alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Energy Use Measurements for a Refrigerator-Freezer with two Defrost Cycle Types 

Data recorded in 2009 for Samsung Model RF26VABWP 

 

Temperatures (F)

Fresh Food 41.3

Freezer -4.2

Test Procedure Appendix A1

End Second Part of 

Test at End of 

Second Compressor 

"On" Cycle after 

Defrost

Interim Final Rule 

(IFR) Appendix A

Final Rule 

Appendix A

EP1 (steady) (kWh) 0.3200 0.3200 0.3200 0.3200

EP2 (fresh food defrost) (kWh) 0.1533 0.2467 0.3267 0.4133

EP3 (combined defrost) (kWh) 0.3067 0.4067 0.4400 0.5667

T1 (minutes) 261.0 261.0 261.0 261.0

T2 (minutes) 139.8 180.1 269.5 317.7

T3 (minutes) 184.2 231.0 269.7 360.0

ET contributions

Steady 1.766 1.766 1.766 1.766

Fresh Food Defrost -0.0115 0.0164 -0.0024 0.0152

Combined Defrost 0.0514 0.0784 0.0694 0.0796

Total 1.805 1.860 1.833 1.860

Percent Change compared with 

Appendix A1 3.0% 1.5% 3.0%

Percent Change compared with IFR 

Appendix A 1.5%
-100

10

20

30

40

50

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 

Temperature (F), Power (W) x 0.1

Hours

Fresh Food Compartment

Freezer Compartment

Power
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 659 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 659

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the future of 
Taiwan should be resolved peacefully through a democratic mechanism and 
           with the express consent of the people of Taiwan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 27, 2000

  Mr. Crowley (for himself, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Towns, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
Wexler, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
Cunningham, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Davis of Florida, Ms. Eshoo, 
Mr. Chabot, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Pelosi, 
Mr. Souder, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Berman, Mr. Ackerman, and 
 Mr. Wu) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                  Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the future of 
Taiwan should be resolved peacefully through a democratic mechanism and 
           with the express consent of the people of Taiwan.

