alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1000.126 What does “special geographic, historical or cultural” mean? ( a ) *Geographic* generally refers to all lands presently “on or near” an Indian reservation, and all other lands within “Indian country,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151. In addition, “geographic” includes: ( 1 ) Lands of former reservations;
( 2 ) Lands on or near those conveyed or to be conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA);
( 3 ) Judicially established aboriginal lands of a Tribe or a Consortium member or as verified by the Secretary; and
( 4 ) Lands and waters pertaining to Indian rights in natural resources, hunting, fishing, gathering, and subsistence activities, provided or protected by treaty or other applicable law.
( b ) *Historical* generally refers to programs or lands having a particular history that is relevant to the Tribe. For example, particular trails, forts, significant sites, or educational activities that relate to the history of a particular Tribe.
( c ) *Cultural* refers to programs, sites, or activities as defined by individual Tribal traditions and may include, for example: ( 1 ) Sacred and medicinal sites;
( 2 ) Gathering of medicines or materials such as grasses for basket weaving; or
( 3 ) Other traditional activities, including, but not limited to, subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering.
### Postglacial drainage evolution and stream geometry in the Ontonagon area, Michigan

By: J.T. Hack

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp504B

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (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.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Multiemployer Plans 
-  2016 MPRA Report 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# 2016 MPRA Report

The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) increased premiums plans pay to PBGC and allowed some plans that are projected to run out of money within 20 years to apply to reduce benefit amounts and/or ask for early financial assistance from PBGC. (PBGC typically provides financial assistance after plans run out of money, so that plans can continue to pay benefits at the level of PBGC guarantees.) The Act requires PBGC to report to Congress on whether current premium levels are sufficient to meet average expected financial assistance obligations. If premiums are not enough, PBGC is to provide a schedule of revised premiums sufficient to meet (but not exceed) such obligations. 

PBGC ME Fund Exhausted During FY 2024, but

Suspensions/Partitions Reduce Long Term Payment Obligations

The MPRA Report shows that the current level of premiums don’t provide PBGC the ability to pay expected levels of financial assistance for the next ten years. Assuming average expected levels of financial assistance, PBGC’s multiemployer program fund is drained during 2024. 

Premium to Meet 20-Year Obligations Increases Significantly,

Suspensions Especially if Plans’ Insolvency is Advanced

In order to pay average expected levels of financial assistance through 2035, premiums would need to rise substantially. The amount of premium revenue needed to pay average projected obligations varies depending on the degree to which plans adopt suspensions and partitions, and the extent to which premiums are not paid out of existing plan assets or can otherwise be carefully assessed so as to avoid accelerating the insolvency of troubled plans. The range of potential increases is wide, ranging from 285 percent to 533 percent for 20 year solvency. 

The report also summarizes PBGC’s multiemployer guarantee structure, the history of PBGC multiemployer premiums and financial assistance, and the amount of premium required in order to provide solvency of PBGC’s multiemployer fund for 10-year periods. To read the report click here. To read the transmittal letter click here. 

The MPRA Report also summarizes PBGC’s multiemployer guarantee structure, the history of PBGC multiemployer premiums and financial assistance, and the amount of premium required in order to provide solvency of PBGC’s multiemployer fund for 10-year periods. 

The Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) is the modeling system that PBGC uses to estimate the future of the single-employer and multiemployer PBGC programs. It is also used to model the U.S. private pension system. 

November 3, 2021
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Regulatory Agendas/Plans 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Regulatory Agendas/Plans

PBGC's complete Semiannual Regulatory Agendas are available at reginfo.gov. PBGC posts links to that web site each time a new agenda is made available. 

## Current Regulatory Plan and Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

## **Historical Regulatory Agendas and Plans**

December 8, 2023
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Placement of children with relatives:current through...**
 
2013
 
SuDoc Number:HE 23.1210:P 69/3/
Item Number:0445-L-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001039946
 
February 26, 2018
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.20 How will the Secretary interpret and implement this part and the Act? ( a ) The Secretary will interpret and implement this part and the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act (the Act) in accordance with the self-determination and energy development provisions and policies in the Act.
( b ) The Secretary will liberally construe this part and the Act for the benefit of Tribes to implement the Federal policy of self-determination. The Secretary will construe any ambiguities in this part or the Act in favor of the Tribe to implement a TERA as authorized by this part and the Act.
# C_2006178EN.01002601.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/26

---

Appeal brought on 1 June 2006 by Saiwa s.p.a. against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 Saiwa s.p.a. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) and Barilla Alimentare s.p.a.

