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

House Calendar No. 141

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 345

[Report No. 106–420]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part

against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2000, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 27, 1999

Mr. LINDER, 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. 3064) making appropriations

for the government of the District of Columbia and other

activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues

of said District for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2000, 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. 3064) making appropriations for
2

HRES 345 RH

1 the government of the District of Columbia and other ac2 tivities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of

3 said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,

4 2000, and for other purposes. All points of order against

5 the conference report and against its consideration are

6 waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

7 The conference report shall be debatable for two hours

8 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank9 ing minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

House Calendar No. 141

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 345

[Report No. 106–420]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3064) making

appropriations for the government of the Districtof Columbia and other activities chargeable inwhole or in part against revenues of said Districtfor the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000,and for other purposes.

OCTOBER 27, 1999

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
# C_2006294EN.01003602.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/36

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-414/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 294/65)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.01.2006.

1

---
**Sanitized Manufacture of Substrate -**  **Infused Car bon** 

**Nanostructure Complex on Substrate Number Two**

**50 –**  **100 Micron Length**
# C_2006281EN.01001701.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-100/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/66/EC - Energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 281/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations (OJ 2003 L 170, p. 10)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006

1

---
§ 141.19 Check cashing. ( a ) A reservation business may give a fully negotiable check in addition to U.S. currency when cashing a draft, check or money order. A reservation business may not give scrip, credit or other substitute for U.S. currency when cashing a draft, check or money order.
( b ) A reservation business owner or employee may advise a customer cashing checks, money orders or drafts of the amount due on the customer's credit accounts, pawn accounts or any other obligation the customer owes to the business, but in no event may the owner or employee withhold the proceeds of the check, money order or draft from the customer on the basis of existing credit obligations.
[40 FR 39837, Aug. 29, 1975, as amended at 41 FR 3288, Jan. 22, 1976. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]
§ 126.13 Notice of appeal and service. ( a ) *Notice of appeal.* A party seeking review of the ALJ's decision must file a notice of appeal with the TSOB Docket Clerk electronically at *TSOB_docket@hq.dhs.gov* or via certified U.S. mail at ATTN: TSOB Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 20528-0485. A notice of appeal must be filed within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of the ALJ's written decision.
( b ) *Service.* To file any document with a TSOB Review Panel, a party must send the document to the TSOB Docket Clerk electronically at *TSOB_docket@hq.dhs.gov ,* or via certified U.S. mail at ATTN: TSOB Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 20528-0485. Parties are strongly encouraged to file all documents and consent to electronic service. A party may consent to electronic service by filing a document expressly stating such a preference with the TSOB Docket Clerk and serving a copy on all other parties. Any document filed with the TSOB Docket Clerk (except a notice of protected information, the administrative record, ex parte motions, and documents containing classified information, Sensitive Security Information (SSI), or other protected information that accompanies a motion to supplement the record) must also be served on all other parties by certified U.S. mail or electronically/electronic service.
( c ) *Filing date.* For purposes of all deadlines in this part, the date of filing of a notice of appeal or any document filed with a TSOB Review Panel is the date on which the document is received by the TSOB Docket Clerk.
( d ) *Untimely appeals.* A TSOB Review Panel must reject and summarily dismiss a notice of appeal that is filed more than 60 calendar days after the date of issuance of the ALJ's written decision. A TSOB Review Panel may, in its discretion, accept an untimely notice of appeal upon a written showing of good cause for failure to meet the filing deadline.
( e ) *Failure to perfect the appeal.* A TSOB Review Panel may dismiss an appeal, on its own initiative or upon motion of any party, when a party has filed a notice of appeal but failed to perfect the appeal by timely filing a brief in accordance with § 126.23.
( f ) *Effect of dismissal of appeal.* Where an appeal is dismissed in accordance with paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section the ALJ's written decision becomes final.
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

Office of the Maritime Administrator

TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE OF

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

This is to certify that the Ballast Water Management System listed below has been examined and

tested in accordance with the requirements of the specifications contained in the Guidelines

contained in IMO resolution MEPC.174(58). This certificate is valid only for the Ballast Water

Management System referred to below.

Ballast Water Management System supplied by or under license from NEI Treatment Systems,

LLC

Under type and model designation VOS-2500 and incorporating:

Ballast Water Management System manufactured by or under license from NEI Treatment

Systems, LLC

To equipment/assembly drawing No.: 07-2500-101

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

Date: 29 August 2007

Other equipment manufactured by: _N:...:.:..:/A~ _

To equipment/assembly drawing No.: N/A _ Date: N/A

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

Treatment Rated Capacity: 2,500 m3/h

A copy of this Type Approval Certificate should be carried on board a vessel fitted with this

Ballast Water Management System at all times. A reference to the test protocol and a copy of

the test results should be available for inspection on board the vessel.

