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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2296 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2296

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain amenities and personal 
                 comforts in the Federal prison system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2003

  Mr. Simmons (for himself, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Terry, Mr. Castle, Mr. 
 Baker, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Kennedy 
of Minnesota, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Foley, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Duncan, Ms. Ginny 
Brown-Waite of Florida, and Mr. Putnam) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain amenities and personal 
                 comforts in the Federal prison system.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal No Frills Prisons Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CERTAIN AMENITIES AND 
              PERSONAL COMFORTS IN THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM.

    No Federal funds may be used to provide any of the following 
amenities or personal comforts in the Federal prison system:
            (1) In-cell television viewing, except for prisoners who 
        are segregated from the general prison population for their own 
        safety.
            (2) Viewing of any motion picture rated R, X, or NC-17, 
        without regard to the medium through which the motion picture 
        is presented.
            (3) Instruction (whether live or through broadcasts), or 
        training equipment, for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or any 
        other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting 
        equipment of any sort.
            (4) Possession of any in-cell coffee pot, hot plate, or 
        heating element.
            (5) Use or possession of any electric or electronic musical 
        instrument.
                                 <all>
```
§ 904.260 Recordation of hearing. ( a ) All hearings shall be recorded.
( b ) The official transcript of testimony taken, together with any exhibits, briefs, or memoranda of law filed therewith, will be filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Transcripts of testimony will be available in any hearing and will be supplied to the parties at the cost of the Agency.
( c ) The Judge may determine whether “ordinary copy”, “daily copy”, or other copy (as those terms are defined by contract) will be necessary and required for the proper conduct of the administrative proceeding.
[71 FR 12448, Mar. 10, 2006, as amended at 87 FR 38939, June 30, 2022]
### §8166. Construction standards

The construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or improvement of a property that is the subject of an enhanced-use lease shall be carried out so as to comply with all applicable provisions of Federal, State, and local law relating to land use, building standards, permits, and inspections.

(Added Pub. L. 102–86, title IV, §401(a), Aug. 14, 1991, 105 Stat. 421; amended Pub. L. 108–422, title IV, §417, Nov. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2393; Pub. L. 112—154, title II, §211(g), Aug. 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 1181.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–154 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows:

"(a) Unless the Secretary provides otherwise, the construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or improvement of the property that is the subject of the lease shall be carried out so as to comply with all standards applicable to construction of Federal buildings. Any such construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or improvement shall not be subject to any State or local law relating to land use, building codes, permits, or inspections unless the Secretary provides otherwise.

"(b) Unless the Secretary has provided that Federal construction standards are not applicable to a property, the Secretary shall conduct periodic inspections of any such construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or improvement for the purpose of ensuring that the standards are met."

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–422 inserted "land use," after "relating to" in second sentence.
#### § 904.401 Written warning as a prior violation.

A written warning may be used as a basis for dealing more severely with a subsequent violation, including, but not limited to, a violation of the same statute or a violation involving an activity that is related to the prior violation.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER WITHDRAWING MEDIATION ORDER 

### Appellate case name: Appellate case number: Date motion filed: James Fontenot and Jan Fontenot v. Jeffery Gibson 01-12-00747-CV October 23, 2012 Type of Motion: Party filing motion: Objection to Mediation Appellee 

### Trial court case number: 998611 Trial court: Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County 

### It is ORDERED that Appellee’s objection to mediation 1s granted. We withdraw our Mediation Order dated October 19, 2012. Judge’s signature: /s/Jane Bland

[] Acting individually



### Date October 25, 2012

Note: Absent emergency or a statement that the motion ~s unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for

motion to extend time to file a brief.See TEX. R. APe. P. 10.3(a). Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion for rehearing. TEX. R. App. P. 10.4(a).
### §723. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid on behalf of employees of Department

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may issue an order directing an employee of the Department to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, paid to or on behalf of the employee under title 5 for relocation expenses, including any expenses under section 5724 or 5724a of such title, or this title if—

(1) the Secretary determines that relocation expenses were paid following an act of fraud or malfeasance that influenced the authorization of the relocation expenses;

(2) before such repayment, the employee is afforded—

(A) notice of the proposed order; and

(B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order not later than ten business days following the receipt of such notice; and

(3) the Secretary issues the order—

(A) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual responds under paragraph (2)(B), not later than five business days after receiving the response of the individual; or

(B) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under paragraph (2)(A).

(b) Appeal of Order of Secretary.—(1) Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary under subsection (a) with respect to an individual, the individual shall have an opportunity to appeal the order to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management before the date that is seven business days after the date of such issuance.

