alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 212.02 When the Act applies.

The Act applies to any adversary adjudication pending before the Commission at any time between October 1, 1981 and September 30, 1984. This includes proceedings begun before October 1, 1981 if final Commission action has not been taken before that date, and proceedings pending on September 30, 1984, regardless of when they were initiated or when final Commission action occurs.
§ 207.66 Hearing. ( a ) *In general.* The Commission shall hold a hearing in each full review. The date of the hearing shall be specified in the scheduling notice.
( b ) *Procedures.* Hearing procedures in five-year reviews will conform to those for final phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigations set forth in § 207.24.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-065 November 26, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC, COMPANY TO DISCUSS CLEANUP PLAN FOR GREENVILLE, PA., SITE

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Whittaker Corp. on

Tuesday, November 27, to discuss a decommissioning plan for a radioactively contaminated site the

company owns in Greenville, Pa.

 The meeting is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I

office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation. NRC staff will be available

afterwards to answer questions from interested members of the public.

 Last year, Whittaker submitted to the NRC its decommissioning plan for the site, where the

major contaminant is thorium. The company hopes to clean up the property so it can be used for other

purposes. The process is expected to take many years.

 During the meeting, there will be a discussion of ways to streamline the NRCís review of the

plan.

 ###
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498 **ME MORA**  **NDUM** SUBJECT: Heavy- Duty Hy brid Onboard Diagnostics FROM: Am y Kopin TO: The Docket DATE: July

21, 2011 

### On June 23 rd 

### , 2011 we held a conference call with the Hy brid Manufacturers Regulatory Collaboration ( HMRC ) to discuss concerns ra ised by members of the HMRC regarding heavy duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing . C oncern s were raised during the comment period for the heavy- duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy duty hy brid applications may not b e able to meet the 2013 heavy- duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking. 1 , 2 

### Specifically , they have requested a delay

of the application of HD OBD requirements for hy brid applications until 2020. Attendees from the EPA and HMRC are shown below. **Attendee Affiliation**  Cleophas Jackson EPA

– Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Anthony Neam EPA

– Assessment and Standards Division Amy Kopin EPA

– Assessment and Standards Division Barbara Chance Allison Transmission Kevin Rodgers Allison Transmission Rob Merrion Allison Transmission Steve Spurlin Allison Transmission Justin Owens Allison Transmission Ian McKenzie Eaton Corporation Tom Apalenek BAE Sy stems Derek Matthews BAE Sy stems Dan Butler BAE Sy stems Dou g Thrall BAE Sy stems Jim Lyons Sierra Research

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: http://origin. www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2010 - 12 - 29/html/2010 - 32726.htm 2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy - Duty Engines Used in H ighway Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy - Duty Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds ,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd - obd - frm - 02 - 24 - 09 - notice - 74 - fr - 8310.pdf OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-01-056 December 7, 2001

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH U. S. ENRICHMENT CORP.

ON POSSIBLE SAFETY VIOLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet December 14 in Lisle, Illinois, with U. S.

Enrichment Corp. officials to discuss possible safety violations at the Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous

diffusion plant. The plant formerly processed uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants.

The meeting, called a Predecisional Enforcement Conference, will begin at 10 a.m. in the Third

Floor Conference Room on the NRCís Region III office, 801 Warrenville Road, in Lisle. The meeting

is open to public observation. Following the meeting, NRC officials will be available for questions

and comments from members of the public.

The plant is no longer processing or ìenrichingî uranium, and the plant staff is removing

remaining uranium from pipes and other components in the course placing the plant on a standby

status.

On September 22, the plant staff found the plant was not meeting requirements for preventing

an accidental criticality, or ìchain reaction,î in a portion of processing piping holding enriched

uranium. These requirements set pressure and moisture conditions for the piping.

NRC inspectors found possible violations of NRC requirements associated with the incident. 

While the requirements were not fully met, the plantís technical staff determined that an accidental

criticality was unlikely because of the piping configuration and the actual conditions present.

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

determination has been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken.

The purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance, to provide the

company with an opportunity to provide additional information on the situation, and to enable the

company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violation or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a fine,

will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later

time.

# # #
### §213. Royalties for use of deposits of silica, limestone, or other rock embraced in lease

Any lease to develop and extract phosphates, phosphate rock, and associated or related minerals under the provisions of sections 211 to 214 of this title shall provide that the lessee may use so much of any deposit of silica or limestone or other rock situated on any public lands embraced in the lease as may be utilized in the processing or refining of the phosphates, phosphate rock, and associated or related minerals mined from the leased lands or from other lands upon payments of such royalty as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior, which royalty may be stated in the lease or, as to the leases already issued, may be provided for in an attachment to the lease to be duly executed by the lessor and the lessee.

(Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, §11, 41 Stat. 440; June 3, 1948, ch. 379, §4, 62 Stat. 291.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1948—Act June 3, 1948, amended section generally, omitting provision relating to royalties and annual rents, and inserting provisions relating to use of deposits of silica, limestone or other rock embraced in the lease upon the payment of a suitable royalty.
#### § 1205.1 Purpose.

