste reduction goals, 4) development of waste generation baseline and tracking systems,
Compliance Status specified in the license will be incorporated into the upcoming Hanford air operating permit, required by Title V of the Clean Air Act and 1990 amendments. EPA has retained authority in Washington State for regulating certain hazardous pollutants under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), in accordance with 40 CFR 61. These standards are designed to protect the public from hazardous air pollutants (for example, arsenic, asbestos, beryllium, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). Pursuant to this program within the Clean Air Act, the EPA has promulgated regulations specifically addressing asbestos emissions. These regulations apply at the Hanford Site in building demolition and/or disposal and waste disposal operations. Of the approximately 1,400 facilities on the Hanford Site, 456 facilities currently contain asbestos. Dur ing 1994, approximately 2,063 m 3 (72,860 ft3) of asbestos were removed and disposed of in the Xxx xxxx Central Landfill in accordance with applicable regulations. Revised Clean Air Act requirements for radioactive air emissions were issued in December 1989 under 40 CFR 61, Subpart H. Emissions from the Xxx xxxx Site are within the new EPA offsite emission standards of 10 mrem/yr (effective dose equivalent). The 1989 requirements for flow and emissions mea surements, quality assurance, and sampling docu mentation are in the process of being implemented at all Hanford Site sources. These specific reporting and monitoring require ments necessitate additional effort. The Richland Operations Office received a 2-year compliance ex tension for the Subpart H requirements until De cember 1991. During this extension period, evalua tions were conducted to determine the need for any additional continuous sampling equipment and oth er actions to meet EPA criteria. Negotiations con tinued with the EPA in 1992 and 1993. In February 1993, the DOE Richland Operations Office received a Compliance Order and Information Request from EPA, Region 10. The Order required 1) evaluation of all radionuclide emission points on the Hanford Site to determine which are subject to continuous emission measurement requirements in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H, and 2) continuous measurement of radionuclide emissions in accordance with 40 CFR Part 61.93. DOE Richland Operations Office sub mitted a compliance plan to the EPA, Region 10, in April 1993. The compliance plan included, as one of its milestones, the requirement to ...
Compliance Status and engineering contractor. DOE has consolidated the defenses for litigation purposes. Safe Drinking Water Act The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act apply to the drink ing water supplies at the Hanford Site. These regulations are enforced by the DOH. The Hanford Site water supplies are monitored for the contami nants listed in the rules and regulations of the DOE regarding public water systems. In 1994, all drink ing water systems on the Site were in compliance with requirements and agreements. There are cur rently six Group A and six Group B water systems at Hanford. The Group A systems consist of five surface water systems and one ground water sys tem; the Group B systems consist of two surface water systems and four ground water systems. A study is currently being performed that will validate the water’s quality for the five Group A surface wa ter systems onsite. The study will include measure ments of chlorine concentration, temperature, and pH.
Compliance Status. Environmental Impact Statements in Progress Several related programmatic and site-specific XXXx are in progress. One is the Programmatic Environ mental Impact Statement, DOE Headquarters, Of fice of Environmental Restoration and Waste Man agement. The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate a broad range of alternatives for the configuration of new and expanded waste management facilities. It could include actions for remediations, compliance with RCRA and CERCLA, restoration, waste man agement, and repositories. The notice of intent was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 42633) in October 1990. DOE Headquarters issued an imple mentation plan for public comment in 1992 (DOE 1992a). Another EIS in progress is the Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Modernization Programmatic En vironmental Impact Statement, DOE Headquarters, Office of Defense Programs. The purpose of this programmatic EIS is to evaluate alternative ap proaches for reconfiguring the DOE defense pro gram and its facilities, on both a programmatic and site-specific level. With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is reducing its stockpile of nuclear weap ons. This reduction requires DOE to reevaluate its earlier alternatives for reconfiguring the nuclear weapons complex. A revised notice of intent was published in the Federal Register in July 1993 (58 FR 39528). Significant changes include the addition of consolidated long-term storage facilities for plutonium and uranium, and consolidation of all weapons-complex functions at one site. The Xxxx da Test Site has been proposed as a new candidate site, and the Hanford Site was dropped from further consideration. The scope is continuing to be reviewed. Another EIS is the DOE Programmatic Spent Nu clear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engi neering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS. The purpose of the programmatic part of this EIS is to evaluate alternatives for the management of spent nuclear fuel within the DOE complex. The EIS will evalu ate the use of several sites, including Hanford, as potential sites for spent nuclear fuel storage. This EIS is on an accelerated schedule. The EIS will also evaluate environmental and waste management issues at the Idaho National Engineer ing Laboratory. In August 1993, Hanford was re quested to support the preparation of this EIS. XXX issued the draft EIS in June 1994, and the final EIS in April 1995.
Compliance Status. Yes No | +-------------------------------------+ Sincerely, ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION _____________________________ Signature _____________________________ Title _____________________________ Date [LOGO] SILICON VALLEY BANK PRO FORMA INVOICE FOR LOAN CHARGES BORROWER: ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION LOAN OFFICER: Xxxx Xxxxxx DATE: August 8, 2000 Revolving Loan Fee $37,500.00 Documentation Fee 1,500.00 Legal Fees 500.00 TOTAL FEE DUE $39,500.00 ------------- ========== Please indicate the method of payment: { } A check for the total amount is attached. { } Debit DDA # __________________ for the total amount. { } Loan proceeds Borrower: By: _________________________ (Authorized Signer) _____________________________________________ Silicon Valley Bank (Date) Account Officer's Signature INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECURITY AGREEMENT This Intellectual Property Security Agreement is entered into as of August 8, 2000 by and between SILICON VALLEY BANK ("Bank") and ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION ("Grantor").
Compliance Status. Project Approval Documents ☐ Not Available ☒ Provided to CTG on 9/13/2023 Power Purchase Agreement(s) ☐ Not Available ☒ Provided to CTG on 9/13/2023 Land Title Document ☐ Not Available ☐ Land Ownership Certificate OR ☒ Lease Agreement OR ☐ Land License Agreement provided to CTG on 9/13/2023 Location of the Separate Meter ☐ Next to the high voltage transformer ☒ Next to the low voltage transformer ☐ Next to the container or plant ☐ Other: Ultimate Beneficiary Owner of Data Center Facility1 Mawson Infrastructure Group Inc, listed on Nasdaq
