alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §105. Component

In this subtitle, the term "component" means an item supplied to the Federal Government as part of an end item or of another component.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3680.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 105 | 41:259(c)(14). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §309(c)(14), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, §2711(a)(3), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1180; Pub. L. 98–577, title V, §504(a)(4), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3086; Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1551, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3299. |
| | 41:264a ("component"). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §314A ("component"), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, §8202, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3394. |
| | 41:403(14). | Pub. L. 93–400, §4(14), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, §8001(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3386. |

Section
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67899-67900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 
22, 2004.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Customer Comment Card; Air Force Form 
3211; OMB Number 0701-0146.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 200.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 200.
    Average Burden Per Response: 5 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 16.67.
    Needs and Uses: Each guest of Air Force Lodging and its contract 
lodging operations is provided access to Air Force Form 3211. The Air 
Force Form 3211 gives each guest the opportunity to comment on 
facilities and services received. Completion and return of the form is 
optional. The information collection requirement is necessary for Wing 
leadership to assess the effectiveness of their Lodging program.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-
profit.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jacqueline Zeiher.

[[Page 67900]]

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/ESCD/Information Management 
Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.

    Dated: November 15, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-25754 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
# L_2021105EN.01002001.xml

| 25.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 105/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 105/20

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 221/2018

of 26 October 2018

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms [2021/504]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to include Council Recommendation of 15 March 2018 on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to include Council Recommendation of 15 March 2018 on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships (1).

| (2) | Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in paragraph 8 of Article 4 of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32018 H 0502: Council Recommendation of 15 March 2018 on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships (OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32018 H 0502: Council Recommendation of 15 March 2018 on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships (OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 1).’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement (*1).

Article 3

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, 26 October 2018.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# L_2022291EN.01006901.xml

| 10.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/69

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 178/2019

of 14 June 2019

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2022/2170]

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) 2019/401 of 19 December 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry (1), as corrected by OJ L 73, 15.3.2019, p. 193, is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/401 of 19 December 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry (1), as corrected by OJ L 73, 15.3.2019, p. 193, is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

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

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 21ana (Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32019 R 0401: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/401 of 19 December 2018 (OJ L 72, 14.3.2019, p. 4), as corrected by OJ L 73, 15.3.2019, p. 193.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32019 R 0401: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/401 of 19 December 2018 (OJ L 72, 14.3.2019, p. 4), as corrected by OJ L 73, 15.3.2019, p. 193.’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/401, as corrected by OJ L 73, 15.3.2019, p. 193, 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 15 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, 14 June 2019.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 72, 14.3.2019, p. 4.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

---
Board Coverage Decision

1996-38

Tulsa-Sapula Union Railway Company, LLC

Name Change - Effective December 20, 1995

Tulsa-Sapula Union Railway Company 

has changed its name to

Tulsa-Sapula Union Railway Company, LLC

No Decision Published

BA # 5809
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents SECY-12-0025 - Proposed Orders And Requests For Information In Response To Lessons Learned From Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake And Tsunami Accession Number: ML12039A103 Date Released: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 Package Contents The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools. ML12039A111 - SECY-12-0025 - Proposed Orders And Requests For Information In Response To Lessons Learned From Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake And Tsunami (14 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A115 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 1:  Public Meetings Related To Tier 1 Japan Lesson-Learned Regulatory Actions (1 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A118 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 2:  Staff Assessment And Prioritization Of Additional Issues Identified In SECY-11-0137 (6 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A121 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 3:  Staff's Prioritization Of ACRS Recommendations For NRC Actions To Be Taken In Response To Fukushima Lessons-Learned (13 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A124 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 4:  Order Modifying Licenses:  Requirement For Mitigation Of Challenges To Key Safety Functions (18 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A127 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 5:  Order Modifying Licenses:  Reliable Hardened Vent Systems At Boiling Water Reactor Facilities With General Electric Mark I And II Containments (16 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A148 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 6:  Order Modifying Licenses:  Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Level Instrumentation At Operating Reactor Sites (21 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A188 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 7:  Request For Information Pursuant To 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, And 9.3, Of The Near-Term Task Force Review Of Insights From The Fukushima Daiichi Accident (25 page(s), 2/17/2012)
            ML12039A152 - SECY-12-0025 - Enclosure 8:  6-Month Status Update On Other Charter Activities (6 page(s), 2/17/2012)


