alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1209.2 Definitions and measurements. ( a ) As used in this part 1209, *Cellulose insulation* means cellulosic fiber, loose fill, thermal insulation that is suitable for blowing or pouring applications.
( b ) The definitions given in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act are applicable to this part 1209.
( c ) For the purposes of conformance with the technical requirements of this standard, the figures are given in the metric system of measurement. The inch-pound system approximations of these figures are provided in parentheses for convenience and information only. For numerical quantities for which no specific tolerances are given, the tolerance shall be one half of the unit value of the last significant digit given in the dimension. Where numerical quantities are given without tolerances in both the metric and inch-pound system of measurements, the tolerance shall be one half of the last significant digit of the metric equivalent of the numerical quantity.
( d ) The specifications and dimensions in the test methods below are given in metric units, with the English equivalents in parentheses. For enforcement purposes the Commission will use metric units.
### SUBCHAPTER II—MARITIME FINANCING FOR OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 17

, 20 12

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 1 0

- 00 510

- CV

____________

JAMES BAXTER , Appellant

V.

ADVANTAGE CLAIMS RECOVERY, PAMELA DAVIS

AND RICHARD DAVIS , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2005

- 37518



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 2, 20 1 0 . The clerk’s record was

filed December 28 , 20 1 0 . The reporter’s record was filed October 17, 2011 . No brief

was filed.

On March 1, 20 12 , this c ourt issued an order stating that unless appellant submitted

a brief, together with a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was late, on or before2

April 2, 20 12 , the c ourt would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R.

App. P . 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justice s Seymore, Brown

.
§ 930.96 Consistency review. ( a ) ( 1 ) If the State agency does not object to the proposed activity, the Federal agency may grant the federal assistance to the applicant agency. Notwithstanding State agency consistency approval for the proposed project, the Federal agency may deny assistance to the applicant agency. Federal agencies should not delay processing (so long as they do not approve) applications pending receipt of a State agency approval or objection. In the event a Federal agency determines that an application will not be approved, it shall immediately notify the applicant agency and the State agency.
( 2 ) During the period when the State agency is reviewing the activity, the applicant agency and the State agency should attempt, if necessary, to agree upon conditions which, if met by the applicant agency, would permit State agency approval. The parties shall also consult with the Federal agency responsible for providing the federal assistance to ensure that proposed conditions satisfy federal requirements as well as management program requirements.
( b ) If the State agency objects to the proposed project, the State agency shall notify the applicant agency, Federal agency and the Director of the objection pursuant to § 930.63.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Helen McKinley, Respondent, against Wilson Bros. Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. *792This is a case of an unwitnessed accident. The deceased was a night watchman in a five-story building maintained by the appellant-employer. His duties required him to make hourly rounds to inspect the premises and to punch a clock every hour on each of the five floors of the premises. On the morning of December 3, 1950, the decedent was found lying on the basement floor of the building. A fellow employee who found him there went up the stairs of the building and found the decedent’s eyeglasses and keys on the fourth floor landing from which stairway led to the fifth floor. A doctor was called and he found the decedent to be suffering from serious head injuries. The decedent was taken home and was confined to bed. While at home, he explained to his wife that he had tripped over a board on the fifth floor and had fallen and then had groped his way down the stairs as best he could. He told his wife that he had lost his glasses and that it was pitch dark. The next day the decedent died. It was found that he had died of a heart rupture which, in the opinion of the decedent’s physician, was causally related to the accident. In his opinion, the fall and the exertion of the effort in getting down the stairs after the accident, resulted in an overdistention of the decedent’s heart and caused the heart wall, which had been previously weakened, to rupture. There was medical testimony to the contrary of this opinion offered by the appellants but the board had the right to accept the view of the decedent’s physician. So far as the proof of the happening of the accident is concerned, the declarations of the decedent were admissible under section 118 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and *“*if corroborated by circumstances or other evidence,” the declarations were “sufficient to establish the accident and the injury.” The declarations were corroborated by the testimony of the fellow employee as to the finding of the decedent’s eyeglasses and keys on the fourth floor landing and by the testimony of the decedent’s wife as to his appearance on the day of the accident and by the testimony of the decedent’s physician. Aided by the presumptions under section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, the claimant’s right to an award was adequately established. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
### Part Q—Programs To Improve the Health of Children
#### In the Matter of Jonathan M. Allen, Petitioner, against George L. Fersh et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Plattsburgh, et al., Respondents.

Motion for an order granting the State University of New York permission to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to section 1298 of the Civil Practice Act. Motion granted, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Halpern, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Association for Information and Image Management (“AIIM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

                    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Association for Information and                           ( print page 67942)                        Image Management, Silver Spring, MD. The nature and scope of AIIM's standards development activities are: Standardization of terminology, definitions, sizes, formats, quality, methods of measurement, apparatuses and procedures for the production, use and storage, and retrieval of information images and related source data. Standards, recommended practices, and technical reports prepared in accordance with AIIM's policies and procedures are intended to have broad national acceptance, as well as provide the basis upon which to achieve international accord in the development of ISO standards.                

