alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**GAO-03-347**                      Published: Feb 11, 2003. Publicly Released: Feb 11, 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

In 2000, Congress created general aviation entitlement grants to provide funding up to $150,000 per fiscal year to individual general aviation airports. These grants fund capital improvements and repair projects. GAO was asked to (1) assess the amount of funding airports used, (2) identify the types of projects undertaken, and (3) convey suggestions made by interested parties to improve the grants in preparation for the reauthorization of the legislation in 2003.

## Full Report

Highlights

Full Report (39 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

Transportation

AirportsAviationConstruction grantsEntitlementsFederal fundsFederal grantsFunds managementGrant administrationGeneral aviationGeneral aviation airports
#### Sol Gurvitch et al., Partners Doing Business under the Name of Gurvitch *&*Bender, Respondents, v. Feature Ring Co., Inc., Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Cohn, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.
### Part B—Consumer Choices and Insurance Competition Through Health Benefit Exchanges
§ 25.38 Reconsideration of initial decision. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the date of mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
( b ) Every such motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Such motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
( c ) Responses to such motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
( d ) No party may file a motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
( e ) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
( f ) If the ALJ denies a motion for reconsideration, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion, unless the initial decision is timely appealed to the authority head in accordance with § 25.39.
( g ) If the ALJ issues a revised initial decision, that decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued, unless it is timely appealed to the authority head in accordance with § 25.39.
#### § 971.104 OMB control number.

The information collection requirements and reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this part were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0648-0170.
§ 90.8 Evidence required. ( a ) The governmental unit shall provide whatever evidence it has relevant to the request at the time of filing. The Census Bureau may request further evidence when necessary. The evidence submitted must be consistent with the criteria, standards, and regular processes the Census Bureau employs to generate the population estimate. Currently, the Census Bureau challenge process cannot accept estimates developed from methods different from those used by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau will only accept a challenge when the evidence provided indicates the use of incorrect data, processes, or calculations in the estimates.
( b ) For counties and statistical equivalents, the Census Bureau uses a cohort-component of change method to produce population estimates. Each year, the components of change are updated. These components include births, deaths, migration, and change in the group quarters population. The Census Bureau will consider a challenge based on additional information on one or more of the components of change or about the group quarters population in a locality.
( c ) For minor civil divisions and incorporated places, the Census Bureau uses a housing unit method to distribute a county population to places within its legal boundaries. The components in this method include housing units estimates, average household population per housing unit, and an estimate of the population in group quarters. The estimation formula was simplified to increase the accuracy of the estimates following the application of differential privacy as per the Census Bureau's new disclosure avoidance framework. As a result, the persons per household (PPH) and occupancy rate components were replaced with the average household population per housing unit. Additionally, the Census Bureau will consider a challenge based on data related to changes in an area's housing stock, such as data on demolitions, condemned units, uninhabitable units, building permits, or mobile home placements or other housing inventory-based data deemed comparable by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau will also consider a challenge based on additional information about the group quarters population in a locality.
( d ) The Census Bureau will also provide a guide on its website as a reference for governmental units to use in developing their data as evidence to support a challenge to the population estimate. In addition, a governmental unit may address any additional questions by contacting the Census Bureau at 301-763-2461 or by sending emails to *POP.challenge@census.gov* or by delivering mail to a physical address that the Census Bureau will specify in the updated version of the “Population Estimates Challenge Program Review Guide” to be posted in the *census.gov* website.
NRC TO FURTHER EXAMINE SOLAR FLARE ISSUES

RAISED IN RULEMAKING PETITION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined its rulemaking process can 

appropriately consider a petition on maintaining the safety of used nuclear fuel at U.S. reactors if 

an extreme solar flare disables the electrical grid.

The petition, filed by Thomas Popik on March 14, 2011, suggests a massive solar flare 

could potentially disable large portions of the U.S. electrical grid for an extended period of time. 

The petition further suggests that nuclear power plants would then run out of fuel to power the 

emergency systems that maintain pools of water where used nuclear fuel is kept safe. Popik’s 

petition asked the NRC to amend its regulations so that U.S. reactors would have backup spent 

fuel pool systems capable of operating automatically for two years without fuel resupply.

The NRC posted the petition online and took comments through early summer 2011. The 

staff has examined the comments and available information to analyze Popik’s assumptions and 

proposed solution. The staff’s analysis took into account how several agencies have an impact on 

both the electrical grid and responding to natural disasters. The analysis also considered existing 

research into solar flare effects on the grid, as well as into protecting transformers and other 

critical grid infrastructure, along with ongoing NRC efforts to implement lessons learned from 

the Fukushima nuclear accident.