No limiting conditions are imposed.

Signed

Dated this 6th of July, 2009.

Deputy Commissioner of Maritime Affairs

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Rev. 7/09 MI-252

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
No 02NEI070809

THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA

BUREAU OF MARITIME AFFAIRS

TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE OF

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

This is to certify that the Ballast Water Management System listed below has been

examined and tested in accordance with the requirements of the specifications contained

in the Guidelines contained in IMO resolution MEPC.174(5S). This certificate is valid only

for the Ballast Water Management System referred to below.

Ballast Water Management System supplied by or under license from NEI Treatment

Systems, LLC

Under type and model designation VOS-2500 and incorporating:

Ballast Water Management System manufactured by or under license from NEI Treatment

Systems, LLC

To equipment/assembly drawing No: 07-2500-101 date: 29 August 2007

Other equipment manufactured by: N/ A

To equipment/assembly drawing No.: N/A date: N/A

Treatment Rated Capacity: 2,500 m3/h

A copy of this Type Approval Certificate should be carried on board a vessel fitted

with this Ballast Water Management System at all times. A reference to the test

protocol and a copy of the test results should be available for inspection on board the

vessel.

v\A ~tMtV\~

Signed ..... !. ~..\ .

Deputy Commissioner of Maritime Affairs, Rep

Dated this os". day of July 2007.

Encl. Copy of the original test results.

03/07

FOR REFERENCE ONLY
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
Our mission is to assess all aspects of JTF-RH to ensure optimal quality by 

inspecting facilities, safety equipment, and auditing drafted and awarded 

contracts to provide the highest quality of work performance ensuring 

the safe and expeditious defueling of Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.

What We Do and How We Do It

Our Safety and Quality Assurance Team monitors and evaluates various 

aspects of a project, service, or facility to ensure the standards of 

quality are being met. We use the Quality Management System to 

develop the Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) for internal and 

external regulatory requirements. RTM will ensure our Integrated 

Master Schedule and Work Breakdown Structure meets each milestone 

and is completed on time.

All of our auditors (Safety, Environmental, Contracting, Engineering, and 

Medical) use the RTM and checklists to perform surveillance on all 

phases of operations within the JTF-RH Joint Operation Area to correct 

and resolve any auditing discrepancies. Examples of the programs or 

items that our QA Auditors review and provide evaluation for are 

Contract Quality Validation, Lock Out/Tag Out, Occupational Health, 

Fuel and Hazardous Chemical Spill Response, Personal Protective 

Equipment, and Spill Response Containments/Kits.

Safety and Quality Assurance
§ 700.189 Expenditure of replacement home benefits. Replacement home benefits shall be expended or obligated in full at or before the time of original acquisition except as stated below. It is not anticipated that such exceptions would be common and each such instance shall be reviewed and a determination will be made by the Certification Officer. ( a ) Under unusual circumstances such as: Unknown (latent) defects in the replacement dwellings, significant change of circumstances and extreme hardship, benefits may be expended after the time of original acquisition up to the existing maximum replacement home benefit.
( b ) All replacement home benefits shall be expended not later than one (1) year after the date of payment of the incentive bonus, except under unusual circumstances as stated above, up to the statutory maximum.
( c ) Replacement home benefits shall not be expended for maintenance except under unusual circumstances as stated above, up to the statutory maximum.
( d ) For purposes of this paragraph, the time of original acquisition shall be defined as the date of execution of the Commission's Relocation Contract.
#### § 13.43 Collection of civil penalties and assessments.

Sections 3806 and 3808(b) of title 31, United States Code, authorize actions for collection of civil penalties and assessments imposed under this part and specify the procedures for such actions.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*James Terry, Defendant-Appellee.

(No. 74-108;

Fifth District

November 21, 1974.

William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago, and Richard S. Simpson, State’s Attorney, of Lawrenceville (James B. Zagel and Brian A. David, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for the People.

*198Robert E. Farrell and Richard E. Cunningham, both of State Appellate Defenders Office, of Mt. Vernon (Douglas J. Rathe, Senior Law Student), for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CREBS

delivered the opinion of the court:

On February 14, 1973, defendant James Terry was indicted by the grand, jury of Lawrence County on two counts of indecent liberties with a child.. On November 28, 1973, the Circuit Court of Lawrence County ordered the defendant discharged for want of prosecution. The State has taken this appeal.

