alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 251 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 251

     To protect small businesses from increased tariffs and other 
 retaliatory actions taken by the United States during a trade dispute.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2003

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To protect small businesses from increased tariffs and other 
 retaliatory actions taken by the United States during a trade dispute.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESSES FROM INCREASED TARIFFS 
              AND OTHER ACTIONS DURING TRADE DISPUTES.

     In any case in which--
            (1) the United States and one or more other countries are 
        parties to a trade dispute under a trade agreement, and
            (2) the United States increases tariffs on goods of such 
        other country or countries or imposes other import restrictions 
        on goods of such other country or countries on account of the 
        failure of that country or countries to come into compliance 
        with the terms of the trade agreement, in accordance with the 
        findings under dispute settlement proceedings under the 
        agreement with respect to the dispute,
an importer of those goods shall be exempt, to the extent provided in 
section 2, from such increases and from the imposition of such other 
import restrictions.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON EXEMPTION.

     The exemption under section 1 shall apply to an importer of goods 
in a calendar year--
            (1) if the importer had fewer than 100 full-time employees 
        (or their equivalents) during the preceding 2 calendar 
        quarters; and
            (2) only for that quantity of those goods which does not 
        exceed 125 percent of the quantity of the same goods that are 
        products of the country or countries referred to in section 1 
        and were imported by that importer in the preceding calendar 
        year.
                                 <all>
```
### Part E—Work Experience and Training Programs
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, David H. Fleischman, Chief
Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of TradeStation
Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|              |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                      |  | 
|------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|              |  |  | 
|March 9, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ David H. Fleischman                                                             
|Date          |  |  |  |  |  | David H. Fleischman Chief Financial
Officer, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464

Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) – Second Round

FROM: Scott Mathias

Air Quality Policy Division, EPA OAQPS

SUBJECT: EPA’s Intended Designation for Franklin County, Missouri for 2010 Primary SO2

NAAQS

On March 8, 2016, representatives from EPA and Senator Claire McCaskill’s office discussed 

via telephone the intended designation for Franklin County, Missouri for the 2010 Primary SO2

NAAQS. 

The following representatives were present:

Scott Mathias – EPA OAQPS

Richard “Chet” Wayland – EPA OAQPS

Sara Terry – EPA OAQPS

Amy Algoe-Eakin – EPA Region 7

Matthew Davis – EPA OCIR 

Patrick Bond – Office of Senator Claire McCaskill
### SUBCHAPTER II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION REGARDING DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
§ 295.4 The selection process. ( a ) The selection process for awards is a multi-step process based on the criteria listed in § 295.6. Source evaluation boards (SEB) are established to ensure that all proposals receive careful consideration. In the first step, called “preliminary screening,” proposals may be eliminated by the SEB that do not meet the requirements of this Part of the annual Federal Register Program announcement. Typical but not exclusive of the reasons for eliminating a proposal at this stage are that the proposal: is deemed to have serious deficiencies in either the technical or business plan; involves product development rather than high-risk R&D; is not industry-led; is significantly overpriced or underpriced given the scope of the work; does not meet the requirements set out in the notice of availability of funds issued pursuant to § 295.7; or does not meet the cost-sharing requirement. NIST will also examine proposals that have been submitted to a previous competition to determine whether substantive revisions have been made to the earlier proposal, and, if not, may reject the proposal.
( b ) In the second step, referred to as the “technical and business review,” proposals are evaluated under the criteria found in § 295.6. Proposals judged by the SEB after considering the technical and business evaluations to have the highest merit based on the selection criteria receive further consideration and are referred to as “semifinalists.”
( c ) In the third step, referred to as “selection of finalists,” the SEB prepares a final ranking of semifinalist proposals by a majority vote, based on the evaluation criteria in § 295.6. During this step, the semifinalist proposers will be invited to an oral review of their proposals with NIST, and in some cases site visits may be required. Subject to the provisions of § 295.6, a list of ranked finalists is submitted to the Selecting Official.
( d ) In the final step, referred to as “selection of recipients,” the Selecting Official selects funding recipients from among the finalists, based upon: the SEB rank order of the proposals on the basis of all selection criteria (§ 295.6); assuring an appropriate distribution of funds among technologies and their applications; the availability of funds; and adherence to the Program selection criteria. The Program reserves the right to deny awards in any case where information is uncovered which raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the proposer. The decision of the Selecting Official is final.