Privacy Policy Site Disclaimer
###### Editorial Note on Part 922

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

#### § 922.10 Pre-existing authorizations or rights and certifications of pre-existing authorizations or rights.

Any valid lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access that is in existence on the effective date of final regulations for a designation or revised terms of designation of any National Marine Sanctuary may not be terminated by the Director. The Director may, however, regulate the exercise of such leases, permits, licenses, or rights consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.
FAA’s Answer to Question from Michael Trout, Executive Administrator for the Michigan

Department of Transportation (MDOT)-Office of Aeronautics – July 9, 2015

Question: Have you determined whether the use of “offsets” or “amounts equal to” the tax collected on aviation fuel is acceptable for the purpose of compliance with the Revenue Use Policy. As the portion of our sales tax in question is constitutionally dedicated to other purposes (education), we are contemplating as part of an action plan a methodology to accurately record the amount being collected and then a mechanism to allocate that amount from other state sources to state aviation programs. Any insight would be very helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification. Response: Yes, we have concluded that offsets are permitted. Aviation fuel tax statutory requirements are met by a State appropriating money for airport purposes from its general fund in an amount equal to or exceeding the aviation fuel tax proceeds collected, and remitting such funds into the State aviation program fund, or to the applicable airport revenue account. We want to point out your question raises another issue since you reference that a portion of the aviation fuel sales tax being constitutionally dedicated to other purposes. The FAA’s Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenues (64 Fed. Reg. 7696, February 16, 1999) provides for taxes on aviation fuel in effect on December 30, 1987 to be “grandfathered”. We do not have sufficient data concerning the constitutionally dedicated portion of the taxes and cannot comment further on the grandfathering of the aviation fuel taxes. Guidance regarding the process to determine whether a tax is eligible for grandfathered status is posted at r egulations.gov , Docket FAA-2013-0988. In proceeding with a permitted offset, the State and local governments interested in making an offset need to confirm that such actions are lawful and consistent with applicable State and local laws, and advise FAA accordingly. Additionally, the action plan should confirm that requirements are in place to ensure the appropriations are implemented and enforceable by state or local agencies; the State will also need to account for and remit to the State aviation fund or to a local airport entity the dollar amount of the revenues generated from the state or local aviation fuel tax, as applicable. The State must have appropriate controls in place to ensure tax revenues are promptly remitted to the appropriate airport revenue accounts and State aviation program accounts.
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0659

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

MICHAEL PAINTER,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including December 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

State’s response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 2 2023

11/02/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0659
### Part B—Uranium Revitalization
### SUBCHAPTER IV—AFFORDABLE COVERAGE CHOICES FOR ALL AMERICANS
### §150908. Records and inspection

(a) Records.—The corporation shall keep—

(1) correct and complete records of account;

(2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of directors, and committees having any of the authority of its board of directors; and

(3) at its principal office, a record of the names and addresses of its members entitled to vote.

(b) Inspection.—A member entitled to vote, or an agent or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1396.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 150908 | 36:4513. | July 14, 1964, Pub. L. 88–376, §13, 78 Stat. 323. |

Section

The word "records" is substituted for "books and records" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.
## 45- ,PO - I-/ CL - OPPT-, .200~7 - D033 F .D 3'f'qp~3,

. 

# r LLI y ~1i~ Q '1~114t 

## iq 16

, PROS~O~ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXICSUBSTANCES 

## 10( o ~-- MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FROM : THRU: reaction

TO : Request for Reviewon the Physical Chemical endpoints of Test Plan for HPV products with formaldehyde (CAS Test Rule Chemical Orphan, Urea, No. 68611-64-3) Industrial Chemistry Branch (7406M) Kathryn E. Schechter, Chemist

Chemistry (744M)

c- J Tracy Williamson, Chief C G'`,1

Branch Industrial Greg Schweer, Chief Chemical Information and Testing Branch (7405M) P r g This memo is in response to your request to evaluate the adequacy of the submitted prope information by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) to meet the endpoints in the HPV-1 test rule for t;rea, reaction products with formaldehyde (CAS No. 68611-64-3) using Urea, N,N"- ~` methylenebis- (MDU) as a representative chemical for the reaction mixture. e Urea, reaction products with formaldehyde is a complex mixture of products. TFI cnthe identified MDU as a representative chemical for this set of products. MDUis expected to major component of the reaction between formaldehyde and urea; MDU is also expected to be the product with the lowest weight. Therefore, MDU as the representative chemical isjustified. The following comments are made with regards to the physical-chemical properties of MDU : Boiling Point . E guidance') . Melting Point . The submitted value is 212-214 deg C . Similar melting point values were found in Beilstein (218 and 207 deg C) ; therefore, the submitted value is reasonable .

