alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Memorandum 

DATE: Apr1119, 2016 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAl SAfETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: Transmission of charge questions for the peer review of the TSCA Work Plan Chemica l 

Assessment for 1-Bromopropane (1-BP) on May 24-25, 20 16 by the Chemical Safety 

Advisory Committee (CSAC) 

TO: 

FROM: 

Laura Bailey 

Executive Secretary 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Staff 

Office of Science Coordination and Policy 

Tala Henry, Director • ~ ?!_J Risk Assessment Di isio~C: /e- c_)- Office of Pollution Prevention and Taxies 

Transmitted with this memo are the final charge questions to the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee 

(CSAC) for the peer review of the draft risk assessment TSCA Work Plan Chemical 1-Bromopropane (1-

BP). The CSAC is scheduled to review the draft risk assessment on May 24-25, 2016. These charge 

questions do not contain any information protected by copyright, protected under statute as Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or otherwise protected from disclosure to the public. The charge questions are 

attached: 

Document Title 

1. 1-BromoQropane (1 -BP) final peer review charge questions (PDF) 

cc: 

Stan Barone, Deputy Director, Risk Assessment Division 

Alva Daniels, Senior Advisor, Risk Assessment Division 

Jeff Morris, Deputy Office Director, Office of Pollution Prevention & Taxies 

Date 

4/18/20 16
### §9405. Civilian flying school instructors: instruction at Air Force training commands

(a) The Secretary of the Air Force may provide for the instruction and training, at Air Force training commands, of civilians selected from the instructional staffs of civilian flying schools that are accredited by the Department of the Air Force for the education and training of members of the Air Force.

(b) The training of civilians under subsection (a) shall be without cost to the United States, except for supplies necessary for training purposes.

(c) A civilian undergoing training under subsection (a) may be treated in a Government hospital if he becomes sick or is injured. However, that treatment shall be without cost to the United States except for services of Government medical personnel and the use of hospital equipment other than medicine or supplies.

(d) No civilian who sustains a personal injury, and no dependent of a civilian who dies of disease or injury, while undergoing training under subsection (a), is entitled to any compensation, pension, or gratuity for that injury or death.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 560, §9305; renumbered §9405, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(a)(3), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1832.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9305(a)9305(b) | 10:292c–1 (less provisos).10:292c–1 (1st proviso). | Apr. 3, 1939, ch. 35, §3, 53 Stat. 556. |
| 9305(c) | 10:292c–1 (2d proviso). | |
| 9305(d) | 10:292c–1 (last proviso). | |

9305(b)

10:292c–1 (1st proviso).

In subsection (a), the words "under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe" are omitted, since the Secretary has inherent authority to issue regulations appropriate to exercising his statutory functions. The words "Air Force training commands" are substituted for the words "the Air Corps Training Center", since those commands now perform the functions formerly performed by the Air Corps Training Center. The words "in his discretion", "experience", and "upon their own applications" are omitted as surplusage. The words "and may provide for the instruction and training" are substituted for the words "is authorized to enroll as students * * * for the pursuit of such courses of instruction as may be prescribed therefor".

In subsection (b), the words "the furnishing of such" are omitted as surplusage. The words "matériel, or equipment" are omitted as covered by the word "supplies", as defined in section 101(26) of this title.

In subsection (c), the word "Government" is substituted for the words "Medical Department" to conform to the first sentence of the revised subsection.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 9305 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
§ 309.18 What are examples of hide, leatherwork, and fur that are Indian products? ( a ) Hide, leatherwork, and fur made or significantly decorated by an Indian, including, but not limited to, parfleches, tipis, horse trappings and tack, pouches, bags, and hide paintings, are Indian products.
( b ) Specific examples include, but are not limited to: narrative painted hides, martingales, saddles, bonnet cases, drapes, quirts, forelocks, rosettes, horse masks, bridles, head stalls, cinches, saddle bags, side drops, harnesses, arm bands, belts, and other hand crafted items with studs and tooling.
[68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003]
### §9780. Acquisition of buildings in District of Columbia

(a) In time of war or when war is imminent, the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire by lease any building, or part of a building, in the District of Columbia that may be needed for military purposes.

(b) At any time, the Secretary may, for the purposes of the Department of the Air Force, requisition the use and take possession of any building or space in any building, and its appurtenances, in the District of Columbia, other than—

(1) a dwelling house occupied as such;

(2) a building occupied by any other agency of the United States; or

(3) space in such a dwelling house or building.

The Secretary shall determine, and pay out of funds appropriated for the payment of rent by the Department of the Air Force, just compensation for that use. If the amount of the compensation is not satisfactory to the person entitled to it, the Secretary shall pay 75 percent of it to that person, and the claimant is entitled to recover by action against the United States an additional amount that, when added to the amount paid by the Secretary, is determined by the court to be just compensation for that use.

