alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021337EN.01003101.xml

| 23.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 337/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/31

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 239/2018

of 5 December 2018

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2021/1506]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1298 of 11 July 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 658/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the adjustment to the inflation rate of the amounts of the fees payable to the European Medicines Agency for the conduct of pharmacovigilance activities in respect of medicinal products for human use (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1298 of 11 July 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 658/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the adjustment to the inflation rate of the amounts of the fees payable to the European Medicines Agency for the conduct of pharmacovigilance activities in respect of medicinal products for human use (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 16 (Regulation (EU) No 658/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘- | 32018 R 1298: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1298 of 11 July 2018 (OJ L 244, 28.9.2018, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘-

32018 R 1298: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1298 of 11 July 2018 (OJ L 244, 28.9.2018, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1298 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 6 December 2018, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 5 December 2018.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

The Secretaries

To the EEA Joint Committee

Hege M. HOFF

Mikołaj KARŁOWSKI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 244, 28.9.2018, p. 1.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

---
#### § 7001.101 General.

In accordance with 5 CFR 2635.105, the regulations in this part supplement the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch contained in 5 CFR part 2635, as applied to employees of the United States Postal Service (Postal Service). Postal Service employees are subject, in addition to the standards in 5 CFR part 2635 and this part, to the executive branch financial disclosure regulations contained in 5 CFR part 2634, and to any rules of conduct issued separately by the Postal Service, including but not limited to regulations contained in 39 CFR part 447, the Postal Service's Employee and Labor Relations Manual, and the Postal Service's Procurement Manual.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Superior Oil & Gas Co. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, B.J. Sparks, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August
      20, 2010/s/
      B.J. SparksB.J.
      SparksChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Superior Oil & Gas Co. and will be retained by Superior Oil & Gas Co.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
H. R. 1761

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East

Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the ‘‘Garner E. Shriver Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Garner

E. Shriver Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-507-502]


Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios From Iran: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time Limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit for the preliminary results of the 2002-2003 administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on pistachios from Iran. This 
review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise to the United 
States and the period July 01, 2002 through June 30, 2003.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phyllis Hall at (202) 482-1398 or 
Donna Kinsella at (202) 482-0194, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 22, 2003, in response to requests 
to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates, we 
published a notice of initiation of this administrative review in the 
Federal Register. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 
50750. This review involves one exporter, Tehran Negah Nima Trading 
Company.
    Pursuant to the time limits for administrative reviews set forth in 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 
Act), the current deadlines are April 1, 2004 for the preliminary 
results and July 30, 2004 for the final results. It is not practicable 
to complete this review within the normal statutory time limit due to 
the complexity of gathering information for constructed value (CV) and 
CV profit in Iran. Therefore, the Department is extending the time 
limit for completion of the preliminary results until July 30, 2004 in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act. The deadline 
for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after 
publication of the preliminary results.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A) (2003)).

    Dated: January 30, 2004.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III.
[FR Doc. 04-2525 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66750-66751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Registration

ACTION: Notice of registration.

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

SUMMARY: The registrant listed below has applied for and been granted 
registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as an 
importer of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The company listed below applied to be 
registered as an importer of various basic classes of controlled 
substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in 
the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no 
requests for hearing were submitted for this notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Company                   FR docket           Published
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R & D Systems, Inc..............  83 FR 49580.......  October 2, 2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the 
factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the 
registration of the listed registrant to import the applicable basic 
classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with 
the public interest and with United States obligations under 
international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 
1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective 
controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's 
physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with 
state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and 
history.
    Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as 
an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above 
listed company.


[[Page 66751]]


    Dated: December 8, 2018.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-28078 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit 34.3

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.3) that HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (the Applicable Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by receivables in the HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I program, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007.  Exhibit 33.3 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (the Covered Transactions) defined by management as part of their assessment. Management has determined that all other criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company’s activities with respect to the Covered Transactions.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable  Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 3, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1795 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1795

To provide that the income tax shall not apply for taxable years during 
which the taxpayer, or either spouse of a married couple, is serving in 
                            the war in Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 11, 2003

  Mr. Garrett of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that the income tax shall not apply for taxable years during 
which the taxpayer, or either spouse of a married couple, is serving in 
                            the war in Iraq.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE IN WAR IN IRAQ.

    (a) In General.--No tax imposed by subtitle A of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply to any individual (or, in the case of 
a married individual, to such individual and such individual's spouse) 
for any taxable year if during any portion of such taxable year such 
individual (or either spouse) is serving as a member of the Armed 
Forces of the United States (as defined in section 7701(a)(15) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on active duty in the combat zone 
designated for purposes of the war with Iraq.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to taxable years 
beginning after December 31, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No.47 September Term, 2013

JAMES LAMBERT

v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Barbera, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER
Filed: January 13, 2014JAMES LAMBERT * IN THE * COURT OF APPEALS v. * OF MARYLAND * No. 47 STATE OF MARYLAND * September Term, 2013


### PER CURIAM ORDER The petition for writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case having been granted and argued, it is this 13 day of January, th 2014, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed as moot.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera Chief Judge
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption

                        On December 20, 2017, by Executive Order 13818, the President declared a national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq.*), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.                    