Whereas the principle of self-determination is enshrined in Article 1 of the 
        United Nations Charter;
Whereas that article encourages development of friendly relations among nations 
        based on the principles of equal rights and self-determination of 
        peoples;
Whereas the United States and the international community recognize that a right 
        to self-determination exists as a fundamental right of all people, as 
        set forth in numerous United Nations instruments of which the United 
        States is a signatory;
Whereas the people of Taiwan are committed to the principles of freedom, 
        justice, and democracy;
Whereas Taiwan has a defined territory, a defined population, and the ability to 
        enter into and keep international agreements;
Whereas on February 24, 2000, and March 8, 2000, President Clinton stated: ``We 
        will . . . continue to make absolutely clear that the issues between 
        Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of 
        the people of Taiwan.''; and
Whereas both the Republican party and the Democratic party have recently 
        emphasized in their respective platforms that the future of Taiwan 
        should be determined with the consent of its people: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the future of Taiwan should be resolved peacefully through a democratic 
mechanism and with the express consent of the people of Taiwan.
                                 <all>
```
### §8873. Allowance of expenses to marshals

The marshal shall be allowed his actual and necessary expenses for the custody, care, preservation, insurance, and sale or other disposal of the prize property, and for executing any order of the court in the prize cause. Charges of the marshal for expenses or disbursements shall be allowed only upon his oath that they have been necessarily incurred for the purpose stated.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 481, §7673; renumbered §8873, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(9), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7673 | 34 U.S.C. 1153. | R.S. 4645. |

34 U.S.C. 1153 and the revised section reflect the Act of May 28, 1896, ch. 252, §6, 29 Stat. 179, which provided that marshals should receive annual salaries in lieu of the fees and emoluments previously allowed them.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7673 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.
### Regular Totals (Holders)

Airport = EWR

Holder = 0001(Exclude)

Status Date = 01/01/2011 (History & Current) 02/23/2015 07:50:13



### Query Parameters:

### 02/23/2015 07:50:13

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Holders)

Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2011 (History & Current)

EWR

AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 54

ACA AIR CANADA 24

AFR AIR FRANCE 2

AIC AIR INDIA 2

ASA ALASKA AIRLINES 4

AVI L'AVION/OPENSKIES 4

AZA ALITALIA 2

BAW BRITISH AIRWAYS 6

CKS KALITTA FLYING SERVICES (AMERICAN INT'L 1

COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 881

CSQ IBC AIRWAYS 2

DAL DELTA AIR LINES 64

DLH DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA 9

ELY EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES 2

EVA EVA AIRLINES 2

FDX FED EX 8

JAI JET AIRWAYS 2

JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 29

POE PORTER AIRLINES 20

QTR QATAR AIRWAYS 2

RPA REPUBLIC AIRLINE 8

SAS SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES 4

SIA SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED 2

SWR SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES (SWISSAIR 2

TAP TAP-AIR PORTUGAL 2

TRS AIRTRAN AIRWAYS (new 3ltr eff 03/22/03) 13

UAL UNITED AIRLINES 33

UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 5

USA US AIRWAYS 31

VIR VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIR 4

WJA WESTJET 2

Page 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 70 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 70

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on International 
              Relations in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1999

 Mr. Gilman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on International 
              Relations in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on International Relations 
(hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $11,659,355.00 for the 
One Hundred Sixth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $5,776,761.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1999, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2000; and
            (2) not more than $5,882,594.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2000, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2001.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

81-40 

December 9, 1981 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for a determination by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as to whether

the above pension plan (the "Plan") is excluded from coverage under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by Section 4021(b)(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(2). Based on the present facts,

we conclude that the Plan is not a governmental plan and thus is not excluded from coverage by that section. 

As you have represented the facts, * * * was incorporated in 1962 by fifteen private citizens under the Missouri

nonprofit corporation statute. * * * was established to operate municipal facilities for the furnishing of free medical care

to indigent residents of * * * City. The facilities operated by * * * are leased to it. * * * Board of Directors is comprised

of 47 individuals, seven of whom represent and are selected by * * * City and seven of whom represent and are selected

by * * * County. Thus, the majority of Directors do not represent interested governments. More than half of * * *

revenues are derived from sources other than state, county, and municipal subventions. * * * employees [*2] are treated

as nongovernmental for purposes of the Social Security program. 

In 1963 the Internal Revenue Service determined that * * * was a "wholly-owned instrumentality of * * * City."

However, by letter dated December 2, 1980, the Labor-Management Services Administration of the Department of Labor

(the "DOL" ) notified * * * of its determination that * * * is not a governmental agency or instrumentality and that,

therefore, the Plan is not excluded from coverage under Title I of ERISA (which the DOL administers). 

 It appears to us that the Authority is not a governmental agency or instrumentality within the meaning of Section

4021(b)(2) and, therefore, that the Plan is covered by Title IV. 

This letter constitutes an initial determination by the PBGC which is subject to reconsideration pursuant to the

PBGC's Administrative Review Regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 2618, a copy of which is enclosed. As provided in Subpart C

of the Regulation, any request for reconsideration must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. 

I hope I have been of assistance. If you have any questions, please contact the attorney assigned to this case, * *

* at (202) 254-3010. 

Henry Rose [*3] 

General Counsel
# C_2006230EN.01000101.xml

| 23.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 September 2006

(2006/C 230/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2817 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 148,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4602 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67365 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2580 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5812 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 90,97 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3455 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5766 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,483 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 276,97 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9784 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5636 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,60 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,568 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9618 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7013 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4264 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9761 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9468 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0285 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 213,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8262 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,1504 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4350 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 778,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,711 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,482 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,1750 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,957 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2817

JPY

Japanese yen

148,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4602

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67365

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2580

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5812

ISK

Iceland króna

90,97

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3455

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5766

CZK

Czech koruna

28,483

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

276,97

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9784

RON

Romanian leu

3,5636

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,60

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,568

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9618

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7013

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4264

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9761

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9468

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0285

KRW

South Korean won

1 213,64

ZAR

South African rand

9,8262

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,1504

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4350

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 778,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,711

PHP

Philippine peso

64,482

RUB

Russian rouble

34,1750

THB

Thai baht

47,957

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Baltazar Duarte et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 314]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated September 28, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the claims based on Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and common-law negligence is dismissed, as those claims were voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiffs; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, and those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the claims based on Labor Law § 241 and loss of consortium are granted; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the issue of whether the defendant City of New York (hereinafter the City) was an “owner” of the work site for purposes of Labor Law liability *523may be considered on appeal *(see Block v Magee,*146 AD2d 730, 732-733 [1989]).

The City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by tendering evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the New York State Department of Transportation was in charge of the project involving the cleaning and painting of the Kosciuszko Bridge, that the City did not perform any of the work, and that the City’s role was largely confined to its regulatory responsibilities arising out of its issuance of work permits *(see Albanese v City of New York,*5 NY3d 217, 221 [2005]; *cf. Nowlin v City of New York,*81 NY2d 81 [1993]). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The maintenance agreement between the State of New York and the City expressly limited the scope of the maintenance responsibilities delegated by the State to the City, and did not encompass the subject project *(see*Highway Law § 349-c). Miller, J.E, Ritter, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Derek Lee Casey, Jr.

, * From the 350th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 12110

- D.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 138

- CR * December 14 , 2017

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered Derek Lee Casey, Jr.’s motion to dismiss his

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in

accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
§ 516.4 How are records certified or authenticated? ( a ) Upon request, the person having custody and responsibility for maintenance of records which are to be released under this part or 25 CFR parts 515 or 517 may certify the authenticity of copies of records that are requested to be provided in such format.
( b ) A request for certified copies of records or for authentication of copies of records shall be sent to the following address: NIGC Attn: Freedom of Information Act Officer, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240.
[64 FR 54542, Oct. 7, 1999, as amended at 80 FR 31994, June 5, 2015]
# C_2006326EN.01008501.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/85

---

Action brought on 3 November 2006 — H v Council

(Case F-127/06)

(2006/C 326/171)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: H (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | annul the Council's decision of 15 March 2006 automatically to retire the applicant on 31 March 2006 in so far as it allows her an invalidity pension pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Council's decision of 15 March 2006 automatically to retire the applicant on 31 March 2006 in so far as it allows her an invalidity pension pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who was retired with effect from 30 April 2003 due to her invalidity, was reintegrated on 1 November 2004. Following a number of absences due to illness, the Council once again retired her and granted her the invalidity allowance provided for in the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with effect from 1 April 2006.

In support of her action, the applicant claims that the Invalidity Committee did not rule on the origin of her illness or on a possible causal link between the deterioration of her illness and her working conditions. In those circumstances, the Council did not have the necessary information to determine whether the applicant was entitled to the allowance provided for by the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations or the one provided for in the fifth paragraph of that article. The Council's choice, less favourable to the applicant, is unlawful.

The applicant adds that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the nature of her illness, which indeed deteriorated due to her return to work and the stress linked to her carrying out her professional duties.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 63 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 63

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Resources in the 
                      One Hundred Sixth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1999

   Mr. Young of Alaska submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Resources in the 
                      One Hundred Sixth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Resources (hereinafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the expenses of 
all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 
not more than $11,270,338.00 for the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $5,530,746.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1999, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2000; and
            (2) not more than $5,739,592.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2000, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2001.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
## 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.