alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 81.7 Fees and charges. ( a ) No fee or charge will be made for: ( 1 ) Records provided under this part when the direct costs involve less than one hour of search time and 50 pages of photocopying.
( 2 ) Staff-hours spent in resolving any legal or policy questions pertaining to the request.
( 3 ) Copies of records, including those certified as true copies, furnished for official use to a federal government officer or employee.
( 4 ) Copies of pertinent records furnished to a party having a direct and immediate interest in a matter pending before GAO, when necessary or desirable to the performance of a GAO function.
( b ) The fees and charges described below will be assessed for the direct costs of search, review, and reproduction of records available to the public under this part. ( 1 ) The cost for reproduction per page shall be 20 cents.
( 2 ) The cost for a certification of authenticity shall be $10 for each certificate.
( 3 ) Manual search and review for records by office personnel will be assessed at $12, $25, or $45 per hour, depending on the rate of pay of the individual actually conducting the search or review, and the complexity of the search.
( 4 ) Other direct costs related to the request may be charged for such items as computer searches.
( 5 ) Except as noted immediately below, requesters generally will be charged only for document duplication. However, there may be times when a search charge will be added, for example, if records are not described with enough specificity to enable them to be located within one hour. Requesters seeking records for commercial use will be charged for document duplication, search, and review costs. Additionally, representatives of the news media, in support of a news gathering or dissemination function, and education or noncommercial scientific institutions not seeking records for commercial use will be charged only for document duplication, unless such request requires extraordinary search or review.
( c ) GAO shall notify the requester if an advance deposit is required.
( d ) Fees and charges shall be paid by check or money order payable to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
( e ) The Chief Quality Officer may waive or reduce the fees under this section upon a determination that disclosure of the records requested is in the public interest, is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. Persons seeking a waiver or fee reduction may be required to submit a statement setting forth the intended purpose for which the records are requested, indicate how disclosure will primarily benefit the public and, in appropriate cases, explain why the volume of records requested is necessary. Determinations pursuant to this paragraph are solely within the discretion of GAO.
#### § 1318.511 Modification of assignments.

The assignments and responsibilities identified for TVA entities in these procedures can be modified by agreement of the entities involved or by the direction of TVA's Chief Executive Officer.
# C_2011063EN.01003501.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/35

---

Action brought on 30 December 2010 — Mora Carrasco and Others v Parliament

(Case F-128/10)

2011/C 63/64

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Aurora Mora Carrasco and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion exercise;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
| Parent                                                                  |                   |                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| First Bancshares,      Inc.                                        |                   |                                             |
|                                                                    |                   |                                             |
|                                                                    |                   |                                             |
| Subsidiaries      (a)                                         | Percentage   | Jurisdiction      or State of Incorporation |
|                                                                    |                   |                                             |
| First Home Savings      Bank                                       | 100%                   |  Missouri                                   |
|                                                                    |                   |                                             |
| SCMG,      Inc. (formerly South Central Missouri Title, Inc.) | 100%                   | Missouri                                    |
|                                                                    |                   |                                             |
| Fybar Service      Corporation (b)                                 | 100%              | Missouri                                    |
|                                                                    |                   |                                             |
| First Home      Investments, Inc.(b)                               | 100%              | Missouri                                    |

|        (a) | The      operation of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries are included in the      Company's Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report      attached hereto as Exhibit 13. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         (b) | Wholly      owned subsidiary of First Home SavingsBank. |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|

----
### §2704. Evaluation by Secretary of Transportation on utilization of advanced technology by automobile industry

The Secretary of Transportation, in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, shall evaluate the extent to which the automobile industry utilizes advanced automotive technology which is or could be made available to it.

(Pub. L. 95–238, title III, §305, Feb. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 81; Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1121(i), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 724.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1995—Pub. L. 104–66 struck out at end "The Secretary of Transportation shall submit a report to the Congress each year on the results of such evaluation including any appropriate recommendations which may encourage the utilization of advanced automobile technology by the automobile industry."
### §3374. Clauses prohibiting certain sales, transportation, and commingling

#### (a) General rule

Any provision of any contract for the first sale of natural gas is hereby declared against public policy and unenforceable with respect to any natural gas covered by this chapter if such provision—

(1) prohibits the commingling of natural gas subject to such contract with natural gas subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the provisions of the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.];

(2) prohibits the sale of any natural gas subject to such contract to, or transportation of any such natural gas by, any person subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.], or otherwise prohibits the sale or transportation in interstate commerce (within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act) of natural gas subject to such contract; or

(3) terminates, or grants any party the option to terminate, any obligation under any such contract as a result of such commingling, sale, or transportation.

