alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 230.117 Reimbursement procedures (Federal-aid highway construction projects only). ( a ) *On-the-job special training provisions.* State highway agencies will be reimbursed on the same pro-rata basis as the construction costs of the Federal-aid project.
( b ) *Supportive services.* ( 1 ) The State highway agency must keep a separate account of supportive services funds since they cannot be interchanged with regular Federal-aid funds. In addition, these funds may not be expended in a manner that would provide for duplicate payment of Federal or Federal-aid funds for the same service.
( 2 ) Where a State highway agency does not obligate all its funds within the time specified in the particular year's allocation directive, the funds shall revert to the FHWA Headquarters Office to be made available for use by other State highway agencies, taking into consideration each State's need for and ability to use such funds.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BILLY LAND, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THEODIS BECK, Secretary of

Correction; JAMES B. BENNETT,

Director of Prisons; GRADY J.

HAYNES, Superintendent of Warren  No. 01-7386 Correctional; HATTIE B. PIMPONG,

Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer;

ROBERT TERRY, JR., Hearing Officer;

LT. NORWOOD; J. R. JAMES,

Lieutenant; T. BROWN, Officer; D.

HARDING, Officer; A. PATTERSON,

Officer,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CA-01-533-5-BO)

Submitted: December 7, 2001

Decided: December 28, 2001

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Billy Land, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Billy Land appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

To the extent, however, that the court dismissed claims challenging

the validity of Land’s institutional conviction and revocation of good

time credits, we note that such claims are not cognizable under § 1983

absent a showing that the institutional conviction supporting the revocation of good time credits has been overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-646 (1997). A prisoner may challenge the

revocation of good time credits only by way of habeas corpus. See

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Accordingly, we

modify the district court’s order to reflect that Land’s claims challenging the revocation of his good time credits, which would include

all his claims other than his claim that he was improperly required to

pay an administrative fee, should be dismissed without prejudice to

his right to reassert such claims in a habeas action. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

2 LAND v. BECK
H. R. 4725 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 8585 Criterion 

Drive in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CHAPLAIN (CAPT.) DALE GOETZ MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) 

Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Ms
. JessicaFegan Connection Chemical LP 126 South State Street, Suite 200 Newtown, P A 18940 

### JUN 2 32014 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

Re: Connection Chemical LP's Conditional Exemption to a Test Rule Issued Under Section 4 ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act for CASRN 144-62-7 Dear Ms. Fegan: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isconditionally granting Connection Chemical LP's (CCLP) exemption application for the test requirements issued under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act for ethanedioic acid (AKA oxalic acid dihydrate): (CASRN 144-62-7) 

### (T esting ofCertainHigh Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group ofChemicals, 76 FR 1067, January 7, 2011)
. The EPAhas determined that CCLP's exemption application dated May 28,2014, fulfills the requirements for a conditional exemption as described in 40 CFR part 790, subpart E. The EPA test rule regulations at40 CFR790, subpart E, allow the EPAto exempt companies from test rule requirements when another company is already conducting the required testing, as long as the exempt company applies for an exemption and includes a statement offmancial responsibility at 40 CFR section 790.99. Exemptions are also conditioned on EPA receiving acceptable test datathat is adequate to fulfill the test rule requirements. Testing for ethanedioic acid (CASRN 144-62

-7) has been conducted by Univar USA Inc., and WEGO Chemical and Mineral Corporation. Iffor any reason, the EPA should terminate your conditional exemption, Connection Chemical LP will be notified by certified letter or by a Federal RegisterNotice.

Internet Address (URL) • http //wwwepa gov Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted wtth Vegetable Otl Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorme Free Recycled PaperIf you have any questions, please contact Mr. John Schaeffer by telephone at (202) 564·8173 or email at schaeffer.john@epa.gov. cc: Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112

Paul Lewis, Ph.D. Chief, Chemical Information

and Testing Branch
# Official Journal C 178A/15 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 178A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5115 July 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 178A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5115 July 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2008/C 178A/01 | Notification of open competition COUNCIL/AD/430 in the field of European security and defence policy (ESDP) | 1 |
| 2008/C 178A/02 | Notification of open competition COUNCIL/AD/431 in the field of information systems security | 11 |
| 2008/C 178A/03 | Notification of open competition COUNCIL/AD/432 in the field of information systems security | 19 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2008/C 178A/01

Notification of open competition COUNCIL/AD/430 in the field of European security and defence policy (ESDP)

1

2008/C 178A/02

Notification of open competition COUNCIL/AD/431 in the field of information systems security

11

2008/C 178A/03

Notification of open competition COUNCIL/AD/432 in the field of information systems security

19

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4794 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, 

as the ‘‘Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4794 EH

1 SECTION 1. MOTHER FRANCES XAVIER CABRINI POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, 

5 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mother 

6 Frances Xavier Cabrini Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mother Frances Xa11 vier Cabrini Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 5, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4794 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostCabrini Post Office Building’’. lyn, New York, as the ‘‘Mother Frances Xavier al Service located at 8320 13th Avenue in Brook-
February 17, 2011