(Case C-245/06 P)

(2006/C 178/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Saiwa s.p.a. (represented by: G. Sena, P. Tarchini, J.-P. Karsenty, M. Karsenty-Ricard, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla Alimentare

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgement under appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgement under appeal.

| — | Grant the form of order sought at first instance, and therefore annul, for infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 18 July 2003 in Case R 480/2002-4 and the rejection of the application for registration of Barilla Alimentare s.p.a. No 289.405. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the form of order sought at first instance, and therefore annul, for infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 18 July 2003 in Case R 480/2002-4 and the rejection of the application for registration of Barilla Alimentare s.p.a. No 289.405.

1

| — | Order the OHIM and Barilla Alimentare s.p.a. to pay the costs of all of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the OHIM and Barilla Alimentare s.p.a. to pay the costs of all of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward a single ground for annulment based on infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The applicant claims that the expression ‘ORO’ (of which the trade mark which is the subject of the dispute consists, or which in any case forms part thereof) has inherent distinctive character; that with reference to the international mark (which is also the subject of the present dispute) part of the relevant public is unaware of the meaning of the word ‘ORO’ and that this is common knowledge and does not have to be proved by the parties; that having regard to the principle of interdependence, given the identity of the goods covered and signs in question, it is sufficient that the earlier sign has only weak distinctiveness.

The applicant submits moreover that the distinctive character of the word ‘ORO’ is reinforced and/or acquired through use, with regard to both the trade mark ‘ORO’ and the trade mark ‘ORO SAIWA’.

The applicant finally submits that the trade marks ‘ORO’ and ‘ORO SAIWA’ on the one hand, and ‘Selezione ORO BARILLA’ on the other hand, are likely to be confused and that in any case there is a likelihood of association between them.

---

(1)  OJ L 22, p. 50.

1

---
§ 291.11 What must the Secretary do upon receiving the proposal selected by the mediator? Within 60 days of receiving the proposal selected by the mediator, the Secretary must do one of the following: ( a ) Notify the Indian tribe, the Governor and the Attorney General in writing of his/her decision to approve the proposal for Class III gaming procedures selected by the mediator; or
( b ) Notify the Indian tribe, the Governor and the Attorney General in writing of his/her decision to disapprove the proposal selected by the mediator for any of the following reasons: ( 1 ) The requirements of § 291.4 are not adequately addressed;
( 2 ) Gaming activities would not be conducted on Indian lands over which the Indian tribe has jurisdiction;
( 3 ) Contemplated gaming activities are not permitted in the State for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity;
( 4 ) The proposal is not consistent with relevant provisions of the laws of the State;
( 5 ) The proposal is not consistent with the trust obligations of the United States to the Indian tribe;
( 6 ) The proposal is not consistent with applicable provisions of IGRA; or
( 7 ) The proposal is not consistent with provisions of other applicable Federal laws.
( c ) If the Secretary rejects the mediator's proposal under paragraph (b) of this section, he/she must prescribe appropriate procedures within 60 days under which Class III gaming may take place that comport with the mediator's selected proposal as much as possible, the provisions of IGRA, and the relevant provisions of the laws of the State.
#### § 290.3 Information collection.

The information collection requirements contained in §§ 290.12, 290.17, 290.24 and 290.26 have been approved by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and assigned clearance number 1076-0152.
#### STATE v. EVERHARDT

No. 515PA89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 1

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 18 January 1990 with review limited to questions as to (1) whether mental injury will support the element of “serious injury” required for a conviction under G.S. 14-31; and, if not, (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of physical injury.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 to the Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642.

# DATES:

February 25, 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret M. Falwell, 202-268-2576.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that it has filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of United States Postal Service To Add International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 to the Competitive Products List, and Notice of Filing Contract (Under Seal). Documents are available at                     *http://www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2011-21 and CP2011-59.                

