alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Oryzalin Biological Opinion

United Phosphorus, Inc and Celsius Property BV April 11, 2012

## Comments on Opinion

• Registrant/Registration Information

– Two technical registrants: UPI and Celsius (p. 37)

– There are no combination products with glyphosate (p. 39 and 493)

## Comments on Opinion

• Use rates

– One label (outside other labeled rates) will be amended (p. 42)

– EPA Reg. No. 8660 - 150 is intended for one application per year (p. 42)

– EPA Reg. No. 70506 - 54 is an MUP; no rates provided (p. 42)

• Assume meant 70506 - 55, intended for one application per year

## Comments on Opinion

• Data to be developed in registration review

– Aerobic aquatic metabolism

– Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

– Estuarine/marine invertebrate life cycle

– Estuarine/marine early life stage

– Freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrate acute and chronic sediment toxicity

– Terrestrial plant toxicity

– Aquatic plant growth (vascular and non - vascular)

## RPAs

• Watered in or soil incorporated within 300 ft of salmon bearing waters

– How was the distance determined?

## RPAs

• 10 ft. vegetative buffer or 20 ft. no spray zone

– How was this value determined?

• Were all application methods considered, including spreader?

– Could pose enforcement problems

• Mean high water mark?
• Average water line?

## Next Steps

• UPI and Celsius will prepare a formal submission with comments on the draft 

### BiOp
### §8871. Payment of costs and expenses from prize fund

(a) Payment may not be made from a prize fund except upon the order of the court. The court may, at any time, order the payment, from the deposit made with the Treasurer or public depositary in the cause, of costs or charges accrued and allowed.

(b) When the cause is finally disposed of, the court shall order the Treasurer or public depositary to pay the costs and charges allowed and unpaid. If the final decree is for restitution, or if there is no money subject to the order of the court in the cause, costs or charges allowed by the court and not paid by the claimants shall be paid out of the fund for paying the expenses of suits in which the United States is a party or is interested.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 480, §7671; renumbered §8871, 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) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7671 | 34 U.S.C. 1150 (less 2d sentence). | R.S. 4640 (less 2d sentence). |

In subsection (b) the words "or orders" after "order" are omitted as surplusage. The words "a charge upon and" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7671 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.
#### § 293.13 Who can withdraw a compact or amendment after it has been received by the Secretary?

To withdraw a compact or amendment after it has been received by the Secretary, the Tribe and the State must both submit a written request to the Director, Office of Indian Gaming at the address listed in § 293.9.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.33 Are all proposals to renew term contracts subject to the declination criteria?

Department of Health and Human Services and the Bureau of Indian Affairs will not review the renewal of a term contract for declination issues where no material and substantial change to the scope or funding of a program, functions, services, or activities has been proposed by the Indian tribe or tribal organization. Proposals to renew term contracts with DOI agencies other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs may be reviewed under the declination criteria.
1 

### Cole, Jeffrey D.

From: DANTZLER, KEN S [KEN .DANTZLER@scana.com]

Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:28 AM

To: Cole, Jeffrey D.

Cc: PEARSON, CRAIG E

Subject: RE: Details about EU MACT ICR Hg emission test results

We were burning coal treated with a fuel additive during the ICR test. We’ve had a Hg monitor on Unit #1 since May of

2009. During that time we’ve seen variability from 9.3 X 10 ‐ 8 #/mmBTU(APRIL 2010) to 7.16 X 10 ‐ 7 #/mmBTU (August

2009). Those are average values for the month. The variability in Hg is associated with the Hg in the coal. I suspect that

the low number measured during the ICR testing was due to lower Hg in the fuel and the addition of the fuel additive.

Thanks,

Ken Dantzler, P.E.

Corporate Environmental Services

Generation Support

(803) 217

‐ 7156 (Office)

(803) 530

‐ 0196 (Cell)

From: Cole, Jeffrey D. [mailto:colejd@rti.org]

Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 12:13 PM

To: DANTZLER, KEN S

Subject: FW: Details about EU MACT ICR Hg emission test results

Ken,

I believe we have spoken before. RTI International is EPA’s contractor on the EU MACT ICR. I need to ask you a question

about McMeekin Unit 1 ’s emission data

. The test report average total Hg emissions reported in Part II under the test

report, “1/17/2006 MCM1” was 1.01E

‐ 6 lb/MMBtu (I have attached the Part II data you provided, see page 19). Your

Unit 1 ’s Hg testing in 2010 under Part III of this ICR reported an average total Hg emission of 8.85E

‐ 08 lb/MMBtu. Your

Part I configuration data shows Unit 1 having no controls newer than 2004. However, these 2 data sets show widely

different total Hg emission averages. Were there any other reasons that these two tests would show such wide variation

in Hg emission results? Thanks.