( e ) NIST reserves the right to negotiate the cost and scope of the proposed work with the proposers that have been selected to receive awards. For example, NIST may request that the proposer delete from the scope of work a particular task that is deemed by NIST to be product development or otherwise inappropriate for ATP support.
[63 FR 64413, Nov. 20, 1998]
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of DirectorsAvistar Communications Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-115755, 333-43944 and 333-63914)on Form S-8 of Avistar Communications Corporation of our reportdated January 28, 2005, except as to Note 2, which is as of April 26,2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Avistar CommunicationsCorporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2004,and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Avistar CommunicationsCorporation. Our report indicates that the consolidated balance sheet ofAvistar Communications Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31,2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations and cash flows forthe year then ended have been restated.
|                            | /s/ KPMG LLP |
|----------------------------|--------------|
| Mountain  View, California |         |
| April 26, 2006        |         |

 

----
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with this amended Quarterly Report of Mortgagebrokers.com Holdings,
      Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Alex Haditaghi, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





1.
            Such
                amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
                30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
                15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
                information contained in such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
                for
                the period ending September 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                Mortgagebrokers.com Holdings, Inc.





Dated:
      August 17, 2007





MORTGAGEBROKERS.COM
      HOLDINGS, INC.





By:
      /s/
      Alex Haditaghi


President,
      Chief Executive Officer


Chief
      Financial Officer and


Chairman
      of Board of Directors
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--DVB Project

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), DVB Project (``DVB'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal 
place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the 
nature and scope of its standards development activities. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: DVB Project, 
Geneva, SWITZERLAND. The nature and scope of DVB's standards 
development activities are: To develop, assist in conformance testing 
in respect of, provide certification services related to, and promote 
specifications for digital video broadcasting and related fields.
    For further information about the DVB Project, its activities, and 
its membership, see http://www.dvb.org.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25871 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2012

- NM

- 0 08

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-03-080 December 22, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC ISSUES CONFIRMATORY ORDER TO UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 

REACTOR ON IMPROVING EMPLOYEE PROTECTIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a Confirmatory Order to the 

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, documenting the university=s commitments to improve 

employee protections for raising possible safety issues at its research reactor.

In June of this year, the NRC concluded that a former research scientist had been subjected 

to employment discrimination and continued retaliation by management of the reactor facility as a 

result of raising safety issues. NRC regulations prohibit discrimination against employees of 

nuclear facilities for raising safety issues.

The agency=s conclusion was based on the findings of an investigation by the NRC Office of 

Investigations which began in December 2001.

As a result of that apparent violation of NRC requirements, the university agreed to clarify 

its procedures for granting researchers access to the reactor facility and to place management of the 

facility directly under the Office of the Provost to assure better oversight by senior university 

management.

The university will also develop a long term plan for ensuring a Asafety-conscious work 

environment,@ one in which employees can raise safety concerns without fear of discrimination. 

The plan will include an employee cultural survey by an independent organization and annual 

training of all employees and users of the facility on expectations, policies, and procedures for 

maintaining a safety conscious work environment.

The NRC will conduct subsequent inspections to monitor the university=s compliance with 

the Order which describes the university=s commitments.

The Order is available on the NRC=s web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/reactors/ea02256.pdf. 

###
UNITED STATES 

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 REGION I 

 475 ALLENDALE ROAD 

 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-1415 

January 15, 2010 

Raymond Rusin 

Chief 

Office of Facilities Regulation 

Division of Environmental and Health Services Regulation 

Rhode Island Department of Health 

3 Capitol Hill 

Providence, RI 02908 

Dear Mr. Rusin: 

A periodic meeting with your Office was held on December 2, 2009. The purpose of the 

meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Rhode Island Department of Health’s 

Agreement State program. The NRC was represented by Monica Orendi and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions that 

will be taken as a result of the meeting. 

