alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§178 to 178l. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–307, title II, §214, June 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 272

Section 178, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §1, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1782, related to Congressional findings on national film preservation.

Section 178a, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §2, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1782, related to establishment of a National Film Registry.

Section 178b, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §3, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1782, related to the duties of Librarian of Congress with respect to the National Film Registry.

Section 178c, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §4, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1784, related to film labeling requirements.

Section 178d, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §5, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1785, related to misuse of National Film Registry seal.

Section 178e, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §6, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1785, related to remedies for film labeling violations or for misusing the National Film Registry seal.

Section 178f, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §7, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1785, related to exclusivity of remedies provided in former section 178e of this title.

Section 178g, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §8, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1785; Pub. L. 102–378, §5(c), Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1358, related to establishment of National Film Preservation Board.

Section 178h, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §9, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1787, related to staff of National Film Registry Board and authority of Board to procure services of experts and consultants.

Section 178i, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §10, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1787, related to powers of National Film Registry Board.

Section 178j, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §11, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1787, contained definitions.

Section 178k, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §12, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1788, authorized appropriations.

Section 178l, Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §13, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1788, provided effective date, sunset, and savings provisions for former sections 178 to 178l of this title.

For similar provisions, see section 179l et seq. of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 100–446, title I, §1, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1782, which provided that sections 178 to 178l of this title were to be cited as the "National Film Preservation Act of 1988" was repealed by Pub. L. 102–307, title III, §214, June 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 272.
#### Celia Schneider, Respondent, v. Harry Schneider, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Holán, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.132 [Reserved]
§ 206.344 Limitations on Federal expenditures. Except as provided in §§ 206.345 and 206.346, no new expenditures or financial assistance may be made available under authority of the Stafford Act for any purpose within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, including but not limited to: ( a ) Construction, reconstruction, replacement, repair or purchase of any structure, appurtenance, facility or related infrastructure;
( b ) Construction, reconstruction, replacement, repair or purchase of any road, airport, boat landing facility, or other facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any System unit; and
( c ) Carrying out of any project to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area, except that such assistance and expenditures may be made available on units designated pursuant to Section 4 on maps numbered S01 through S08 for purposes other than encouraging development and, in all units, in cases where an emergency threatens life, land, and property immediately adjacent to that unit.
<PAGE>

[LOGO OF KPMG]

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                              Consent of KPMG LLP


The Board of Directors
Midas, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-44625, 333-44797, 333-58363, and 333-42196 on Form S-8 of Midas, Inc. of our
report dated February 15, 2001 relating to the balance sheets of Midas as of the
end of fiscal years 2000 and 1999, and the related statements of operations,
cash flows and changes in shareholders' equity for each of the fiscal years
2000, 1999, and 1998, which report appears in the 2000 annual report on Form
10-K of Midas, Inc.


KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 22, 200l
§ 307.22 Variances. EDA may approve variances to the requirements contained in this subpart, provided such variances: ( a ) Are consistent with the goals of the Economic Adjustment Assistance program and with an RLF Plan;
( b ) Are necessary and reasonable for the effective implementation of the RLF;
( c ) Are economically and financially sound; and
( d ) Do not conflict with any applicable legal requirements, including Federal, State and local law.
### §190a–3. Repealed. S. Res. 9, §2, Nov. 5, 1975

Section, Pub. L. 93–344, title I, §102(d), July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 301, provided that meetings of Senate Committee on the Budget or any subcommittee thereof be open to public except in certain specified instances.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-48 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, March 11, 1999)

NRC LIFTS ORDER REQUIRING INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT OF EMPLOYEE CONCERNS

PROGRAM AT MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has lifted an order requiring independent,

third-party oversight of the employee concerns and safety-conscious work environment

programs at the Millstone nuclear power plants in Connecticut.

Based on its oversight and monitoring of these programs, as well as that provided by an

independent consultant, Little Harbor Consultants, the NRC staff has determined the conditions

that led NRC to issue the order to Northeast Utilities in October 1996 have been corrected.

That order directed Northeast Utilities to devise and implement a comprehensive plan for

handling safety concerns raised by Millstone employees and for assuring an environment free

from retaliation and discrimination.

In May 1998, the Commission agreed with a recommendation made by NRC staff that

the employee concerns program and safety conscious work environment at Millstone had

improved to a level that would support restart of Millstone 3. The Commission also agreed with

the staff’s recommendation that Little Harbor Consultants continue its independent oversight

role to assure that performance improvements were sustained as Millstone moved into an

operational mode. The NRC staff has concluded that Northeast Utilities has sustained an

acceptable level of performance in its employee concerns program and in creating a safetyconscious work environment.

A letter sent to Northeast Utilities today advises the company that the requirement for

third-party oversight has been terminated. The letter also notes that Northeast Utilities intends

to utilize Little Harbor Consultants periodically. The independent consultants will provide

assessments on the various employee concerns programs for Northeast Utilities during the next

year.