In a 2-week period subsequent to the indictment, the defendant filed a series of motions. These consisted of a motion for substitutions of judges, a motion for reduction of bail, a motion for disclosure to the accused, a motion to quash the arrest and suppress evidence, and a motion for a bill of particulars. The trial court granted the motions for substitution of judges and reduction of bail, but held no hearings and made no rulings with respect to the other motions filed by defendant. These motions were still pending at the time defendant was discharged for want of prosecution. Neither the State nor the defendant had ever brought these motions to the court’s attention for disposition.

On June 7, 1973, defendant filed a demand for speedy trial. 163 days later defendant filed his petition for discharge. No action was taken by the State or the defendant during the entire 163-day period. When the defendant filed these motions he was chargeable with delay occasioned by them. Also, he had the primary duty of calling up his motion to suppress. However this does not justify inaction on the part of the State. Here the State had ample time to call up the motions after it appeared that defendant was not going to proceed. Over 90 days passed after the last motion was filed before the defendant made his demand for a speedy trial.

The State cites *People v. Ross,*132 Ill.App.2d 1095, 271 N.E.2d 100 for the proposition that after a motion to suppress is filed the 160-day statute is tolled until the motion is called up by the defendant and the court has ruled on the motion. If that is the holding in *Ross,*we expressly decline to follow it. However we do not so interpret the holding in the *Ross case*and also find the cases completely distinguishable on the facts.

Finding nothing in the record to justify or excuse complete inaction by the State for the full statutory period after the filing of the demand for speedy trial, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lawrence County is affirmed.

EBERSPACHER and CARTER, JJ., concur.
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

## Contact Us

Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory CommitteeU.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**lithiumbatteryFACA@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4488**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee Charter

Charter-of-the-Lithium-Battery-Air-Safety-Advisory-Committee-2023.pdf (124 KB)

Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee Charter

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
§ 700.279 Requests for access to records: Initial decision. ( a ) *Decisions on requests.* A request made under this subpart for access to a record shall be granted promptly unless ( 1 ) the record was compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding or
( 2 ) the record is contained in a system of records which has been excepted from the access provisions of the Privacy Act by rulemaking.
( b ) *Authority to deny requests.* A decision to deny a request for access under this subpart shall be made by the Privacy Act Officer.
( c ) *Form of decision.* ( 1 ) No particular form is required for a decision granting access to a record. The decision shall, however, advise the individual requesting the record as to where and when the record is available for inspection or, as the case may be, where and when copies will be available. If fees are due under § 700.279(d), the individual requesting the record shall also be notified of the amount of fees due or, if the exact amount has not been determined, the approximate amount of fees due.
( 2 ) A decision denying a request for access, in whole or part, shall be in writing and shall state the basis for denial of the request. The decision shall also contain a statement that the denial may be appealed to the Executive Director pursuant to § 700.281 by writing to Privacy Act Officer, Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission, P.O. Box KK, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002, and that the appeal must be received by this official within twenty (20) days (Saturdays, Sundays and public legal holidays excepted) of the date of the decision.
( d ) *Fees.* ( 1 ) No fees may be charged for the cost of searching for or reviewing a record in response to a request made under § 700.271.
( 2 ) Fees for copying a record in response to a request made under § 700.271 shall be charged in accordance with the schedule of charges contained in the Commission's Management Manual, unless the official responsible for processing the request determines that, in his/her opinion, reduction or waiver of fees is appropriate.
( 3 ) Where it is anticipated that fees chargeable in connection with a request will exceed the amount the person submitting the request has indicated he/she is willing to pay, the official processing the request shall notify the requester and shall not complete processing of the request until the requester has agreed, in writing, to pay fees as high as are anticipated.
#### Peter S. Pulver, Respondent, *v.*Abram Martin, Appellant.

(Argued April 17, 1877;

decided April 24, 1877.)

*Charles L.*Beale, for appellant.

*John C.*Newkirk, for respondent.

Agree to affirm on opinion of court below.

All concur, except Folger, Rapallo and Miller, JJ., not voting.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 580.7 What is the burden of proof and standard of review? ( a ) The Chair bears the burden of proof to support his or her action or decision by a preponderance of the evidence.
( b ) The Commission shall review the Chair's actions or decisions de novo.
#### CITY OF RALEIGH v. HOLLINGSWORTH

No. 552P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 260

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 March 1990.
#### § 36.98 Must the homeliving program have an isolation room for ill children?

Yes, the homeliving program must have an isolation room(s) available for ill students. The isolation room (or rooms, if needed) must be made available for use by students with contagious conditions. Contagious boys and girls should have separate rooms. The isolation room(s) should have a separate access to shower and restroom facilities. Students isolated for contagious illness must be supervised as frequently and as closely as the circumstances and protocols require, but at least every 30 minutes.