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have 

any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at (610) 337-5214, or 

by email to James.Kottan@nrc.gov to discuss your comments. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

James Kottan 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: As stated 

cc w/encl: 

Carol Horibin, State of Rhode Island 
January 15, 2010 

Raymond Rusin 

Chief 

Policy and Programs 

Office of Facilities Regulation 

Division of Environmental and Health Services Regulation 

Rhode Island Department of Health 

3 Capitol Hill 

Providence, RI 02908 

Dear Mr. Rusin: 

A periodic meeting with your Office was held on December 2, 2009. The purpose of the 

meeting was to review and discuss the status of the Rhode Island Department of Health’s 

Agreement State program. The NRC was represented by Monica Orendi and me. 

I have completed and enclosed a general meeting summary, including any specific actions that 

will be taken as a result of the meeting. 

If you feel that our conclusions do not accurately summarize the meeting discussion, or have 

any additional remarks about the meeting in general, please contact me at (610) 337-5214, or 

by email to James.Kottan@nrc.gov to discuss your comments. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

James Kottan 

Regional State Agreements Officer 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety 

Enclosure: As stated 

cc w/encl.: 

Carol Horibin, State of Rhode Island 

Distribution: 

Aaron McCraw, FSME 

Monica Orendi, FSME 

John Kinneman, RI DNMS 

Daniel Collins, RI DNMS 

Pamela Henderson, RI DNMS 

SUNSI Review Complete: JJK (Reviewer=s Initials) 

DOCUMENT NAME: S:\State Agreement Files\Rhode Island\RI 12-2-2009 Periodic Meeting Summary Cover Letter.doc 

After declaring this document AAn Official Agency Record@ it will be released to the Public. 

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with 

attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy LTR – ML100190141, ENCL – ML100190147

OFFICE DNMS/RI E DNMS/RI N 

NAME DJanda/dmj JKottan/jjk 

DATE 01/15/10 01/13/10 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
# L_2023164EN.01002801.xml

| 29.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 164/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 164/28

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 304/2022

of 9 December 2022

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1246]

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 Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1316 of 25 July 2022 amending Decision 2008/911/EC establishing a list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1316 of 25 July 2022 amending Decision 2008/911/EC establishing a list of herbal substances, preparations and combinations thereof for use in traditional herbal medicinal products (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 15zl (Commission Decision 2008/911/EC) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32022 D 1316: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1316 of 25 July 2022 (OJ L 198, 27.7.2022, p. 22).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32022 D 1316: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1316 of 25 July 2022 (OJ L 198, 27.7.2022, p. 22).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1316 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 10 December 2022, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

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, 9 December 2022.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kristján Andri STEFÁNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 198, 27.7.2022, p. 22.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
### SUBCHAPTER IV—PUBLIC EDUCATION
The State of New Hampshire 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner 

May 26, 2011 

Jill K. Sieveking, Acting Director 

c/o OLS, Division of Administrative Rules 

State House Annex, Room 219 

Concord, NH 03301 

Re: Adoption of Final Rules, FP #2011-27 

Dear Director Sieveking: 

Please be advised that I, as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services, 

have adopted the following rules, to be effective June l, 2011 : 

Env-A 1200: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) 

The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules approved these rules at its 

meeting on May 20, 2011 . 

A copy of the adopted rules is being filed electronically, concurrent with the e-filing of this 

adoption letter . The original, signed adoption letter is being sent separately by messenger mail 

for your records . 

I, Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services, hereby 

certify that the enclosed axe true copies of the rules I have adopted. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas S. Burack 

Commissioner 

Enclosures 

cc: Gretchen Hatnel, DES Legal Unit Administrator 

Public Information and Permitting Office 

ec: K. Allen Brooks, Chief, AGO-Environmental Protection Bureau 

Barbara Hoffman, DES AR:D Compliance & Enforcement Programs Manager 

DES Web site : www.des .nh.gov 

P.O. Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0(!9S 

tcn,)N ~^r1 ~cn-i - n. . .. . icnI), "s^r1 11Vc-r . ~rnr, A ,. .., . . . .. . rs ..1 .. . . wt Vi y onn R11 e nnc .+
### SUBCHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE FOR THE FUTURE
First Department,

May, 1949.

(May 3, 1949.)

#### Thomas F. Mulligan, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Shientag, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. [194 Misc. 579.]