TO: Docket

FROM: Jan King, OAQPS/HEID

SUBJECT: Attendees at February 9, 2011 Meeting to Discuss the Schedule for Reconsideration of the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS

Affiliation Name E-Mail Phone

EPA Beth Hassett-Sipple hassett-sipple.beth@epa.gov 919-541-4605

BP Doug Blewitt dougblewitt@comcast.net 303-741-1095

Marathon Petroleum Charles Bennett cdbennett@marathonpetroleum.com 606-921-3636

Chevron Chris Rabideau crabideau@chevron.com 713-954-6981

API Cathe Kalisz kaliszc@api.org 202-682-8318

Exxon Mobil Doug Deason doug.l.deason@exxonmobil.com 281-870-6112

BP Bob Hermanson Robert.hermanson@bp.com 630-961-7650

OAQPS Deirdre Murphy Murphy.deirdre@epa.gov 919-541-0729

API Ted Steichen steichent@api.org 202-682-8568

Shell George Deeley George.deeley@shell.com 832-337-2175

Exxon Mobil Larry Gephart larry.a.gephert@exxonmobil.com 905-730-3417

Conoco Phillips Jan Laughlin jan.l.laughlin@conocophillips.com 918-661-1545

OAQPS Karen Martin martin.karen@epa.gov 919-541-5274

OAQPS Lydia Wegman wegman.lydia@epa.gov 919-541-5505
<PAGE>
 
                                                                Exhibit 10.14(a)



                                                               December 18, 1995



Hawaiian Interisland Towing Incorporated, Inc.
735 Bishop Street, Suite 312
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attn:  Mr. Gordon Smith, President

Subject:  Option to Extend Term under Contract of Private Carriage by and
          between Hawaiian Interisland Towing, Inc., and Hawaii Electric Light
          Company, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter will confirm the understanding between Hawaiian Interisland Towing,
Inc. ("HITI"), and Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc., ("HELCO") relating to
the extension of the Contract of Private Carriage between HITI and HELCO, dated
November 10, 1993.

It has been mutually agreed to between HITI and HELCO that the Contract of
Private Carriage is hereby extended pursuant to section 1.2 (Option to Extend
Term) for an additional two year period beginning January 1, 1996.  All
previously agreed to terms and conditions, amendments, and addendums apply to
this extension.

Please indicate your acknowledgment and agreement to the foregoing by signing in
the space provided below.

                         Best Regards,



                         /s/ Floyd Shiroma for J. C. Aicken
                         Jeffrey C. Aicken
                         Director, Fuel Resources


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:

THIS 26th DAY OF December, 1995

HAWAIIAN INTERISLAND TOWING, INC.


BY:       /s/ Gordon L. Smith
ITS:      President
#### § 633.201 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to establish policies and outline procedures for administering projects and funds for the Appalachian Development Highway System and Appalachian local access roads.
"demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted"). We therefore 

deny the writ petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the 

decision to issue writ relief is within this court's discretion). 

It is so ORDERED.' 

cc: Michael James Betts 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Lincoln County Clerk 

"We direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's motion to extend 

the prison copywork limit, provisionally received in this court on August 7, 

2013. Having considered the motion, in light of this order, we deny it as 

moot. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
### §7. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(35), 65 Stat. 702

Section, act Jan. 24, 1923, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 1215, related to purchase of supplies or services for National Park Service.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Matthew Kern

Arthur Surveying Company

220 Elm Street

Suite 200

Lewisville, TX 75057

Dear Mr. Kern:

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

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

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

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your June 9, 2015, exemption request on filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2873, 

but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 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 Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

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 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

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

Enclosures
3
4
#### § 252.4 Permanent landing permit and identification card.

A Form I-184 is valid until revoked. It shall be revoked when an immigration officer finds that the crewman is in the United States in willful violation of the terms and conditions of his or her permission to land, or that he or she is inadmissible to the United States. On revocation, the Form I-184 shall be surrendered to an immigration officer. No appeal shall lie from the revocation of Form I-184.

