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

Person s Calling: Keith Barnett and Steve Silverman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAQPS/ SPPD and OGC 919

- 541

- 5605 Person Called: Hector Ybanez

Holcim (US) Inc. Date of Contact: October 22, 2010

. Contact Summar y: Steve and I called Hector to discuss the issue he and others had raised about the weigh s ys tem calibration requirements in the Portland Cement NESHAP. Hector explained the clinker reconciliation procedures used at Holcim plants, and the method used to determine the amount of feed material. From this conversation it appeared to the EPA preventatives that this issue was mainly interpreting what was meant by calibration. We agreed to address this issue at a later date, but determined it was not necessary to address it in the NESHAP clarification notice we were currently

preparing. More information was provided by Hector Ybanez in a 9/17/2010 email that has been separatel y docketed
#### William Rubin, Respondent, v. 675 Walton Avenue Corp. et al., Appellants.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. Glennon and Cohn, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.
### Part A—Establishment and General Duties
NRC TO MEET WITH OMAHA POWER DISTRICT OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS FORT 

CALHOUN NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with officials from the Omaha Public 

Power District on Sept. 11 to discuss the status of the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant’s performance 

improvement activities. OPPD operates the plant, which is located 19 miles north of Omaha. 

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. CDT at 

Dana College’s Gardner-Hawks Center, 2848 College Dr., in Blair, Neb.

Fort Calhoun is shut down and remains in a safe mode following flooding along the 

Missouri River in 2011.

OPPD officials and the NRC staff will discuss work underway at the plant and efforts to 

prepare it for restart, including the status of performance improvement items outlined in a 

Confirmatory Action Letter the NRC sent to OPPD on June 11.

This meeting is one of a series the NRC is holding to keep the public informed about 

OPPD’s efforts to address performance issues. 

###

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, Region IV

1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

Arlington, TX 76011 - 4125

Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No: IV-12-032

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

 Aug. 24, 2012

E-mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov
### SUBCHAPTER V—SYSTEM COMPLIANCE OPTION
#### § 1112.55 Will the CPSC publish adverse actions?

Immediately following a final adverse action, the CPSC may publish the fact of a final adverse action, the text of a final adverse action, or a summary of the substance of a final adverse action. After issuance of a final adverse action, the CPSC will amend its Web site listing of CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies to reflect the nature and scope of such adverse action.
No. IV-09-021 

Contact: Victor Dricks 

Phone: (817) 860-8128 

 

 June 15, 2009 

E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS 2008 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 

 FOR COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR PLANT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Glen Rose, Texas, on June 30, 

with representatives of Luminant Generation Co., to discuss the agency=s 2008 assessment of 

safety performance for the Comanche Peak nuclear plant. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the. 

Commissioner’s Court Room, 107 NE Vernon St., Glen Rose. 

In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions from the public on the safety performance of Comanche Peak, as well as the NRC=s 

role in ensuring safe plant operation. 

 AThe NRC continually reviews the performance of Comanche Peak and the nation=s other 

commercial nuclear power facilities,@ NRC Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins said. AThis 

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety 

performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant.@

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2008 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on 

the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cp_2008q4.pdf. 

The NRC said Comanche Peak operated safely during 2008 and will receive the detailed 

core inspection regime during 2009 used by the NRC for plants that are operating well. 

These inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant 

and by inspection specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400 

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125 

Telephone: (817) 860-8128 
Current performance information for Comanche Peak Unit 1 is available on the NRC web 

site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CP1/cp1_chart.html. Current 

performance information for Comanche Peak Unit 2 is available at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CP2/cp2_chart.html. 

 ### 

 

 NRC news releases are available through a free list serve 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.
§ 1203.3 Referenced documents. ( a ) The following documents are incorporated by reference in this standard. ( 1 ) Draft ISO/DIS Standard 6220-1983—Headforms for Use in the Testing of Protective Helmets.[1]
( 2 ) SAE Recommended Practice SAE J211 OCT88, Instrumentation for Impact Tests.
( b ) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of the standards may be obtained as follows. Copies of the draft ISO/DIS Standard 6220-1983 are available from American National Standards Institute, 11 W. 42nd St., 13th Floor, New York, NY 10036. Copies of the SAE Recommended Practice SAE J211 OCT88, Instrumentation for Impact Tests, are available from Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
Footnotes -
1203.3
[1] Although the draft ISO/DIS 6220-1983 standard was never adopted as an international standard, it has become a consensus national standard because all recent major voluntary standards used in the United States for testing bicycle helmets establish their headform dimensions by referring to the draft ISO standard.
### Part C—Increasing Nursing Workforce Diversity