Neva R. Watson,

Attorney, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 2011-4209 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[ERNST & YOUNG LETTERHEAD]

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

The Board of Directors and Shareholder

KeyCorp Real Estate Capital Markets, Inc.

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanyingManagement's Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria, that KeyCorp Real Estate Capital Markets, Inc. (the Company)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for thecommercial real estate mortgage loans Platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012, and except for Item1122 (d)(3)(i), 1122 (d)(3)(ii), 1122 (d)(3)(iii) and 1122 (d)(3)(iv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to theactivities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. Refer to Attachment A of management's assertionfor the asset backed transactions covered by this Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicingcriteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestationstandards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination includedtesting of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of lessthan all of the servicing activities related to the Platform and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactionsand performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited tothe selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedureswere not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactionsor any other transactions. Although the Company is responsible for assessing compliance with 1122 (d)(1)(iii) of Regulation AB,there were no servicing activities performed by the Company during the year ended December 31, 2012 that required these servicingcriteria to be complied with. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company compliedwith the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 for the commercial real estate mortgageloans Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.
#### § 11.904 Guardian ad litem.

The children's court, under any proceeding authorized by this part, shall appoint, for the purposes of the proceeding, a guardian ad litem for a minor, where the court finds that the minor does not have a natural or adoptive parent, guardian or custodian willing and able to exercise effective guardianship, or where the parent, guardian, or custodian has been accused of abusing or neglecting the minor.
# C_2006165EN.01001801.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/18

---

Appeal brought on 9 May 2006 by Herta Adam against the judgment delivered on 22 February 2006 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-342/04 Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-211/06P)

(2006/C 165/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant:Herta Adam (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342 Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342 Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety;

Herta Adam

Commission of the European Communities

| — | Annul the Commission's decision of 22 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision of 22 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of appeal and at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of appeal and at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the allegation that the Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting the concept of ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ set out in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

---
South Coast Air Quality Management District

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178

Dear Dr. Liu:

Thank you for your submission of the South Coast Air Quality Management

District’s (SCAQMD) 2009 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. We have

reviewed the submitted document and have found that it meets the minimum

requirements set forth under 40 CFR Part 58.10. While this letter serves as official

approval of the annual network plan, it does not constitute approval of the system

modifications that are proposed in the plan for the future. We will continue to work withyour district to review system changes as they proceed.

We also want to thank you for your timely submission of the SCAQMD’s 2010

Monitoring Network Assessment Report, as required under 40 CFR Part 58.10. Werecognize that preparing the network assessment was a significant project and we

appreciate your effort. We plan on providing feedback to all agencies on networkassessments during the winter 2011.

Enclosed, please find our comments on the plan. If you have any questions

regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to contact me at (415)

972-3851 or Kate Hoag at (415) 972-3970.

Sincerely,

Matthew Lakin, Manager

Air Quality Analysis OfficeAir Division

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Phil Fine, SCAQMD

Dr. Jason Low, SCAQMD

Pnnsed on Recycled Paper
2. For all proposed changes, when the District has completed its evaluation, please submit

any request with the appropriate documentation to EPA Region 9 for our approval.

3. Page ten outlines the requirements for PM25samplers. The table lists all the required

monitors together. For future plans, please list separately the various requirements

(FRM, continuous, collocated) and how they are met.

4. Please specifically state which sites are meeting the collocation requirements for PM2.5

and PM10.

5. Table 1 on page 12 does not list a N02 mOnitor at the Riverside site, but one is included•

in the detailed site information on page B-236. Please change the table or the site

description to reflect the monitors currently at the site.

6. While Appendix B provides a good overview of the monitoring stations in SCAQMD,

some ofthe detailed site information is incomplete. The following list provides examples

of information that was not included or consistent for all monitors. Please ensure thatthese tables are complete for your future network plans:

i. Site type (SLAMS/SPM etc.)

ii. List FRMJFEM/non-FEM and method code for particulate monitors.

iii. List POC for each monitor

iv. Date of the last Annual Performance Evaluation, App. A, 3.2.2 (gaseous

instruments)

v. Dates of the last two semi-annual flow rate audits for PM monitors, App A

3.2.4 and 3.3.3 (automated and manual)

vi. Date of the past year’s PM25-PEP and Pb-PEP audits, App A 3.2.7 and

4.3,2.