(2) The Director shall make a final decision with respect to an appeal under paragraph (1) within 30 days after receiving such appeal.

(Added Pub. L. 115–41, title II, §205(a), June 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 876.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior sections 723 to 729 were renumbered sections 1923 to 1929 of this title, respectively.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 115–41, title II, §205(c), June 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 877, provided that: "Section 723 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to an amount paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to or on behalf of an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs for relocation expenses on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [June 23, 2017]."
0ti 

DELTA 

T O .W,'N/S H 1 P 

CEl.F.BRAIIKIrj'^ljnirr^ 

^^/^MoiABIIHIOWNiHIK 

February 7. 2012 

Dockcl Maiuigemeiu Fiicilily 

U.S. Dcpiirtmenl orTninsponntion, 

1200 New jersey Avenue SI;.. 

Wesl Building Ground Floor. Room \VI2-I40 

Washinmon. b c 20590 

-r^ 

u.; 

r: 

•^J 

tjn 

'~J^ 

f. 1 '• -jl-

-'y^p D 

rri^iT i 

5 ^ ^ 

^o0~-ii o i 

J -- - ^ 

ex.-

Re: Sun Country Slot Exemption - Docket Nunihcr KAA-2012-0089 

Ladies and Genilemcn: 

Sun Countrv' Airlines lias requested an exemption from the slot limit for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 

(DCA) set forth in vj 93.123(a). to pemiil the FAA to create air carrier slots during certain limited hours for Sun Countr\'"s 

use. The proposed air carrier slots would replace two slot exemptions under DOT Order 2010-12-16 awarded to Sun 

Country. On January 6. 2012. the United States Court of Appeals lor the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the DOT 

Order, and Sun Countr)' will lose its e.\isling sen'ice between DCA and Lansings Capital Region hitemalional Airport. 

Specifically. Sun Countr>' desires ^WQ daily slot during each ofthe 1000 and 1100 hours. The proposed exemption would 

pennit Sun, Country to continue operating its existing services and avoid an inequitable result ofthe Court's order. 

It is apparent that the LAN-DCA route has been extremely beneficial to consumers in the region. According to DOT data 

for the third quarter of 2011, the number of daily passengers on said route has ri.sen by 156%, which the average fare has 

decreased by 26% year over year. 

I personally have benefitted from the LAN-DCA route on many occasions. Instead of having to drive to Detroit or Flint to 

tly to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I have been able to leave right from the Capital Region International 

Airport, thus .saving time and money. 

"The Sun Country^ DCA ser\'ice is es.senlial to the econTiTiiic growth ofthe Greater Lansing Region. The daily ser\'ice is the 

only large aircraft (737-SOO) service to Washington Reagan Aiqwrt, in the state of Michigan outside of Detroit. Prior to 

Sun Country, the regional community had requested the introduction of this service from numerous other airline operators 

without success.. Accordingly, it is critical that the FAA take the necessary steps to eiisure the.continuation of the Sun 

Country slots at the established Highl times in support ofthe Greater Lansing's business and economic growth. 

Your immediate approval of this exemption, so that Sun Countr>' can begin to enter flight .schedules for sale for the 

balance of 2012. will be greatly appreciated. . . ..... . 

Respectfully. 

h<i% 

Kenneth R. Fletcher. Township Super\'isor 

Delta Charter Township 

7710 Wcsi Saginaw [lighwav • Delia Township. Michigan 48917-9712 

Information PIi: 51 7-323-S590 • Fax: 51 7-327-1 703 

www.delianii.gov
No. II-10-067 October 4, 2010 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

NRC RESCHEDULES MEETINGS IN PIKETON TO DISCUSS PORTSMOUTH 

GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT AND LEAD CASCADE FACILITY 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has rescheduled two public meetings originally 

scheduled to be held in Piketon, Ohio, on Sept. 23 to discuss results of the agency’s most recent 

reviews of the United States Enrichment Corporation’s Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and 

USEC Inc.’s American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility located at the same site. USEC Inc. is the 

parent company of the United States Enrichment Corporation. 

The meetings are rescheduled for Thursday, Oct. 14, and the first meeting will begin at 7 

p.m. (EDT) at the Ohio State University Endeavor Center, 1864 Shyville Road in Piketon. The NRC 

staff will discuss with company officials the results of the agency review of the Portsmouth plant 

from July 6, 2008, to July 10, 2010. The discussion will include performance in the areas of safety 

operations, safeguards, radiological controls, facility support and special topics. 

In its review, the NRC found no areas needing improvement, but did note that the agency’s 

inspection program for the facility will likely be revised because the company plans to turn several 

facilities at the site over to the Department of Energy this fall. 