Jeffrey Cole

RTI International

Global Climate Change & Environmental Sciences Unit

Air Quality Engineering Group

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

‐ 2194

(919) 316

‐ 3408 (voice)

(919) 316

‐ 3420 (fax)
October 2, 2015

Mr. Donald M. Shidler

599 County Road 235C

Rockdale, TX 76567

Dear Mr. Shidler :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21; § § 45.27(a), 45.29(3)(c) through (h), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103, 91.119, and 91.121 of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 25, 2015

, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2802

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps ans wer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 da ys before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
# C_2006291EN.01004502.xml

| 30.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/45

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4293 — Nordic Capital Fund VI/ICA MENY)

(2006/C 291/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4293. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4293. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

AdolescentsAfter School ProgramsChildrenCommunity InvolvementDrug EducationDrug UseParent Child RelationshipParent EducationParent ParticipationParentsUrban SchoolsUrban YouthYouth Programs

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
### §22. Organization certificate

The persons uniting to form such an association shall, under their hands, make an organization certificate, which shall specifically state:

First. The name assumed by such association; which name shall include the word "national".

Second. The place where its operations of discount and deposit are to be carried on, designating the State, Territory, or District, and the particular county and city, town, or village.

Third. The amount of capital stock and the number of shares into which the same is to be divided.

Fourth. The names and places of residence of the shareholders and the number of shares held by each of them.

Fifth. The fact that the certificate is made to enable such persons to avail themselves of the advantages of title 62 of the Revised Statutes.

(R.S. §5134; Pub. L. 86–230, §25, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466; Pub. L. 97–320, title IV, §405(b), Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1512.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Title 62 of the Revised Statutes, referred to in par. Fifth, was in the original "this Title" meaning title LXII of the Revised Statutes, consisting of R.S. §§5133 to 5244, which are classified to this section and sections 16, 21, 23 to 24a, 25a, 25b, 26, 27, 29, 35 to 37, 39, 43, 52, 53, 55 to 57, 59 to 62, 66, 71, 72 to 76, 81, 83 to 86, 90, 91, 93, 93a, 94, 141 to 144, 161, 164, 181, 182, 192 to 194, 196, 215c, 481 to 485, 501, 541, 548, and 582 of this title. See, also, sections 8, 333, 334, 475, 656, 709, 1004, and 1005 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. For complete classification of R.S. §§5133 to 5244 to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

R.S. §5134 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §6, 13 Stat. 101, which was the National Bank Act. See section 38 of this title.

#### Amendments

1982—Par. First. Pub. L. 97–320 struck out "and be subject to the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency" after "national".

1959—Par. First. Pub. L. 86–230 substituted "which named shall include the word 'national' and be" for "which name shall be".
# C_2006326EN.01007401.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/74

---

Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Boston Scientific v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO)

(Case T-325/06)

(2006/C 326/152)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Boston Scientific Ltd (Christ Church, Barbados) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006, served to the representatives of the plaintiff on 18 September 2006, in Case R 61/2006-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006, served to the representatives of the plaintiff on 18 September 2006, in Case R 61/2006-2;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CAPIO’ for goods in class 10 — application No 2 554 434

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national and Community word marks ‘CAPIOX’ and ‘CAPIOX PULSE’ for goods in class 10

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as Terumo failed to prove sufficient use of its trade mark, and of Article 8(1)(b) of the Council regulation as the conflicting trade marks are not likely to be confused.

Pleas in law:

---
[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:****Tennessee�s forests**
 
2004 | 2009
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.80:F 76/T 25/
Item Number:0083-B-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001048759
 
October 23, 2017
CAP CANAL

CAP CANAL

Manville Rd.

Reservation Rd.

Mile Wide Rd.

Trico Rd.

Pump Station Rd.

El Tiro Rd.

Trico-Marana Rd.

Sasco Rd.

Anway Rd.

Avra Valley Rd.

Silverbell Rd.

Curtis Rd.

Picacho Hwy.

Baumgartner Rd.

Cripple Creek Rd. Coachway Rd.

Aries Dr.

Sunland Gin Rd.

Greene Reservoir Rd.

Sandario Rd.

Twin Peaks Rd.

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION BOUNDARY

Saguaro

National

Park

R6E R7E R8E R9E R10E

T11S T10S T9S T12S

T13S T14S

R11E

Pinal County

Pima County

Waterman

Mountains

ACEC

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the use

of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of the information shown. Spatial

information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This

information may be updated without notification.