[62 FR 10388, Mar. 6, 1997]
§ 1300.26 Nonmotorized Safety Grants. ( a ) *Purpose.* This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 405(g), for awarding grants to States for the purpose of decreasing nonmotorized road user fatalities involving a motor vehicle in transit on a trafficway.
( b ) *Eligibility determination.* ( 1 ) A State is eligible for a grant under this section if the State's annual combined nonmotorized road user fatalities exceed 15 percent of the State's total annual crash fatalities based on the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data are available, as determined by NHTSA.
( 2 ) For purposes of this section, a nonmotorized road user means a pedestrian; an individual using a nonmotorized mode of transportation, including a bicycle, a scooter, or a personal conveyance; and an individual using a low-speed or low-horsepower motorized vehicle, including an electric bicycle, electric scooter, personal mobility assistance device, personal transporter, or all-terrain vehicle.
( c ) *Qualification criteria.* To qualify for a Nonmotorized Safety Grant in a fiscal year, a State meeting the eligibility requirements of paragraph (b) of this section shall submit as part of its annual grant application a list of project(s) and subrecipient(s) for the fiscal year of the grant, at the level of detail required under § 1300.12(b)(2) for authorized uses identified in paragraph (e) of this section.
( d ) *Award amounts.* The amount of a grant awarded to a State in a fiscal year under this section shall be in proportion to the amount each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009.
( e ) *Use of grant funds.* A State may use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) only for the safety of nonmotorized road users, including— ( 1 ) Training of law enforcement officials relating to nonmotorized road user safety, State laws applicable to nonmotorized road user safety, and infrastructure designed to improve nonmotorized road user safety;
( 2 ) Carrying out a program to support enforcement mobilizations and campaigns designed to enforce State traffic laws applicable to nonmotorized road user safety;
( 3 ) Public education and awareness programs designed to inform motorists and nonmotorized road users regarding— ( i ) Nonmotorized road user safety, including information relating to nonmotorized mobility and the importance of speed management to the safety of nonmotorized road users;
( ii ) The value of the use of nonmotorized road user safety equipment, including lighting, conspicuity equipment, mirrors, helmets, and other protective equipment, and compliance with any State or local laws requiring the use of that equipment;
( iii ) State traffic laws applicable to nonmotorized road user safety, including the responsibilities of motorists with respect to nonmotorized road users;
( iv ) Infrastructure designed to improve nonmotorized road user safety; and
( 4 ) The collection of data, and the establishment and maintenance of data systems, relating to nonmotorized road user traffic fatalities.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99


                       [ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY LETTERHEAD]


March 21, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:


By letter dated March 20, 2002, addressed to Illinois Power Company, our
independent public accountants, Arthur Andersen LLP, pursuant to the
requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission Release Nos. 33-8070 and
34-45590, represented that their audit of Illinois Power Company was subject to
Arthur Andersen's quality control systems for U.S. accounting and auditing
practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
compliance with professional standards and that there was appropriate continuity
of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national
office consultation to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.


Sincerely,

/s/ Peggy E. Carter

Peggy E. Carter
Vice President and Controller
§ 924.15 Reporting. ( a ) For the period of the previous reporting year, each State shall submit, via FHWA's HSIP online reporting tool, to the FHWA Division Administrator no later than August 31 of each year, the following reports related to the HSIP in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 130(g): ( 1 ) A report describing the progress being made to implement the HSIP that: ( i ) Describes the structure of the HSIP. This section shall: ( A ) Describe how HSIP funds are administered in the State; and
( B ) Provide a summary of the methodology used to develop the programs and projects being implemented under the HSIP on all public roads.
( ii ) Describes the progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects. This section shall: ( A ) Compare the funds programmed in the STIP for highway safety improvement projects and those obligated during the reporting year; and
( B ) Provide a list of highway safety improvement projects that were obligated during the reporting year, including non-infrastructure projects. Each project listed shall identify how it relates to the State SHSP.
( iii ) Describes the progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets. This section shall: ( A ) Provide an overview of general highway safety trends. General highway safety trends shall be presented by number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by calendar year, and to the maximum extent practicable, shall also be presented by functional classification and roadway ownership. General highway safety trends shall also be presented for the total number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorized users;
( B ) Document the safety performance targets established in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150 for the following calendar year. Documentation shall also include a discussion of the basis for each established target, and how the established target supports SHSP goals. In future years, documentation shall also include a discussion of any reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets; and
( C ) Present information related to the applicability of the special rules defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(g).
( iv ) Assesses the effectiveness of the improvements. This section shall describe the effectiveness of groupings or similar types of highway safety improvement projects previously implemented under the HSIP.
( v ) Is compatible with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794(d), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
( 2 ) A report describing progress being made to implement railway-highway crossing improvements in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 130(g) and the effectiveness of these improvements.
( b ) The preparation of the State's annual reports may be financed with funds made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3).
Docket No. FAA- 

## J...OIO-II 

# qq Regulatory Evaluation 

### Complete when issuing a supplemental NPRM, revision, or supersedure. (g] 

### No Change from existing AD action 

## If)-NM -J.-.J--5-A [) Directorate Identifier: 

## d-O -7\D Estimated Costs: (Include costsfor the entire AD, no/jus/the chon es! CostsperProduct (e.g.,aircraft, Action en"ine, propeller, appliance) (e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts TotalCosts Numberof TotalCost

(includeaccess, cost Cost (labor+ U.S. forU.S. replacement) testing,and (@$851 parts) Registered Fleet close-up) hour) Products ) il,qO 

# , _(II; $ 0 \ luju 

### :-, (. '\1 $ 0



# - : I 0\1 

## , II ',I', $ 0 

# , '! (if) 

### , (\ 11,. S 0 The known number of products incompliance: Total Costs ofcomoliance for U.S. neet: $

Costs covered under warrantv $ Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use Ihisjield 10explain anything in the £Slimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty COSIS): Executive Order 12866:
Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? YES' 

# 0 NOI2J *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: I Isthe AD significant? • YES' 

# 0 NO I2J *Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have asignificant economic impact on asubsrantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. • YES 

# 0 NO I2J Explanation: Intrastate A"jation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is itappropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? ~ YES' 

# 0 NOI2J 

### *Explanation: