alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 305 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 117
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 305

                          [Report No. 106-342]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68), 
  making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for 
                            other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1999

    Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68), 
  making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) making continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes. The 
joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 117

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 305

                          [Report No. 106-342]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68), 
  making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 27, 1999

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
### §1554. Review of retirement or separation without pay for physical disability

(a) The Secretary concerned shall from time to time establish boards of review, each consisting of five commissioned officers, two of whom shall be selected from officers of the Army Medical Corps, officers of the Navy Medical Corps, Air Force officers designated as medical officers, or officers of the Public Health Service, as the case may be, to review, upon the request of a member or former member of the uniformed services retired or released from active duty without pay for physical disability, the findings and decisions of the retiring board, board of medical survey, or disposition board in the member's case. A request for review must be made within 15 years after the date of the retirement or separation.

(b) A board established under this section has the same powers as the board whose findings and decision are being reviewed. The findings of the board shall be sent to the Secretary concerned, who shall submit them to the President for approval.

(c) A review by a board established under this section shall be based upon the records of the armed forces concerned and such other evidence as may be presented to the board. A witness may present evidence to the board in person or by affidavit. A person who requests a review under this section may appear before the board in person or by counsel or an accredited representative of an organization recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under chapter 59 of title 38.

(Added Pub. L. 85–857, §13(v)(2), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1267; amended Pub. L. 87–651, title I, §110(a), Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 510; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title XVI, §1621(a)(2), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1603; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title V, §533(a), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4216.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Sections 1553 and 1554 are restated, without substantive change, to conform to the style adopted for title 10.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–383 substituted "a member or former member of the uniformed services" for "an officer" and "the member's case" for "his case".

1989—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–189 substituted "Secretary of Veterans Affairs" for "Administrator of Veterans' Affairs".

1962—Pub. L. 87–651 amended section generally without substantive change to conform to the style adopted for the revision of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1959, see section 2 of Pub. L. 85–857, set out as a note preceding Part I of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Public Health Service, see note set out under section 802 of this title.
#### § 1000.428 How may a Tribe/Consortium appeal a decision made after the AFA or compact or amendment to an AFA or compact has been signed?

With the exception of certain decisions concerning reassumption for imminent jeopardy (see § 1000.408 of this subpart), the Tribe/Consortium may appeal post-award administrative decisions to the CBCA.

[65 FR 78703, Dec. 15, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 31701, June 4, 2010]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3891]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

United States Parole Commission


Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Pub. L. 94-409) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 
552b)

    I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States Parole Commission, was 
present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 
11:30 a.m., on Thursday, February 10, 2011, at the U.S. Parole 
Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 
20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide four petitions for 
reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR Section 2.27 and one pursuant to 28 
CFR Section 2.17. Four Commissioners were present, constituting a 
quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.
    Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the 
meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be 
closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the 
Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion 
duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted 
that the meeting be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Cranston J. Mitchell, 
Patricia Cushwa and J. Patricia Wilson Smoot.
    In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken 
to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to 
the public.

    Dated: February 11, 2011.
Isaac Fulwood,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-3891 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
United States Steel Corporation – Keetac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 7

The facility's Best Available Retrofit Technology report, available on the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency Regional Haze website ("BART report"), discusses the low

efficiency of the facility's wet scrubbers for SO2. Provide all documentation, including reports 

and studies, to determine the current SO2 efficiency of all water scrubbers at the facility. 

Additionally, provide all documents, including reports and studies, completed for the technical 

feasibility of efficiency upgrades for each scrubber.

Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response: Stephani Campbell, Chrissy Bartovich, 

Jason Barta

Answer: 

A stack test report submitted as part of this response dated July 2006 includes a performance 

evaluation of the Keetac scrubber (SV051) and SO2 removal efficiency at various scrubber pH 

levels. (Please refer to the Item 5 Subfolder for the report.) Increasing the pH with lime 

increased the SO2 removal efficiency. However, the addition of too much lime can lead to 

potential operational issues with the scrubber by forming excess scale inside the scrubber. The 

scale can lead to decreased water flow and ultimately the line will need to shut down to clean the 

scrubber out.

Please refer to the Minntac submittal for other additional information relating to this item.
#### § 171.615 Can I request improvements to BIA facilities as part of my Incentive Agreement?