(Added Pub. L. 85–861, §1(203)(A), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1542.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9780(a)9780(b) | 40:37.40:41. | July 9, 1918, ch. 143 (3d proviso under "Barracks and Quarters"), 40 Stat. 861. |
| | | July 8, 1918, ch. 139 (2d par. under "War Department"), 40 Stat. 826. |

9780(b)

40:41.

In subsection (a), the words "may acquire by lease" are substituted for the words "is authorized, in his discretion, to rent or lease". The word "needed" is substituted for the word "required".

In subsection (b), the words "At any time" are inserted for clarity. The word "may" is substituted for the words "is authorized". The word "agency" is substituted for the word "branch". Clause (3) is inserted for clarity. The word "determine" is substituted for the word "ascertain". The words "out of funds appropriated for the payment of rent by" are substituted for the words "within the limits of the appropriations for rent made by any act making appropriations for". The word "is" is substituted for the word "be". The words "so ascertained" and "in the manner provided by sections 41(20) and 250 of Title 28" are omitted as surplusage, since those sections were repealed in 1948 and replaced by sections 1346, 1491, 1496, 1501, 1503, 2401, 2402, and 2501 of that title.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-54 

April 19, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041 Termination by Plan Administrator

4048 Date of Termination 

OPINION: 

 This is in reference to your letter of February 11, 1976. You have asked for our opinion regarding the coverage

under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act") of three plans, which you refer to

as Plans X, Y and Z. 

* * * notes of his conversation with you indicate that you advised him that the required corporate action to effect

a termination of each of the Plans effective November 30, 1973 was taken and that benefit accruals ceased on that date,

However, as a result of deficiency in funding of Plan X for the Plan year ended December 31, 1972, of Plan Y for the

Plan year ended April 30, 1973 and of Plan Z for the Plan year ended June 30, 1973, Corporations X, Y and Z each made

four payments in 1974 "in full discharge of the deficit of such Plan years." One such payment on behalf of each plan was

made in November, 1974. Based on these representations, * * * stated his personal view that the plans had terminated

prior to the date of enactment of the Act and, therefore, that they were not covered by Title IV. 

The facts presented in your letter appear to confirm the information underlying [*2] * * * opinion. On that basis

we confirm that opinion. 

We hope this is of assistance. 

George B. Driesen 

Deputy General Counsel
# C_2006261EN.01002402.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/24

---

Action brought on 1 September 2006 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission

(Case T-236/06)

(2006/C 261/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: S.R. Laskowski and J. Caspar)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | suspend the proceedings, in so far as the European Court of Justice has not yet ruled on the dispute pending before it in the same case.
  In so far as the European Court of Justice declares that it has no jurisdiction and refers the case back to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

suspend the proceedings, in so far as the European Court of Justice has not yet ruled on the dispute pending before it in the same case.

In so far as the European Court of Justice declares that it has no jurisdiction and refers the case back to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

| — | annul the Commission decisions of 10 March 2006 and 23 June 2006; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decisions of 10 March 2006 and 23 June 2006; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision, the Commission refused the applicant's request for access to document SEK (2005) 420 on the basis of the second indent of Article 4(2) of the transparency regulation (1). This document contains a legal analysis of the Community's competence in the field of the retention of personal data by operators of electronic communications networks.

1

The applicant alleges, first, breach of Article 10 EC in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 1 EU. The applicant takes the view that the Commission is under an obligation to grant it access to the document which it has applied for in the framework of the reciprocal duties of genuine cooperation in accordance with the principle of transparency, on the ground that there is a strong public and parliamentary interest in full disclosure of this document.

The applicant further alleges breach of Article 255 EC and Article 2(1) of the transparency regulation. It submits in this regard that the Commission was wrong to base its refusal to grant access to the document applied for on the second indent of Article 4(2) of the transparency regulation, since disclosure of the document would not have prejudiced the Commission's legal advice. The defendant therefore incorrectly exercised its discretion.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

1

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0006129

13-APR-2017

07:45 AM
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Mortality Table For 2017 Valuation Dates 

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.

# ERISA Section 4044 Mortality Table for 2017 Valuation Dates

This mortality table is used to determine the present value of annuities in involuntary terminations and distress terminations of single-employer plans, as discussed in 29 CFR 4044. This mortality table is also available in EXCEL. 

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables page.

November 29, 2018

##           Related Information      

Subscribe to Interest Rate Updates
IV

House Calendar No. 304

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 617

[Report No. 106–953]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 10, 2000

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

printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations

for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other

purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for
2

HRES 617 RH

1 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Adminis2 tration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year

3 ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All

4 points of order against the conference report and against

5 its consideration are waived. The conference report shall

6 be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 304

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 617

[Report No. 106–953]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4461) making

appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

OCTOBER 10, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-4 

March 20, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 3(17) Definitions. Separate Account

3(34) Definitions. Individual Account Plan

4021(a) Plans Covered. Requirements of Coverage 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter dated March 7, 1975, in which you inquire whether the above-captioned pension

plan ("Plan") is covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("Act"). 