#

NOTE TO EDITORS: Copies of the letter are available on the NRC’s homepage:

(http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports) or from the Office of Public Affairs.

##
1 Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:19 PM To: Whiteman, Chad Cc: Margo_schwab@omb.eop.gov Subject: EPA Response to round 2 EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) Attachments: EPA_Response_EO12866_Comments on EPA_Tier 3 draft f inal rule - OMB2_2_14_ 2014.docx

Chad, our response to the “round 2” comments are at tached.

The “round 2” comments are located in sections I.C, II, and VIII. We have responded to the “OMB2” com ment bubbles within those comment bubbles. We created new comme nt bubbles to respond to the text edits. (As a res ult, the numbering of the comment bubbles has changed from y our original document.)

This document contains our responses only to the “r ound 2” comments. The one exception is our response to the comment bubble in section XII.A (labeled A33 in the first round of comments; it is now A84). That res ponse was still pending in EPA’s 2/17 document that responded to th e first round of comments.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Jim asked me to send this directly to Margo, but I’ m only guessing at her address. Will you please fo rward? Thanks so much.

From: Whiteman, Chad [ mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:49 AM To: Sargeant, Kathryn Cc: Sutton, Tia; Yanca, Catherine Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule ( RIN 2060-AQ86) - round 2

Kathryn, Attached are additional EO 12866 comments on th e Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). The sec ond round of comments were inserted in the document that I forwa rded on Thursday (2/13) so this document has all co mments that we’ve submitted to date on the preamble (not counti ng the summary comment document). The new comments can be identified with (1) comment bubbles starting with O MB2 and (2) comments found in section VIII (pages 4 34-451). Regards, Chad

From: Whiteman, Chad Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:45 AM To: Sargeant, Kathryn ( sargeant.kathryn@epa.gov ) Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86)

Kathryn, Attached are some of the EO 12866 comments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). Regards, Chad
(October 25, 1943.)

#### Bennett Junior College, Respondent, v. Ralph R. Luddecke et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
Exhibit 15.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTRERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-156686) of our reports dated May 14, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd.
included in this annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012.



|Tel- Aviv, Israel |  | /s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|May 14, 2013      |  | KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER    
|                  |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, January 17, 1997)

WORKING GROUP AGREES

ON FORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR REGULATORS ASSOCIATION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson

and senior regulators from six other countries have agreed to

formally create a new International Nuclear Regulators Assocation

later this year.

Agreement was reached during meetings this week at NRC

headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. Participating with

Chairman Jackson in the sessions were senior nuclear regulators

from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain and the United

Kingdom.

The international working group also achieved consensus on a

terms-of-reference document which describes how the Association

should operate. This document identifies countries which

initially should be members of the Association, how the

organization should be structured, and how membership will

expand. The document also describes how the Association will

develop its relationships with other national and international

nuclear safety and regulatory bodies.

The terms-of-reference document will be presented for formal

adoption by all the initial members of the Assocation at a

meeting to be convened in May in Paris, France.

Those who participated in the working group meeting were:

CANADA ˇ Dr. Agnes Bishop, President and Chief Executive

Officer, Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada.

FRANCE ˇ Mr. Andre-Claude Lacoste, Director, Directorate

for the Safety of Nuclear Installations.

GERMANY ˇ Mr. G. Hennenhofer, Director General for Nuclear

Safety, Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation,

and Nuclear Safety.
JAPAN ˇ Mr. Yasumasa Togo, Chairman, Nuclear Safety

Commission; and Mr. Tomihiro Taniguchi, Deputy Director General,

Ministry of International Trade and Industry.

SPAIN ˇ Dr. Juan Manuel Kindelan, President, Consejo de

Seguridad Nuclear.

UNITED KINGDOM ˇ Dr. Sam A. Harbison, Director and Chief

Inspector, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) Health and

Safety Executive, Nuclear Safety Directorate.

###
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-62 November 1, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC PROHIBITS FORMER BROWNS FERRY

EMPLOYEE FROM LICENSED ACTIVITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued an order prohibiting Hiram J. Bass, the former

Measuring and Test Equipment Program Administrator at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns

Ferry nuclear plant, from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for three years. In addition, for three

years after the prohibition, Bass must notify the agency in writing if he becomes involved in licensed

activities.

During 1999 and earlier this year, NRC investigations and inspections found that Bass had

deliberately failed to issue and/or disposition a number of nonconformance evaluations for instruments

used at the Browns Ferry plant. The measuring and testing instruments are calibrated at a TVA central

facility and when an instrument is identified as out of tolerance, that information is forwarded to the

plant. The program administrator is responsible for evaluating and distributing that information so

plant employees can review the potential effects on plant components where the instruments may have

been used. On numerous occasions, Bass, as program administrator, did not properly handle that

information. An internal assessment at Browns Ferry found the discrepancies and, when questioned by

both TVA and the NRC, Bass failed to explain why the information had not been issued and/or

dispositioned. Bass resigned from TVA in June 1999.