Yes. You may request and we may agree to make improvements as part of your Incentive Agreement that we determine are in the best interest of the irrigation facility servicing your farm unit.
1MSTRS UpdateMobile Sources Technical Review SubcommitteeCAAAC MeetingOctober 6, 2010John GuyOffice of Transportation and Air Qualtiy2Update•The Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommitteemet on Tuesday 10/5/10 at EPA’s National Vehicle,Fuels and Emissions Lab (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, MI– Provided members an opportunity to tour EPA’s lab– Hope to synch our May 2011 meeting with CAAAC•MSTRS welcomed 9 new members to replace 8members whose terms had expired or had moved onto other jobs–One of our members became EPA’s Region XAdministrator!!–We added a rep – Ms. Jacky Grimshaw – from the Center forNeighborhood Technologies - Chicago• To better represent communities and EJ areas3Main Meeting Topics (1)• EPA’s Fuel Economy Labeling Proposal– Signed August 30, 2010– Speakers from EPA, Ford and NRDC• EPA’s Notice of Intent (NOI)– NOI to Set fuel economy stds for 2017 andlater• Signed Sept 30, 2010– EPA and NHTSA staff gave overview of NOIand accompanying technology assessment4Main Meeting Topics (2)• Opportunities for Vehicle Mass Reduction– Lotus Engineering• Opportunities to improve fuel economy with lighter vehicletechnologies• Panel Discussion: High Emitters – Highway VehicleFocus– What does EPA’s MOVES model tell us about them?– Recent Studies and analyses– California’s aftermarket catalyst rule– Texas repair incentive / scrappage program• Rec’d Final Report from MOVES Model ReviewWorkgroup– Forwarding on to CAAAC5MSTRS Personnel Changes• New Designated Federal Officer (DFO)– Liz Etchells of OTAQ• EPA’s MSTRS Co-Chair (John Guy)retiring in December– OTAQ will name a replacement in time fornext meeting (May 2011)6MSTRS Website• All presentations are posted athttp://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/mobile_sources.html• Questions??Guy.john@epa.gov202-343-9276Etchells.Elizabeth@epa.gov202-564-1372
Telephone Conference Call Summary

TO:    EPA Docket No. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2010‐0682

PARTICIPANTS: U.S. EPA

Brenda Shine

Eric Goehl

    Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC)

Diane Bailey

    Biruk Tammru

DATE OF CALL: June 18, 2014

SUBJECT:    Discuss the Proposed Standards of the Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule

Call Summary

Initial Call June 11, 2014

Diane Bailey called Eric Goehl on June 11, 2014 to discuss the proposed Petroleum Refinery

Sector risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards rule. Mr. Goehl

informed Ms. Bailey that conversations that take place after a federal rule has been proposed

will need to be documented and limited to the content of the proposed rule.  

During this initial phone call, Ms. Bailey had some general questions about EPA Method 202.

Mr. Goehl indicated that an EPA colleague was very knowledgeable about EPA test methods

and recommended she talk to Dr. Raymond Merrill. Ms. Bailey called Dr. Merrill and discussed

her questions. These discussions were limited to the methodology of Method 202 and not

about the proposed petroleum refinery rule.

Conference Call June 18, 2014

  

Ms. Bailey on multiple occasions asked questions about the development of different parts of

the standards and indicated that EPA should have looked at a different approach or more

stringent requirement. For example, Ms. Bailey stated that EPA should have a total PM

standard for FCCUs to include condensable PM. Ms. Shine reminded her that any comments

about the rule should be submitted as a formal comment through the public comment process.

Ms. Shine referred to different sections of the preamble to answer Ms. Bailey’s questions. For

the more technical questions, Ms. Shine referenced technical memoranda for a more thorough

explanation of a technical issue. Ms. Shine informed Ms. Bailey that these technical memoranda

will be available to the public in the official rule docket after the proposed rule is published in

the Federal Register.
RE: Background Information on Aquatic Herbicide Applications / Typical and Cumulative Acres 

Treated 

Spitzmueller, Joe (MDA) 

to: 

Jack Faulk 

10/19/2009 12:59 PM 

Cc: 

"Hora, Marvin (MPCA)", "Doucette, Elise (MPCA)" 

Show Details 

A couple comments after listening to the phone conversation last week. 

 

The notion of creating a numerical value, such as 100 water acres, as a triggering threshold which kicks in when 

exceeded makes sense. The diversity of the 5 states and tribes make selecting such a threshold number a 

challenge and as any is a best guess / average and potentially too high or too low. 

 

I don't have a good feel for this number, other than it should be considered category by category. I do urge 

EPA to explain in their template permit justification that these category permits were specifically developed for 

the 5 states and tribes. 