Based on a review of the materials enclosed with your letter, it appears that the Plan provides for a fixed annual

annuity (with certain other options) beginning at retirement age as defined in the Plan; the amount of the annuity to be

determined by a formula established in the Plan. It further appears that the Plan is funded through the purchase of

individual retirement insurance policies and retirement annuity contracts from an insurance company. 

Section 4021 of the Act provides mandatory coverage of a defined benefit pension plan which, inter alia, "has been

determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be, a plan described in Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code,"

provided that the plan is not an individual account plan or a separate account plan. 

In the materials enclosed with your letter was an I.R.S. determination dated January 16, [*2] 1968, which found

your Plan to meet the requirements of § 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

For purposes of determining coverage under the Act, the term "separate account" refers to "an account established

or maintained by an insurance company under which income, gains, and losses, whether or not realized, from assets

allocated to such account, are, in accordance with the applicable contract, credited or charged against such account

without regard to other income, gains, or losses of the insurance company." (Act § 3(17) 88 Stat. 835.) The term

individual account plan refers to a plan in which the level of benefits for each employee may fluctuate up or down

depending on the experience of his account. 

In your Plan; the level of benefits is apparently fixed by a formula and is not dependent on the experience of each

separate insurance policy. The Plan has been determined by I.R.S. to be a qualified plan. Accordingly, on the basis of

the information you have supplied, it appears that the * * * is covered by the plan termination insurance provisions of

Title IV of the Act. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
#### § 26.2 Who authorizes this collection of information?

The information collection requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and assigned OMB clearance number 1076-0062. Response is required to obtain a benefit. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless the form or regulation requesting the information has a currently valid OMB Control Number.
#### § 227.23 Wells.

The lessee shall agree (a) to drill and produce all wells necessary to offset or protect the leased land from drainage by wells on adjoining lands not the property of the lessor, or in lieu thereof, compensate the lessor in full each month for the estimated loss of royalty through drainage: *Provided,* That during the period of supervision by the Secretary of the Interior, the necessity for offset wells shall be determined by the supervisor and payment in lieu of drilling and producing shall be with the consent of, and in an amount determined by the Secretary of the Interior; (b) at the election of the lessee to drill and produce other wells: *Provided,* That the right to drill and produce such other wells shall be subject to any system of well spacing or production allotments authorized and approved under the applicable law or regulations, approved by the Secretary of the Interior and affecting the field or area in which the leased lands are situated; and (c) if the lessee elects not to drill and produce such other wells for any period the Secretary of the Interior may, within 10 days after due notice in writing, either require the drilling and production of such wells to the number necessary, in his opinion, to insure reasonable diligence in the development and operation of the property, or may in lieu of such additional diligent drilling and production require the payment on and after the first anniversary date of the lease of not to exceed $1 per acre per annum, which sum shall be in addition to any rental or royalty herein specified.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 3988 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 005

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 285 $ 24,225.00



### Replacenment 58.0 $ 4,930.0

0 $0 $ 4,930.00 

### 285 $ 1,405,050.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 1,429,275



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

eithe r a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

E xplanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

74-30 

December 16, 1974 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4023(c) Contingent Liability Coverage. PBGC Optional Program with Private Insurers

4023(d) Contingent Liability Coverage. Eligibility for Coverage 

OPINION: 

 This letter is written in response to yours dated November 7, 1974 addressed to this Corporation. 

Your reading of the statute is substantially correct. 

Section 4023(d) provides that "no payment may be made by the Corporation under any insurance provided by it

under this Section (pertaining to contingent liability coverage) . . . unless the premiums on such insurance have been

paid by the employer and the insurance has been in effect . . . for more than 60 months." The Act directs the PBGC to

try "to develop a satisfactory arrangement with private insurers, within 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act"

and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference says "an employer may then pay premiums for the

period since the date of enactment, and this period is to be counted toward completion of the five-year payment of

premiums requirement." You are also correct in stating that the premiums referred to in the instructions which you have

received are, as you state, "premiums paid under the 'basic benefits' insurance [*2] program." 

The conclusion which you have reached inevitably follows: the statute does not currently enable an employer to

insure against the risk that if he terminates a covered pension plan that lacks sufficient assets to pay nonforfeitable, basic

benefits, he will become liable to this Corporation, if it is required to pay those benefits. It is possible that private

carriers may offer insurance against the employer's contingent liability. But the statutory contingent liability insurance

is not yet available. However, we are moving forward with the development of a contingent liability insurance system

so that it can be ready at an early date. 

I trust this answers your inquiry. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director