This subpart implements the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, (“the Act”) by stating the procedures by which individuals may determine the existence of, seek access to, and request amendment of Board records concerning themselves, and by stating the requirements that apply to Board employees' use and disclosure of those records.
### §1420. Conservation of natural resources

For the purpose of conservation of natural resources, each license and permit issued under this subchapter shall contain, as needed, terms, conditions, and restrictions which have due regard for the prevention of waste and the future opportunity for the commercial recovery of the unrecovered balance of the hard mineral resources in the area to which the license or permit applies. In establishing these terms, conditions, and restrictions, the Administrator shall consider the state of the technology, the processing system utilized and the value and potential use of any waste, the environmental effects of the exploration or commercial recovery activities, economic and resource data, and the national need for hard mineral resources. As used in this chapter, the term "conservation of natural resources" is not intended to grant, imply, or create any inference of production controls or price regulation, in particular those which would affect the volume of production, prices, profits, markets, or the decision of which minerals or metals are to be recovered, except as such effects may be incidental to actions taken pursuant to this section.

(Pub. L. 96–283, title I, §110, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 570.)
### §2261. Transfer date

In this subchapter, the term "transfer date" means the date occurring on the first day of the first pay period (applicable to employees transferred under section 2241 of this title) occurring on or after 30 days after October 20, 2008.

(Pub. L. 110–437, title IV, §421, Oct. 20, 2008, 122 Stat. 4996.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 110–437, Oct. 20, 2008, 122 Stat. 4990, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Tables.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 30, 2009 

p1217 

Order 

 

December 30, 2009 

139525 

CHARLOTTE CHALKO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139525 

 COA: 278215 

Muskegon CC: 06-044301-NF 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, C.J., and HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
### SUBCHAPTER V—PROCUREMENT PROTEST SYSTEM
#### § 115.51 Technical requirements.

A road vehicle that is submitted for inspection for individual approval must comply with the requirements of Annex 2 of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), November 14, 1975, (TIAS). Copies of Annex 2 may be obtained from the Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service, Office of Field Operations, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.

[T.D. 86-92, 51 FR 16161, May 1, 1986, as amended by T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13675, Mar. 22, 1999]
**Exhibit** **32.2**
  **CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED** **, AND**
 **18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002** *****
   In connection with the Annual Report of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10--K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce Winston, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes--Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Bruce Winston
  Bruce Winston
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
  March 30, 2005
 
 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MOUNTECH IP LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HMD AMERICA, INC.,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-23179-MGC

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Mountech IP LLC 

(“Mountech IP”) states that it is a limited liability company. It does not have a parent corporation 

and no publicly held corporation owns ten percent (10%) or more of its stock.

Dated: July 31, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA

/s/ Howard L. Wernow

Howard L. Wernow B.C.S. 

Florida Bar No. 107560

Aegis Tower – Suite 1100

4940 Munson Street NW 

Canton, OH 44718 

Phone: 330-244-1174 

Fax: 330-244-1173 

Email: howard.wernow@sswip.com

Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law

By the Florida Bar

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANIF CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-10, CA-96-916-R) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anif Christopher Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anif Christopher Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams , Nos. CR-93-10; CA-96-916-R (W.D. Va. June 1, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24022]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / 
Notices

[[Page 62639]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Notice of Meeting; Southwest Oregon Provincial Advisory Committee

SUMMARY: The Southwest Oregon Provincial Advisory Committee will meet 
on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, for (1) a review of the Mt Ashland 
Forest Resiliency Project field trip; (2) a presentation on Water for 
Irrigation, Streams and Economy; (3) an update on the Northern Spotted 
Owl 5-year review; (4) a report on the Northwest Forest Plan and the 
Southwest Oregon Implementation Monitoring Report; and (5) an update 
from National Fire Plan and Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 
Livestock study work groups. The meeting will be held at the Ashland 
Springs Hotel, 212 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520. It begins at 9 
a.m., ends 3:15 p.m., and the open public forum begins at 11:30 a.m. 
with a 4-minute limitation per individual presentation. Written 
comments may be submitted prior to the meeting and delivered to 
Designated Federal Official, Scott Conroy at the Rogue River-Siskiyou 
National Forest, PO Box 520, Medford, OR 97501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 
Acting Public Affairs Officer Virginia Gibbons at (541) 858-2214, e-
mail: [email protected], or USDA Forest Service, PO Box 520, 333 West 
8th Street, Medford, OR 97501.