The submitted value says "not applicable" . The estimated boiling point is 337 deg Cwhich is greater than 300 deg C ; therefore, this assessment is reasonable. Vapor Pressure. The submitted value says "not applicable" . The estimated vapor pressure is 2

.8e-6 torr which is higher than the cut offvalue of 7.Se-8 torr in EPA's guidance for estimating vapor pressure values (EPA's guidance is based on O CD

As this representative chemical is expected to be only a component of the reaction mixture and the most volatile, this estimate can be used as an upper limit for the reaction product mixture, and it is not necessary to test for the vapor pressure. _3 Y InternetAddress Recycled/Recyclable 0 a l (URL) . http :Nwww

.epa~vONTAINS NOCBI

. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100%Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper" Water Solubility. The submitted value is 25 g/L. Asimilar water solubility value was

found in Beilstein (29.41 g/L at 28 deg C) ; therefore, the submitted value is reasonable. " Log P

. The submitted value is -3.01 (estimate by EPI) . The HPVprogramaccepts estimated values for log P. I agree with the sponsor's reasoning for no further testing for the physical-chemical endpoints of this chemical . Data for the representative chemical MDUadequately fulfills this requirement .

1 . Appendix 1 in the OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, Guideline 104: Vapour Pressure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.A.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.B., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 608 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### § 930.97 Federal assisting agency responsibility.

Following receipt of a State agency objection, the Federal agency shall not approve assistance for the activity except as provided in subpart H of this part.
NO. 07-01-0283-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	SEPTEMBER 20, 2001

	______________________________

	IN RE ENERGAS COMPANY, RELATOR	

	_________________________________

	CONCURRING OPINION

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

	I concur in the opinion and judgment of the majority but write separately to clarify my position regarding the absence of adequate legal remedy.   That is, to win mandamus, the applicant must generally prove that 1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and 2) the applicant lacks an adequate legal remedy.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837(Tex. 1992).  Here, we found that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting discovery with regard to request for production No. 24.  This was so because the time period encompassed by the request was unrestricted.   Having found that Energas Company satisfied the first prong of Packer, we normally would be required to consider the second prong, i.e. the lack of adequate legal remedy.  However, the Supreme Court in In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998) granted mandamus under factual circumstances similar to those before us without first considering whether the applicant had an adequate legal remedy.  Instead, it merely concluded that the trial court abused its discretion because the requests there at issue were not tied to any particular products or time periods.  Id. at 713.  Then, it deigned to conditionally grant a writ of mandamus.  Id. at 714.   Granting the writ simply after finding an abuse of discretion implies that one need not satisfy the second prong of Packer in circumstances like those before us.  And, though I question the policy behind relieving one from satisfying both aspects of Packer, we are nonetheless bound to follow the Supreme Court’s lead, as evinced in In re American Optical.  So, that is why I concur in the majority’s opinion.

							Brian Quinn

							   Justice

Publish.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Page 11 of 17

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(d)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1999-A

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

Banker's Trust Company                      Key Bank USA, National Association
Four Albany Street                          800 Superior Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, New York  10006                   Cleveland, Ohio  44114
ATTN: Corporate Trust & Agency Group        ATTN: Senior Vice President
      Structured Finance                    Key Education Resources
Phone: (212) 250-6501                       Phone: (216) 828-9342
Fax:  (212) 250-6439                        Fax:  (216) 828-9301.




Pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Indenture dated as of January 1,1999, between
KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 1999-A, as Issuer, and Banker's Trust Company, as
Indenture Trustee, the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the
activities of the Issuer from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, and of
its performance under the Indenture has been made, and (ii) to the best of our
knowledge, based on our review, the Issuer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Indenture throughout such period.

                                    KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1999-A, as Issuer
                                    By:  Bank One, National Association
                                         FKA, The First National Bank of Chicago
                                         as Eligible Lender Trustee

                                    By: /s/ Jeffrrey L. Kinney
                                       -------------------------------
Date: 3/15/01                       Jeffrey L. Kinney
                                    Vice President
#### Citizens First National Bank of Frankfort, Appellant, v. Robert A. Parkinson, Respondent.

*1056Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ. [178 Misc. 630.]