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part C set forth general provisions and consisted of sections 298 to 298b–7, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–392.
*

The Hon. Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 04a0178n.06

Filed: December 17, 2004

03-4212

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ZC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

and ABSECON HOLDINGS, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WARREN L. WOLFSON; WLW TRUST;

RUTH L. WOLFSON; CARE INSTITUTE

GROUP, INC.; and CLEVELAND SENIOR

CARE CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS,*

 Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. This appeal results from a jury verdict in a diversity action filed by

ZC Specialty Insurance Company and Absecon, Inc., against the defendants, Warren

Wolfson, Ruth Wolfson, and the WLW Trust, for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and

fraud. The dispute between the parties grew out of a business transaction in which

Absecon purchased six nursing homes from Wolfson and his associates, under a financing

scheme that was guaranteed by a surety bond underwritten by ZC Specialty Insurance.

The deal soured when the nursing homes produced profits far below Absecon’s hopes. As

a consequence, Absecon refused to return a financial advance provided by Wolfson and
03-4212

- 2 -

accused Wolfson of hiding the homes’ history of poor profit margins. Wolfson filed suit

against Absecon in the district court for failing to return the monetary advance, and

Absecon and ZC Specialty Insurance brought counterclaims for breach of contract, breach

of warranty, and fraud. Pursuant to the verdict in Wolfson’s favor, the plaintiffs appeal to

this court, asserting that the district court erred by dismissing their fraud claims against

Wolfson, by improperly admitting and excluding significant evidence, and by failing to grant

their motion for a new trial because the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal

and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying

the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered

for the defendants have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a

detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, we sustain the jury verdict and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in

the defendants’ favor upon the reasoning set out by that court in its memoranda of opinion

and orders filed on October 30, 2002, December 12, 2002, and September 24, 2003.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frances Baumgardner, on Behalf of Herself and Theodore Baumgardner and Others, Infants, Respondent, against East Coast Valve & Fitting Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, and Surplus Materials Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2328 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2328

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 22 (legislative day, July 21), 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the 
               ``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2001 
East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert A. Borski Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Terrence Biggs

*William M. Bloss,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Leah Hawley,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided January 21, 1988

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 13 Conn. App. 12, is denied.
§ 1209.35 Product specification. ( a ) *Requirement.* Before any manufacturer, importer, or private labeler distributes in commerce cellulose insulation which is subject to the standard, it shall ensure that the insulation is described in a written product specification.
( b ) *Contents of specification.* The product specification shall include the following information: ( 1 ) A description of the equipment used to manufacture the insulation, including the model number and names of the equipment manufacturers, and details of any modification made to any item of equipment.
( 2 ) A description of the cellulosic stock material used to manufacture the insulation, identifying the extent of impurities allowed.
( 3 ) The formulation of the fire-retardant chemicals added, including their chemical constituents and their form (for example, granulated, powdered, or liquid); the amount of fire-retardant chemicals present in the finished insulation, expressed as a percentage of the total weight of chemicals and cellulosic stock; the average weight of chemicals per bag; and the name and address of each chemical supplier. Where the chemical composition or formula of a commercially pre-mixed fire retardant is not known to the insulation manufacturer, the pre-mixed fire retardant may be described simply by the name and address of the supplier and its brand or trade name.
( 4 ) A description of the tests which were used to qualify the product as well as the dates of performance and results and actual values, where applicable, of the tests.
( 5 ) Any other information necessary to describe the insulation.
( c ) *Distribution in commerce.* After the qualification testing required by § 1209.34 has been completed with acceptable results and the product specification required by this § 1209.35 has been recorded, the cellulose insulation may be manufactured and distributed in commerce, subject to the provisions of § 1209.36.
( d ) *New product.* Whenever a manufacturer, private labeler, or importer makes any change to any item of equipment, cellulosic stock material, or formulation of a fire-retardant chemical, or any other factor which is likely to affect the ability of the cellulose insulation to meet the standard, that change will result in a new cellulose insulation product, requiring the preparation of a new product specification. The new product must be subjected to qualification tests and must yield passing or acceptable results.
### §10308. Patent policy