#### (b) Natural gas covered by this chapter

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "natural gas covered by this chapter" means—

(1) natural gas which is not committed or dedicated to interstate commerce as of November 8, 1978;

(2) natural gas, the sale in interstate commerce of which—

(A) is authorized under section 3362(a) or 3371(b) of this title; or

(B) is pursuant to an assignment under section 3372(a) of this title; and,

(3) natural gas, the transportation in interstate commerce of which is—

(A) pursuant to any order under section 3362(c) or section 3363(b), (c), (d), or (h) of this title; or

(B) authorized by the Commission under section 3371(a) of this title.

(Pub. L. 95–621, title III, §314, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3392.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Natural Gas Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), (2), is act June 21, 1938, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, which is classified generally to chapter 15B (§717 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this act to the Code, see section 717w of this title and Tables.
1 From: Aaron Hill [ahill@arg-scrap.com]

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:32 AM

To: Bahner, Mark A.

Cc: Green, David A.; Rochelle Boyd Subject: RE: United Iron & Metal Inc

The Rotary furnace is definitely a different component in the secondary aluminum business than a sweat furnace. A rotary furnace will handle mostly homogenous, less bulky scrap. The rotary is perfect for aluminum cans and dirtier scrap products. There i s typically a large amount of “salt cake” or residual flux and dross from the rotary operation. The sweat furnace can handle large bulky pieces and typically is not used for alloying. The sweat furnace does not employ fluxes and has almost negligible dross . I have not heard of the type of rotary that pulls zinc out as in your example – that sounds interesting but would still not replace the use of a sweat furnace. The rotary furnace is in the same class as a small reverb furnace for pouring ingot or sow re melt.

From: Bahner, Mark A. [mailto:bahner@rti.org]

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:29 PM

To: Aaron Hill

Cc: Green, David A.; Rochelle Boyd Subject: RE: United Iron & Metal Inc

Hi Aaron,

It was good talking to you again. As I mentioned in our phone conversation, my question deals with “rotary sweat furnaces.” When we last talked, I had unfortunately not brought any l iterature on “rotary sweat furnaces” for your

review.

Attached are some links discussing the CORECO® Rotary Sweat Furnace:

http://www.enviroair.net/rotary -sweat- furnace/

http://www.enviroair.net/assets/Uploads/Sweat

- Furnace.pdf

Here is another website that discusses the apparent use of these rotary sweat furnaces:

http://www.americanrecycler.com/0804spotlight.html

It contains this passage:

EnviroAir, Inc., of Eagle, Wisconsin, offers a variation of the conventional aluminum sweat furnace. Company president Doug S tenz explains, “Our design is a rotary kiln. There is a lot of

scrap metal recovered today that is either zinc plated or aluminum coated. With a rotary kiln design, recyclers can process a mixed load of scrap, and still get clean ingots. Zinc melts at

a lower temperature, so the operator can bring the furnace to that point, spin the kiln and draw off the molten zinc. Then the temperature is increas ed until the aluminum melts off and it

too is recovered in the same manner. That leaves just the ferrous base metal parts,” he said. EnviroAir purchased the assets of the former College Research Corporation, retaining the

CORECO brand for its sweat furnace line.

Can you give any advice about how these “rotary sweat furnaces” fit into metals/aluminum recycling? Does the “rotary

sweat furnace” have a clearly different place than a conventional sweat furnace?

As I mentioned in our phone conversation, please do not send me any information that your company might consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

Thank you,2 Mark

Ma rk A. Bahner RTI, International P.O. Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

- 2194



### Phone: (919) 541

- 6016

Fax: (919) 541

- 7155

Email: bahner@rti.org

Internet: http://www.rti.org
# C_2010179EN.01001702.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Emilian Kuć and Halina Jeziorska-Kuć v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-181/10)

(2010/C 179/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emilian Kuć and Halina Jeziorska-Kuć

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a flat-rate farmer within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) ... who sells plots of land used for his agricultural activity which are designated in a municipality’s urban management plan for residential and service development and were purchased as agricultural land (VAT-free) covered by Article 16 of that directive, which regards the application of business assets for the taxable person’s private use or for purposes other than those of his business as a supply of goods for consideration only where the tax on those assets was wholly or partly deductible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a flat-rate farmer within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) ... who sells plots of land used for his agricultural activity which are designated in a municipality’s urban management plan for residential and service development and were purchased as agricultural land (VAT-free) covered by Article 16 of that directive, which regards the application of business assets for the taxable person’s private use or for purposes other than those of his business as a supply of goods for consideration only where the tax on those assets was wholly or partly deductible?