Although the NRC is citing TVA for a violation related to this problem, the agency is not fining

TVA for the violation because safety-related plant components were not affected.

# ##
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-08 March 19, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC TO MEET TO DISCUSS APPARENT

VIOLATION AT POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet March 26 for a predecisional

enforcement conference with officials from Wisconsin Electric Power Company on an

apparent violation of NRC safety requirements at the Point Beach Nuclear Power

Station.

The apparent violation involves the failure by the utility to promptly evaluate

operation of a safety system after alarms warned of the potential for pipe freezing.

The plant is located near Two Rivers, Wisconsin.

The meeting will start at 9 a.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room, NRC

Region III Office, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois. It is open to public observation.

NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions from the news

media and other interested observers.

On December 22 of last year, an alarm indicated that a safety-related pipe was

near freezing. However, plant staff apparently did not check to see if the safety system

was affected until prompted by NRC inspectors on January 5. At that time, the pipe

was found to have ice blockage.

This pipe is a recirculation flow path back to a tank from which water is drawn by

some of the pumps that would inject cooling water into the reactor during certain

accident conditions. One purpose of this flow path is to protect the pumps from

damage due to overheating during certain accidents.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean the

NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be

taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to point out any errors that may

have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the company to outline its

proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action,

such as a fine, will be made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior

NRC officials at a later date.
### §121g. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 121g was editorially reclassified as section 4123 of this title.
(October 22, 1943.)

#### Edgar J. Lauer et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant, and New York Steam Corporation, Impleaded Defendant, Appellant, et al., Defendants. Peggy H. Carson, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Elsie M. Rheinstrom et al., Respondents, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Edith D. Lambert, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Thelma de Lorez, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Emma R. Loengard et al., Respondents, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Elsie E. Burnham, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. The Madison Incorporated et al., Respondents, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Madame C. Chamay, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Frank E. King, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Rene A. Sichel, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Sarah Elkus, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Lois D. Wurtele, Plaintiff, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Ladislas Hermann, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Merinda Leith, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Arthur Gaines, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Blanche B. Elsinger, Plaintiff, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants. Henry Kaufmann, Respondent, v. Same, Appellants, and Same, Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 9:20-cv-81175-AHS

STEVEN UNGER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MAJORCA AT VIA VERDE HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff STEVEN UNGER, in the above referenced 

case hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit following 

orders:

1) Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss entered July 15, 2021.

2) Order denying Plaintiff’s First Motion for Leave to Amend entered August 26, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted on 13th day of September 2021.

MARCY I. LAHART, P.A.

/s/Marcy LaHart

Marcy I. LaHart, Esq.

249 SE Tuscawilla Road

Micanopy, FL 32667

Florida Bar No. 0967009

marcy@floridaanimallawyer.com

CERTIFICIATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 13th day of September, 2021 a true and correct copy

of the foregoing has been furnished via CM/ECF electronic mail service to this to the Clerk of 

Case 9:20-cv-81175-AHS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2021 Page 1 of 2
the Court. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of 

record via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECP.

BY: /s/ Marcy LaHart

Marcy LaHart, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 0967009

Case 9:20-cv-81175-AHS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2021 Page 2 of 2
#### Frank E. Candee, Respondent, v. Masonic Protective Association, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982; 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983; and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.

§ 4.6 What procedures apply to the selection of programs and activities under these regulations? ( a ) A State may select any program or activity published in the Federal Register in accordance with § 4.3 of this part for intergovernmental review under these regulations. Each State, before selecting programs and activities, shall consult with local elected officials.
( b ) Each State that adopts a process shall notify the Administrator of FEMA's programs and activities selected for that process.
( c ) A State may notify the Administrator of changes in its selections at any time. For each change, the State shall submit to the Administrator an assurance that the State has consulted with local elected officials regarding the change. FEMA may establish deadlines by which States are required to inform the Administrator of changes in their program selections.
( d ) The Administrator uses a State's process as soon as feasible, depending on individual programs and activities, after the Administrator is notified of its selections.
```

[Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 75)]
[Notices]               
[Page 20627]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap10-88]                         

[[Page 20627]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

 
National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection: Comment 
Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program 
helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, 
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the 
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, is soliciting comments 
concerning renewal of the Application for Indemnification. A copy of 
this collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed 
below in the address section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
ADDRESSES section below on or before June 15, 2010. The National 
Endowment for the Arts is particularly interested in comments which:

--Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
--Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
--Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
--Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are 
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology, e.g., permitting the electronic submissions 
of responses.

ADDRESSES: Alice Whelihan, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 726, Washington, DC 20506-0001, 
telephone (202) 682-5574 (this is not a toll-free number), fax 
(202)682-5603.

Kathleen Edwards,
Director, Administrative Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-9074 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
```