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall be governed by the provisions of sections 5908 (except subsections (l) and (n)) and 5909 of this title with respect to patent policy and to the definition of title to and licensing of inventions made or conceived in the course of work performed, or under any contract or grant made, pursuant to this chapter. Subject to such patent policy, all research or development contracted for, sponsored, cosponsored, or authorized under authority of this chapter shall be provided in such manner that all information, data, and know-how, regardless of their nature or mediums, resulting from such research and development shall (with such exceptions and limitations, if any, as the Secretary may find to be necessary in the interest of national defense) be usefully available for practice by the general public.

(Pub. L. 98–242, title I, §109, Mar. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 101.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 98–242, Mar. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 97, known as the Water Resources Research Act of 1984, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 10301 of this title and Tables.
### SUBCHAPTER III—HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68440-68441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26055]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34605]


Rio Valley Switching Company--Operation Exemption--Rio Valley 
Railroad, Inc.

    Rio Valley Switching Company (RVSC), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to operate, 
pursuant to an agreement with Rio Valley Railroad, Inc. (RVRI), 
approximately 17.38 miles of rail lines owned by the Union Pacific 
Railroad Company (UP) located in Cameron County, TX, consisting of: (1) 
A portion of the Mission Industrial Lead from milepost 0.06, at a point 
50 feet measured at a right angle from UP's Brownsville Subdivision 
main track No. 104 at Harlingen, TX, to milepost 1.00 in Harlingen Yard 
at Harlingen, TX; (2) the Santa Rosa Industrial Lead from milepost 0.00 
in Harlingen Yard at Harlingen, TX, to milepost 11.38 near Rogers Lacy, 
TX; and (3) approximately 5 miles of track in Harlingen Yard at 
Harlingen, TX.
    This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34604, Rio 
Valley Railroad, Inc.--Acquisition Exemption--Rail Lines of Union 
Pacific Railroad Company in Cameron County, TX, wherein RVRI seeks to 
acquire by lease, the lines to be operated by RVSC.
    RVSC certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this 
transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I 
rail carrier. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated no sooner 
than November 2, 2004, the effective date of the exemption (7 days 
after the exemption was filed).

[[Page 68441]]

    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34605, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. 
McFarland, P.C., 208 South LaSalle Street, <greek-i>1890, Chicago, IL 
60604-1112.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
``www.stb.dot.gov.''

    Decided: November 17, 2004.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-26055 Filed 11-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### § 730.4 Other control agencies and departments.

In addition to the departments and agencies mentioned in § 730.3 of this part, other departments and agencies have jurisdiction over certain narrower classes of exports and reexports. These include the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which administers controls against certain countries that are the object of sanctions affecting not only exports and reexports, but also imports and financial dealings. For your convenience, supplement no. 3 to part 730 identifies other departments and agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over certain types of exports and reexports. This is not a comprehensive list, and the brief descriptions are only generally indicative of the types of controls administered and/or enforced by each agency.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Guido Berardo, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Breitel, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
#### Allen P. Maltz et al., Appellants, v. Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by his father to recover medical expenses, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant entered after a trial by the court without a jury. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Beldock, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3556 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 128
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3556

                          [Report No. 112-456]

To designate the new United States courthouse in Buffalo, New York, as 
          the ``Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2011

  Mr. Higgins (for himself, Ms. Hochul, Mr. Owens, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. 
 Hanna, Mr. Engel, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Israel, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Gibson, 
Mr. Meeks, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Rangel, Mr. King of New York, Ms. Hayworth, 
 Mr. Reed, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Bishop of New York, Ms. Clarke of New York, 
  Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Serrano, Mr. 
 Towns, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Grimm, Ms. Buerkle, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. 
 Turner of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             April 27, 2012

                    Additional sponsor: Mr. Conyers

                             April 27, 2012

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the new United States courthouse in Buffalo, New York, as 
          the ``Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse''.

 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse at 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, New York 
shall be known and designated as the ``Robert H. Jackson United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert H. 
Jackson United States Courthouse''.
                                                 House Calendar No. 128

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3556

                          [Report No. 112-456]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To designate the new United States courthouse in Buffalo, New York, as 
          the ``Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 27, 2012

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```