The staff’s analysis concludes the NRC rulemaking process can appropriately handle 

further examination of the issues in Popik’s petition. The first step will be monitoring the 

progress of several Fukushima-related activities designed to enhance plants’ abilities to keep 

spent fuel pools safe. If the staff concludes these activities fall short of resolving the petition’s 

concerns, the agency will work to develop a technical basis for the petition’s suggested rule 

change. If such a basis cannot be established, the NRC will update the public on why the 

petition’s suggestions were not adopted.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-129 December 18, 2012
§ 2004.25 What does it cost to get records under the Privacy Act? ( a ) Your request is an agreement to pay fees . We consider your Privacy Act request as your agreement to pay all applicable fees unless you specify a limit on the amount of fees you agree to pay. We will not exceed the specified limit without your written agreement.
( b ) *How do we calculate fees?* We will charge a fee for duplication of a record under the Privacy Act in the same way we charge for duplication of records under the FOIA in § 2004.9. There are no fees to search for or review records requested under the Privacy Act.
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

WISCONSIN WESTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION

This is the decision of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning

the continued status of the Wisconsin Western Railroad Corporation

(WWR) as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and

the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). WWR was ruled to

be an employer effective July 7, 1982.

The last reported service and compensation for WWR employees was

through August 1984. On December 11, 1984, WWR filed for

reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Effective

January 30, 1985 the Wisconsin & Calumet Railroad Company (WCR), an

employer under the Acts administered by the Board, began operations

over portions of track formerly used by WWR. By 1988, WCR operated

over all track formerly used by WWR. On June 23, 1989, all assets

of WWR were reported liquidated in bankruptcy. WWR's only assets

were two locomotives, office equipment, and tools.

Based on the information summarized above, it is the Board's

determination that the Wisconsin Western Railroad Corporation

ceased to be an employer under the RRA and RUIA on June 23, 1989,

the date on which it no longer

railroad.

'Jerome F. Kever

BCD 1995-107 BA # 3642
| **Contingencies (Details) (TransWeb [Member], USD $)In Thousands, unless otherwise specified** | 12 Months Ended                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| TransWeb [Member]                                                                              |                                                                                                               |
| **Business Acquisition [Line Items]**                                                          |                                                                                                               |
| Litigation settlement                                                                          | $ 26,147us-gaap_LitigationSettlementAmount/ us-gaap_LossContingenciesByNatureOfContingencyAxis= clc_TranswebMember |

| X                                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_BusinessAcquisitionLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Amount of judgment or settlement awarded to (against) the entity in respect of litigation.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_LitigationSettlementAmount**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**duration |
#### § 256.2 The Research Associate Program.

The Bureau provides its facilities, scientific competence, and technical supervision for defined scientific or technical research by a Research Associate when such research is complementary to and compatible with scientific or technical research being performed or to be undertaken by NIST under its statutory mission and authority. The Sponsors pay the salaries of their Research Associates and Sponsor-furnished technical assistants and secretaries of the Research Associates, if any, their travel costs, and other related expenses. Additionally, Sponsors reimburse NIST for the cost of research equipment, services, or materials obtained for the Research Associate.

[32 FR 10252, July 12, 1967, as amended at 40 FR 50707, Oct. 31, 1975]
### Part II—Higher Education Innovative Programs for Community Service
### §4306. Applicability of regulations to subcontractors

The regulations referred to in sections 4304 and 4305(a) and (b) of this title shall require prime contractors of a covered contract, to the maximum extent practicable, to apply the provisions of those regulations to all subcontractors of the covered contract.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3788.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4306 | 41:256(g). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §306(g), as added Pub. L. 100–700, §8(a)(1), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4634; Pub. L. 103–355, title II, §2151, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3313. |