| 2. | Must a flat-rate farmer within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Directive 2006/112/EC who sells plots of land previously used for his agricultural activity which are designated in a municipality’s urban management plan for residential and service development and were purchased as agricultural land (VAT-free) be regarded as a taxable person who is required to account for VAT on that sale under the general rules? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must a flat-rate farmer within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Directive 2006/112/EC who sells plots of land previously used for his agricultural activity which are designated in a municipality’s urban management plan for residential and service development and were purchased as agricultural land (VAT-free) be regarded as a taxable person who is required to account for VAT on that sale under the general rules?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5088]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet 
in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) 
Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) 
Chairman's Perspective, (5) Project Presentations, (6) Next Agenda.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 24, 2011 from 9 a.m. and end 
at approximately 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Pine 
Room, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak 
or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Randy 
Jero, Committee Coordinator, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Jero, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 N. 
Humboldt Ave, Willows, CA 95988. (530) 934-1269; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#73011916011c3315005d1516175d0600"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e6c747b6c715e786d30787b7a306b6d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the 
Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before 
or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and 
individuals who made written requests by March 21, 2011 will have the 
opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Eduardo Olmedo,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2011-5088 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2010148EN.01003801.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/38

---

Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Coordination bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) v European Commission

(Case T-137/10)

2010/C 148/64

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Coordination bruxelloise d’Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and D. Slater, solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the defendant of 28 October 2009 declaring compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 86(2) EC unlawful State aid granted by Belgium to certain public hospitals in the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Region of Brussels — Capital) and dismissing the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the defendant of 28 October 2009 declaring compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 86(2) EC unlawful State aid granted by Belgium to certain public hospitals in the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Region of Brussels — Capital) and dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By way of the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8120 final COR of 28 December 2009, declaring compatible with the common market all the funding granted by the Belgian authorities to the public hospitals belonging to the IRIS network in the Région Bruxelles-Capitale, by way of compensation for hospital and non-hospital services they provide in the form of services of general economic interest (SGEI) (State aid NN 54/2009 (ex-CP 244/2005)).

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission’s decision contains manifest errors of assessment or, at least, provides very inadequate reasons.

The applicant submits in particular that the Commission’s claim that there is no need to examine the efficiency of the aid beneficiary, for example by comparing it to a ‘typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided for’, when examining the State aid in the light of Article 86(2) EC, allows Member State to cover all the costs of an undertaking charged with public service duties, irrespective of how exorbitant or disproportionate those may be, and thus must be rejected.

The applicant submits that, in order to avoid any distortion of competition on the market, compensation for carrying out public service duties should be limited to what is strictly necessary compared to the costs that an efficient operator would have incurred, which is not the case in the present case.

---
# C_2012227EN.01001801.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Joined Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10) (1)

1

(Cohesion Fund and ERDF operational programme managed by Spain (ESF Combating discrimination 2007-2013 operational programme) - Interim payment application - Decision to suspend the payment deadline because of a significant deficiency in the operation of management and control systems - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006)

2012/C 227/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and B. Conte, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Actions brought against the Commission decisions of 10 May (T-264/10) and 11 May 2010 (T-266/10) informing the Spanish authorities of the suspension of the deadline for the settlement of certain interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | joins Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

joins Cases T-264/10 and T-266/10 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | annuls the Commission decisions of 10 May and 11 May 2010 informing the Spanish authorities of the suspension of the deadline for the settlement of certain interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain;. |
| --- | --- |

2.

annuls the Commission decisions of 10 May and 11 May 2010 informing the Spanish authorities of the suspension of the deadline for the settlement of certain interim payment applications submitted by the Kingdom of Spain;.

| 3. | rejects the application for acknowledgment that the application for payment of interest for late payment is well founded; |
| --- | --- |

3.

rejects the application for acknowledgment that the application for payment of interest for late payment is well founded;

| 4. | declares that that there is no need to adjudicate on the head of claim that the General Court order a measure of organisation of procedure based on Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

4.

declares that that there is no need to adjudicate on the head of claim that the General Court order a measure of organisation of procedure based on Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure;

| 5. | orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---