    Dated: October 21, 2004.
Nancy Rose,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
[FR Doc. 04-24022 Filed 10-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT 8.1

Novamerican Steel Inc. Subsidiaries


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                              JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
<S>                                               <C>
156499 Canada Inc.                                Canada

American Steel & Aluminum Corporation             Massachusetts

Argo Steel Ltd.                                   Quebec

Nova Tube Indiana, LLC (formerly,                 Delaware
BethNova Tube, LLC)

Cresswell Roll Forming Ltd.                       Canada

Delta Tube and Company, Limited                   Quebec (limited partnership)

Integrated Steel Industries, Inc.                 Delaware

Metco Steel Inc.                                  Canada

Novamerican Tube Holdings, Inc.                   Delaware

Nova Steel Ltd.                                   Quebec

Nova Steel Processing Centre Ltd.                 Canada

Nova Tube and Steel, Inc.                         Delaware

Nova Tube Inc.                                    Quebec

Nova Tube Ontario Inc.                            Canada
</TABLE>
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 623 

AN ACT 

To make daylight saving time permanent, and for other 

purposes. 

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

†S 623 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sunshine Protection 

3 Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MAKING DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME PERMANENT. 

5 (a) REPEAL OF TEMPORARY PERIOD FOR DAYLIGHT

6 SAVING TIME.—Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 

7 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is hereby repealed. 

8 (b) ADVANCEMENT OF STANDARD TIME.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of sub10 section (a) of section 1 of the Act of March 19, 

11 1918 (commonly known as the ‘‘Calder Act’’) (15 

12 U.S.C. 261), is amended— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘4 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘3 

14 hours’’; 

15 (B) by striking ‘‘5 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘4 

16 hours’’; 

17 (C) by striking ‘‘6 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘5 

18 hours’’; 

19 (D) by striking ‘‘7 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘6 

20 hours’’; 

21 (E) by striking ‘‘8 hours’’ and inserting 

22 ‘‘by 7 hours’’; 

23 (F) by striking ‘‘9 hours’’ and inserting ‘‘8 

24 hours’’; 

25 (G) by striking ‘‘10 hours;’’ and inserting 

26 ‘‘9 hours;’’; 
3 

†S 623 ES

1 (H) by striking ‘‘11 hours’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘10 hours’’; and 

3 (I) by striking ‘‘10 hours.’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘11 hours.’’. 

5 (2) STATE EXEMPTION.—Such section is fur6 ther amended by— 

7 (A) redesignating subsection (b) as sub8 section (c); and 

9 (B) inserting after subsection (a) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(b) STANDARD TIME FOR CERTAIN STATES AND

12 AREAS.—The standard time for a State that has exempted 

13 itself from the provisions of section 3(a) of the Uniform 

14 Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)), as in effect on 

15 the day before November 5, 2023, pursuant to such sec16 tion or an area of a State that has exempted such area 

17 from such provisions pursuant to such section shall be, 

18 as such State considers appropriate— 

19 ‘‘(1) the standard time for such State or area, 

20 as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of 

21 this section; or 

22 ‘‘(2) the standard time for such State or area, 

23 as the case may be, pursuant to subsection (a) of 

24 this section as it was in effect on the day before No25 vember 5, 2023.’’. 
4 

†S 623 ES

1 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Such section 

2 is further amended, in the second sentence, by strik3 ing ‘‘Except as provided in section 3(a) of the Uni4 form Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)), the’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection 

6 (b),’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act and the amend8 ments made by this Act take effect on November 5, 2023. 

Passed the Senate March 15, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 623 

AN ACT 

To make daylight saving time permanent, and for 

other purposes.
1 

### Hakos, Matthew

From: Curt Wells <cwells@aluminum.org>

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:47 PM

To: Hakos, Matthew

Cc: Green, David A.; Putney, David

Subject: RE: MACT Supporting Documents

Matt

–

Thanks. I will try to figure out why I could not access it directly.

Curt.

From: Hakos, Matthew [mailto:mhakos@rti.org]

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:37 PM

To: Curt Wells

Cc: Green, David A.; Putney, David

Subject: RE: MACT Supporting Documents

Curt,

Here is a link to the Primary Aluminum Docket:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2011

‐ 0797

Click the “View All” button next to the “Supporting Documents” heading. From here, you can search for specific

supporting documents.

Here is a link to the file mentioned in your email:

http://www.regulations.gov/inde x.jsp#!documentDetail;D=EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2011

‐ 0797

‐ 0349

Matt Hakos

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

(919) 541

‐ 6608

(919) 541

‐ 7155 (fax)

From: Curt Wells [ mailto:cwells@aluminum.org ]

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:47 PM

To: Putney, David

Subject: MACT Supporting Documents



### David –2 

### I am looking in the PMACT docket on www.regulations.gov for the document titled “Revised Draft MACT

Floor Analysis for the Primary Aluminum Production S ource Category” and cannot locate it. Frankly other

documents that I expected to be there to support this re-proposal are also missing. Perhaps I am looking in the

wrong place? Can you give me any guidance he re as to how to access these materials?

Curt Wells

Manager, Regulatory Affairs

The Aluminum Association

(703) 358-2976 (w)

(804) 385-6351 (c)

cwells@aluminum.org