Section
§ 2007.0 Requests for reviews. ( a ) An interested party may submit a request ( 1 ) that additional articles be designated as eligible for GSP duty-free treatment, provided that the article has not been accepted for review within the three preceding calendar years; or
( 2 ) that the duty-free treatment accorded to eligible articles under the GSP be withdrawn, suspended or limited; or
( 3 ) for a determination of whether a like or directly competitive product was produced in the United States on January 3, 1985 for the purposes of section 504(d)(1) (19 U.S. 2464(d)(1)); or
( 4 ) that the President exercise his waiver authority with respect to a specific article or articles pursuant to section 504(c)(3) (19 U.S.C. 2464(c)(3)); or
( 5 ) that product coverage be otherwise modified.
( b ) During the annual reviews and general reviews conducted pursuant to the schedule set out in § 2007.3 any person may file a request to have the GSP status of any eligible beneficiary developing country reviewed with respect to any of the designation criteria listed in section 502(b) or 502(c) (19 U.S.C. 2642 (b) and (c)). Such requests must ( 1 ) specify the name of the person or the group requesting the review;
( 2 ) identify the beneficiary country that would be subject to the review;
( 3 ) indicate the specific section 502(b) or 502(c) criteria which the requestor believes warrants review;
( 4 ) provide a statement of reasons why the beneficiary country's status should be reviewed along with all available supporting information;
( 5 ) supply any other relevant information as requested by the GSP Subcommittee. If the subject matter of the request has been reviewed pursuant to a previous request, the request must include substantial new information warranting further consideration of the issue.
( c ) An interested party or any other person may make submissions supporting, opposing or otherwise commenting on a request submitted pursuant to either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
( d ) For the purposes of the regulations set out under § 2007.0 *et seq.,* an interested party is defined as a party who has significant economic interest in the subject matter of the request, or any other party representing a significant economic interest that would be materially affected by the action requested, such as a domestic producer of a like or directly competitive article, a commercial importer or retailer of an article which is eligible for the GSP or for which such eligibility is requested, or a foreign government.
( e ) All requests and other submissions should be submitted in 20 copies, and should be addressed to the Chairman, GSP Subcommittee, Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20506. Requests by foreign governments may be made in the form of diplomatic correspondence provided that such requests comply with the requirements of § 2007.1.
( f ) The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) may at any time, on its own motion, initiate any of the actions described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
§ 904.104 Final administrative decision. ( a ) If no request for hearing is timely filed as provided in § 904.201(a), the NOVA becomes effective as the final administrative decision and order of NOAA 30 days after service of the NOVA or on the last day of any delay period granted.
( b ) If a request for hearing is timely filed in accordance with § 904.201(a), the date of the final administrative decision is as provided in subpart C of this part.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Jose Palmer, Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Appellate Advocates (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano and Johnnette Traill of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal by defendant, as limited by the brief, from so much of a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Suzanne J. Melendez, J.), imposed November 1, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, as required defendant to complete three years of probation.</p><p>ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.</p><p>Defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint charging him with grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law ยง 155.35 [1]) and falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law ยง 175.10). The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendant had submitted false information in order to receive unemployment benefits, and that he had received in excess of $3,000 in such benefits while he had, in fact, been employed. After plea negotiations, defendant agreed to plead guilty to petit larceny in exchange for a promised sentence of paying $7,311.89 in restitution and completing three years of probation. The grand larceny charge was then reduced to petit larceny (Penal Law ยง 155.25), the falsifying business records charge was dismissed, and defendant pleaded guilty to petit larceny. On November 1, 2016, defendant was sentenced as promised. On appeal, defendant, a 59-year-old substitute teacher, contends that his sentence of three years of probation was excessive given his age, lack of criminal history, depression and asthma, and because it exposes him to hardships related to future employment.</p><p>As defendant has completed his three-year term of probation, his appeal therefrom has <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>been rendered academic (<a href="../2009/2009_08311.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Manning</i>, 67 AD3d 1378</a>, 1380 [2009]; <a href="../2006/2006_05391.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Nicholson</i>, 31 AD3d 468</a>, 469 [2006]; <a href="../2010/2010_52354.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Platchkov</i>, 30 Misc 3d 133</a>[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52354[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2010]).</p><p>Accordingly, the appeal from the sentence is dismissed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<p>Paul Kenny</p><br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 13, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES IN YUZHNO-SAKHALINSK, RUSSIA

----

02 MAR 98
### §103a. Commercial service

In this subtitle, the term "commercial service" means any of the following:

(1) Installation services, maintenance services, repair services, training services, and other services if—

(A) those services are procured for support of a commercial product, regardless of whether the services are provided by the same source or at the same time as the commercial product; and

(B) the source of the services provides similar services contemporaneously to the general public under terms and conditions similar to those offered to the Federal Government;

(2) Services of a type offered and sold competitively, in substantial quantities, in the commercial marketplace—

(A) based on established catalog or market prices;

(B) for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved; and

(C) under standard commercial terms and conditions.

(3) A service described in paragraph (1) or (2), even though the service is transferred between or among separate divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor.

(Added Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §836(a)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1860.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 2020, subject to a savings provision, see section 836(h) of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as an Effective Date of 2018 Amendment; Savings Provision note under section 453b of Title 6, Domestic Security.
### SUBCHAPTER II—NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY FOR THE FUTURE