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on December 20, 2017, must continue in effect beyond December 20, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2018-27660

Billing code 3295-F9-P
No: II-08-027 April 30, 2008 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov 

 Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 

NRC CONDUCTING SPECIAL INSPECTION AT 

OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting a special inspection at the 

Oconee nuclear station to assess the circumstances associated with high vibrations experienced 

by three Unit 1 reactor coolant pumps on April 12 while shutting down for a refueling outage. 

The Oconee plant is located near Seneca, S.C. and is operated by Duke Energy. 

“This inspection is being conducted to better understand the underlying reasons for these 

vibrations during the plant cooldown” said NRC Region II Acting Administrator Victor McCree. 

“The abnormally high vibrations seen on the three operating reactor coolant pumps during the 

plant cooldown have potential common causes that should be further investigated.” He added 

that a simultaneous small leakage from one pump and indications of degraded conditions in a 

second pump were also of interest to the NRC. 

The NRC decided a special inspection was warranted because of the operational and 

generic aspects of the issue. 

 

The inspection began Monday, April 28 and is expected to take several days. A report 

will be issued about 30 days after the completion of the inspection and will be available at that 

time on the agency’s website at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html . 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html . The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
#### Florence Knapp, Appellant, *v.*Arthur A. Knapp, Respondent.

*994Shientag, J.

(Dissenting). The very findings of the trial court established certain cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of the defendant warranting a decree of separation on that ground in favor of the plaintiff *(Avdoyan*v. *Avdoyan,*265 App. Div. 763; Pearson v. *Pearson,*230 N. Y. 141, 146; *Smith*v. *Smith,*92 App. Div. 442; *McNulty*v. *McNulty,*119 App. Div. 150).

Condonation as to any cruel and inhuman treatment charged was not set up as a defense, nor did the court make any finding of fact or conclusion of law to the effect that there had been condonation (see *Reynolds*v. *Reynolds,*34 How. Prac. 346; *Doe*v. *Doe,*52 Hun 405, 406; *Fisher*v. *Fisher,*223 App. Div. 19, 22, affd. 250 N. Y. 313; *Beebe*v. *Beebe,*174 App. Div. 408).

There was insufficient evidence that the separation was caused by plaintiff’s act of removing some of defendant’s belongings from their apartment on August 3, 1946, and barring defendant therefrom without cause of justification. Particularly is this so since it appears that defendant himself admitted having forcibly ejected plaintiff from their apartment the very next day, August 4,1946. Moreover, the pleadings raise no specific issue (other than by way of general denial) as to what occurred on August 3,1946.

At the very least there should be a new trial. The record presents an incomplete picture as to what took place on August 3 and 4, 1946. The occurrences on those' dates should have been permitted to be fully developed in the testimony because they have a .vital bearing on the issue on which the court found against the plaintiff. The judgment appealed from should, accordingly, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Dore, J. P., Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ./ concur in decision; Shientag, J., dissents in opinion in which Cohn, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. In addition to the findings of the trial court, this court finds that the plaintiff condoned and forgave any acts of cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of the defendant found by the trial court. Settle order on notice.
§ 841.309 Competing claimants. ( a ) Competing claimants are applicants for survivor benefits based on the service of an employee, separated employee, or retiree when— ( 1 ) A benefit is payable based on the service of the employee, separated employee, or retiree; and
( 2 ) Two or more claimants have applied for benefits based on the service of the employee, separated employee, or retiree; and
( 3 ) An OPM decision in favor of one claimant will adversely affect another claimant(s).
( b ) In cases involving competing claimants, the Associate Director or his or her designee will issue a final decision that will be in writing, will fully set forth findings and conclusions, and will contain notice of the right to appeal provided in § 841.308. Copies of the final decision will be sent to all competing claimants.
( c ) ( 1 ) When OPM receives applications from competing claimants before any payments are made based on the service of the employee or Member, OPM will begin payments to the claimant(s) found entitled in the decision issued under paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) When OPM does not receive an application from a competing claimant(s) until after another person has begun to receive payments based on the service of the employee or Member, the payments will continue until a decision is issued under paragraph (b) of this section. When a decision is issued under paragraph (b) of this section, OPM will— ( i ) If OPM affirms its earlier decision, continue payments to the claimant(s) OPM originally determined to be entitled; or
( ii ) If OPM reverses its earlier decision, suspend payment to the claimant(s) OPM originally determined to be entitled and immediately begin payment to the claimant(s) OPM determines to be entitled in its decision under paragraph (b) of this section. OPM will not take action to collect the overpayment until the time limit for filing an appeal has expired or the MSPB has issued a final decision on a timely appeal, whichever comes later.