 

Establishing this position may create fewer additional justification burdens for the other states as they develop 

their own permits which may vary from the EPA template. Further, acknowledging the limitation of setting a 

common threshold value EPA creates less of a precedent for a value which the states may deem too high or too 

low.

 

Finally, have recieved no notification that the list serve up and running. Any word?

 

Joe Spitzmueller, Supervisor

Licensing and Certification, PFMD 

MN Department of Agriculture 

625 Robert Street North 

St. Paul, MN 55155-2538 

phone 651/201-6546 

fax 651/201-6105 

email = joseph.spitzmueller@state.mn.us

 

From: Liemandt, Paul (MDA) 

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:42 PM 

To: Jordan.William@epamail.epa.gov; Faulk.Jack@epamail.epa.gov 

Cc: Bobby Simoneaux (LDAF); Davis Daiker (FL); George Robinson (ID); Jack Peterson (AZ); Jim Gray (ND); 

carlton@carltonlayne.com; Spitzmueller, Joe (MDA) 

Subject: Background Information on Aquatic Herbicide Applications / Typical and Cumulative Acres Treated 

Bill and Jack,

An esteemed alumnus of US EPA, Carlton Layne, is currently serving as Immediate Past President of the Aquatic 

Plant Management Society, and is well read and experienced to be likely able to add substantive comment to 

your subject question. I believe he would be an excellent contact / resource for your work group. As a courtesy 

I'm cc'ing Carlton.

Regards,

 

Paul M Liemandt

Asst. Director

Pesticide & Fertilizer Management Division

Mn Department of Agriculture

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web2508.htm 5/12/2010
625 Robert Street No.

St. Paul, Mn 55155-2538

(O) 651-201-6472

FAX 651-201-6112

eMail: Paul.Liemandt@state.mn.us

 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web2508.htm 5/12/2010
#### DIANE MOLLEUR *v.*WILLIAM PERKINS, EXECUTOR (ESTATE OF LEONARD L. CLARK), ET AL.

Decided July 13, 2004

*Kenneth A. Beck,*in support of the petition.

*Steven P. Kulas,*in opposition.

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 82 Conn. App. 468 (AC 24207), is denied.
### §3324. [Reserved]

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1817(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4186; amended Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(i)(4)(B), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2141.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 117–81, §1701(i)(4)(B), amended Pub. L. 116–283, §1817(a), which enacted this section, by adding section 3324 designation and heading "[Reserved]" and striking out former section 3324 heading and catchline "Preference for fixed-price contracts".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment made to Pub. L. 116–283 by Pub. L. 117–81, resulting in omission of this section, applicable as if included in the enactment of title XVIII of Pub. L. 116–283 as enacted, see section 1701(a)(2) of Pub. L. 117–81, set out in a note preceding section 3001 of this title and Effective Date note below.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as an Effective Date of 2021 Amendment note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### § 18.203 Which probate code amendments require approval?

Only those tribal probate code amendments regarding the descent and distribution of trust and restricted lands require the Department's approval.
### Water resources of the Delaware River basin

By: Garald G. ParkerA. G. HelyWalter B. KeightonF. H. Olmsted

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp381

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 11**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 12**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2013376EN.01001301.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 376/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 376/13

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2013/C 376/08

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 27.11.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 27.11.2013-31.12.2013 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Stock or group of stocks | MAC/2A34. |
| Species | Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) |
| Zone | IIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc and Subdivisions 22-32 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 75/TQ40 |

Date and time of closure

27.11.2013

Duration

27.11.2013-31.12.2013

Member State

United Kingdom

Stock or group of stocks

MAC/2A34.

Species

Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

Scomber scombrus

Zone

IIIa and IV; EU waters of IIa, IIIb, IIIc and Subdivisions 22-32

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

75/TQ40

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
§ 1000.313 What happens if the Secretary does not accept the Tribe's/Consortium's proposed measures? ( a ) If the Secretary finds that the Tribes/Consortia proposed measures will not mitigate imminent jeopardy, he/she will notify the Tribe/Consortium in writing of this determination and of the Tribe's/Consortium's right to appeal
( b ) After the reassumption, the Secretary is responsible for the reassumed program, and will take appropriate corrective action to eliminate the imminent jeopardy which may include sending Department employees to the site.
```

                                  Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, James Meier, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on Form  10-Q of  Meier  Worldwide
Intermedia, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4. I am 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 we have:

     a)  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 is made known to us
by others within the Corporation,  particularly  during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) 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

     c) 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  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial  reporting,  to the  registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a) 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

     b) 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.

Date:  October 22, 2003

/s/ James Meier
    James Meier
    President, CEO and Chief Accounting Officer
```