The NRC will also conduct a second public meeting at about 7:30 p.m., or immediately 

following the first meeting, to discuss the NRC review of the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade 

facility at the Portsmouth plant site. That review will cover the same areas as those discussed in the 

first meeting. The NRC found no areas needing improvement at the lead cascade facility. The 

agency will continue the current level of inspections based on the performance and the limited 

amount of material currently at the site. 

Both meetings will be open to the public and NRC officials will be available to answer 

questions after the business portion of each meeting. 

A copy of the Licensee Performance Review for the gaseous diffusion plant is publicly 

available online at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. The number to access the 

document is ML102370403. The document number for the lead cascade review is ML102370410. 

### 

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 

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200 

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67607-67608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25534]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on October 25, 2004, 
a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Esso Standard Oil Co. 
S.A. Ltd., Civil Action No. 2004/0139, was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the District of Virgin Islands.
    In this action, the United States asserted claims against Esso 
Standard Oil Co. S.A. Ltd. (Esso) under Section 107(a) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for recovery of response costs incurred 
regarding the Tutu Wellfield Superfund Site, in St. Thomas, USVI 
(Site). The proposed consent decree embodies an agreement with Esso to 
pay $3 million of response costs. The decree provides Esso with a 
covenant not to sue under Section 107(a) of CERCLA.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States v. Esso Standard Oil Co. S.A. Ltd., D.J. 90-11-3-1510/1.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, 1108 King Street, Suite 201, Christensted, St. Croix, 
VI 00820, and at the Region II Office of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region II Records Center, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, 
New York, NY 10007-1866. During the public comment period, the Consent 
Decree also may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web 
site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy of the Consent Decree 
Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 
2004-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24504b4a4d450a4248414150534b4b40645157404b4e0a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="780c17161119561e141d1d0c0f17171c380d0b1c1712561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone

[[Page 67608]]

confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the 
Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.00 
(25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Ronald G. Gluck,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25534 Filed 11-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# L_2022279EN.01001601.xml

| 27.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 279/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 279/16

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 118/2019

of 8 May 2019

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2022/2016]

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) 2018/1985 of 13 December 2018 not approving Willaertia magna c2c maky as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 11 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1985 of 13 December 2018 not approving Willaertia magna c2c maky as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 11 (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 point is inserted after point 12zzzzzu (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1305) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘12zzzzzv. | 32018 D 1985: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1985 of 13 December 2018 not approving Willaertia magna c2c maky as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 11 (OJ L 317, 14.12.2018, p. 27).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘12zzzzzv.

32018 D 1985: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1985 of 13 December 2018 not approving Willaertia magna c2c maky as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 11 (OJ L 317, 14.12.2018, p. 27).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1985 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 1 June 2019, 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, 8 May 2019.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 317, 14.12.2018, p. 27.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

---
**GAO-03-274**                      Published: Feb 19, 2003. Publicly Released: Feb 19, 2003.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO prepared this report in response to its basic legislative responsibilities. Its objectives are threefold: (1) to examine the historical funding trends and their impact on the condition of the active forces' facilities, (2) to evaluate the consistency of the services' information on facility conditions, and (3) to assess the Department of Defense's (DOD) long-term strategic plan and objectives to improve facility conditions.

## Recommendations

## Recommendations for Executive Action

See All 5 Recommendations

## Full Report

Highlights

Full Report (84 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

National Defense

Facility maintenanceMilitary cost controlMilitary facilitiesMilitary facility constructionStrategic planningU.S. Air ForceU.S. ArmyU.S. Marine CorpsU.S. NavyMilitary construction
§ 750.6 Denial of license applications. ( a ) *Intent to deny notification.* If BIS intends to deny your license application, BIS will notify you in writing within 5 days of the decision. The notification will include: ( 1 ) The intent to deny decision;
( 2 ) The statutory and regulatory basis for the denial;
( 3 ) To the extent consistent with the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the specific considerations that led to the decision to deny the license application;
( 4 ) What, if any, modifications or restrictions to the license application would allow BIS to reconsider the license application;
( 5 ) The name of the BIS representative in a position to discuss the issues with the applicant; and
( 6 ) The availability of appeal procedures.
( b ) *Response to intent to deny notification.* You will be allowed 20 days from the date of the notification to respond to the decision before the license application is denied. If you respond to the notification, BIS will advise you if, as a result of your response, the decision to deny has been changed. Unless you are so advised by the 45th day after the date of the notification, the denial will become final, without further notice. You will then have 45 days from the date of final denial to exercise the right to appeal under part 756 of the EAR.