Universal Tranverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

Clark 1866 Spheroid

NAD27 Datum

Map 2-3

Data Source:

ACEC: BLM 2005

Base Information: BLM 2003

Quadrangle Image: U.S. Geological Survey 1977 Tucson

P:\BLM\Ironwood\GIS\Plots\RMP_EIS\Chapter_2\Vegetation.pdf

Location in Arizona

Planning Area

Ironwood Forest National Monument

Ironwood Forest National Monument

Draft RMP/EIS

Special Status

Species Management

Alternative A

0 1 2 4 Miles

0 2 4 8 Kilometers

Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal

River

General Reference

County Boundaries

Main public access routes to monument. County administered

roads connecting monument travel route system to public

highways.

Interstate 10

Legend

Waterman Mountains 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Note: 

 Land use allocations, designations, and management 

 prescriptions apply only to public lands administered

 by the BLM. If non-Federal lands are acquired, they

 would be managed according to the allocations

 depicted on the map. 

Reference Information

Surface Management

American Indian Reservation

Military Reservations

State Trust Lands

State, County, City; Wildlife, Park and Outdoor Recreation

Areas

Private

Bureau of Land Management

Pima County

National Park Service

Bureau of Reclamation
§ 584.10 What is the process for pursuing settlement or a consent decree? ( a ) *General.* At any time after the commencement of a proceeding, but at least 5 days before the date scheduled for hearing under § 584.6, the parties may jointly move to defer the hearing for a reasonable time to permit negotiation of a settlement or an agreement containing findings and an order disposing of the whole or any part of the proceeding.
( b ) *Content.* Any agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of the whole or any part of a proceeding shall also provide: ( 1 ) A waiver of any further procedural steps before the Commission;
( 2 ) A waiver of any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order and decision entered into in accordance with the agreement; and
( 3 ) The presiding official's certification of the findings and that the agreement shall constitute dismissal of the appeal and final agency action.
( c ) *Submission.* Before the expiration of the time granted for negotiations, the parties or their authorized representatives may: ( 1 ) Submit to the presiding official a proposed agreement containing consent findings and an order;
( 2 ) Notify the presiding official that the parties have reached a full settlement or partial settlement and have agreed to dismissal of all or part of the action, subject to compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement; or
( 3 ) Inform the presiding official that agreement cannot be reached.
( d ) *Disposition.* In the event a full or partial settlement agreement containing consent findings and an order is submitted within the time granted, the presiding official shall certify such findings and agreement within 30 days after his or her receipt of the submission. Such certification shall constitute full or partial dismissal of the appeal, as applicable, and final agency action.
#### Michael Marple *v.*Henry J. Naruk et al.

*Frank Cochran,*in support of the motion.

Submitted April 1

decided April *4,*1974

The plaintiff’s motion for permission to file typewritten briefs in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted provided the briefs are clearly legible and comply with the other requirements of Practice Book § 723, as amended.
§ 307.4 Standards for fabrics. No fabric may carry the Government certificate of genuineness for Navajo all-wool woven fabric unless all of the following conditions are met: ( a ) The fabric is made entirely of local wool that is locally hand-spun and is entirely woven on a native Navajo loom;
( b ) The fabric is made by a member of the Navajo Tribe working under conditions not resembling a workshop or factory system;
( c ) The size of the fabric is indicated in the certificate;
( d ) The licensee signs the certificate.
[Regs., Oct. 20, 1937, as amended at 4 FR 2436, June 17, 1939]
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Careers 

# In This Section

                      -  PHMSA Careers 
                      -  Occupations 
                      -  Recruitment & Outreach Events 
                      -  How to Apply 
                      -  Pay & Leave 
                      -  Benefits 
                      -  Work-Life Programs 

# Careers Pamphlet

Careers_at_PHMSA_Brochure_Final_Option_2_How_to_Apply.pdf (751.99 KB)

PHMSA Careers Pamphlet

*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.*
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 78

Electing members of the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint

Committee of Congress on the Library.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. THOMAS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Electing members of the Joint Committee on Printing and

the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 they are hereby, elected to the following joint committees

3 of Congress, to serve with the chairman of the Committee

4 on House Administration:

5 JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY:

6 Mr. Boehner, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Davis of Florida, and Mr.

7 Hoyer.

8 JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING: Mr. Boehner, Mr.

9 Ney, Mr. Fattah, and Mr. Hoyer.

Æ