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25844  Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Edward Miro, Plaintiff, v. Bernard Gottheim, Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Bernard Gottheim, Appellant, v. Edward Miro, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

— As the result of a collision of two automobiles, Bernard Gottheim commenced in the City Court of the City of New York, Queens County, on July 10, 1953, an action against Edward Miro for damages for injury to person and property (Action No. 2). Miro instituted an action for damages for personal injuries against Gottheim on April 3, 1954, in the Supreme Court, Queens County (Action No. 1). Gottheim appeals from an order granting Miro’s motion removing the city court action and consolidating it with the Supreme Court action. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. The City Court action is ready for trial. The Supreme Court action will not be reached for nearly four years. In the light of this fact and the diligent commencement of the City Court action, it was an improper exercise of discretion to grant the motion for consolidation. *(Casanave*v. *Robbins,*262 App. Div. 873; *Friedman*v. *Kleinman,*275 App. Div. 715; *Lichtenstein*v. *Lapadula <& Villiani Trucking Gorp.,*283 App. Div. 721.) Nolan, P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.
Appendix C: Inventory Summary - NRC FY 2014

Obligations

% Total Obligations Small Business SDB

B528

SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS REGULATORY $3,690,577.60 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 

Biggest Percentage of ObligationsD399

IT AND TELECOM- OTHER IT AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS $89,817,300.43 82.5% 2.2% 1.9% 

R425

SUPPORT - PROFESSIONAL: ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL $10,380,285.30 9.5% 9.9% 2.2% 

R499 SUPPORT- PROFESSIONAL: OTHER $9,812,807.41 9.0% 8.1% 6.0% Z2AA

REPAIR OR ALTERATION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS $6,982,786.57 6.4% 45.0% 45.0% 

R699 SUPPORT- ADMINISTRATIVE: OTHER $5,451,155.59 5.0% 95.2% 35.6% D302

IT AND TELECOM- SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT $3,949,620.07 3.6% 17.0% 10.7% 

D319

IT AND TELECOM-ANNUAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE SERVICE PLANS $3,742,434.66 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 

D304

IT AND TELECOMTELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSMISSION $3,249,664.00 3.0% 99.1% 99.1% 

D313

IT AND TELECOM- COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN/COMPUTER AIDED MANUFACTURING (CAD/CAM) $2,579,571.12 2.4% 17.2% 96.3% 

Special Interest Functions

Page 2 of 2
§ 990.56 Restoration selection—use of a Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project. ( a ) *General.* Trustees may consider using a Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project where such a plan or project is determined to be the preferred alternative among a range of feasible restoration alternatives for an incident, as determined under § 990.54 of this part. Such plans or projects must be capable of fulfilling OPA's intent for the trustees to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured natural resources and services and compensate for interim losses.
( b ) *Existing plans or projects* — ( 1 ) *Considerations.* Trustees may select a component of a Regional Restoration Plan or an existing restoration project as the preferred alternative, provided that the plan or project: ( i ) Was developed with public review and comment or is subject to public review and comment under this part;
( ii ) Will adequately compensate the environment and public for injuries resulting from the incident;
( iii ) Addresses, and is currently relevant to, the same or comparable natural resources and services as those identified as having been injured; and
( iv ) Allows for reasonable scaling relative to the incident.
( 2 ) *Demand.* ( i ) If the conditions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met, the trustees must invite the responsible parties to implement that component of the Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project, or advance to the trustees the trustees' reasonable estimate of the cost of implementing that component of the Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project.
( ii ) If the conditions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met, but the trustees determine that the scale of the existing plan or project is greater than the scale of compensation required by the incident, trustees may only request funding from the responsible parties equivalent to the scale of the restoration determined to be appropriate for the incident of concern. Trustees may pool such partial recoveries until adequate funding is available to successfully implement the existing plan or project.
( 3 ) *Notice of Intent To Use a Regional Restoration Plan or Existing Restoration Project.* If trustees intend to use an appropriate component of a Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project, they must prepare a Notice of Intent to Use a Regional Restoration Plan or Existing Restoration Project. Trustees must make a copy of the notice publicly available. The notice must include, at a minimum: ( i ) A description of the nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of injuries; and
( ii ) A description of the relevant component of the Regional Restoration Plan or existing restoration project; and
( iii ) An explanation of how the conditions set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are met.
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 regulations.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.
| EXHIBIT      32.1                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                 |
| CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                                          |
| PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350) |

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Timothy J.      Olphie                                     |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Timothy      J. OlphieChief      Executive OfficerMay      20, 2009 |   |   |   |

----
§ 27.117 Documentation of informed consent. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written informed consent form approved by the IRB and signed (including in an electronic format) by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. A written copy shall be given to the person signing the informed consent form.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the informed consent form may be either of the following: ( 1 ) A written informed consent form that meets the requirements of § 27.116. The investigator shall give either the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative adequate opportunity to read the informed consent form before it is signed; alternatively, this form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
( 2 ) A short form written informed consent form stating that the elements of informed consent required by § 27.116 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and that the key information required by § 27.116(a)(5)(i) was presented first to the subject, before other information, if any, was provided. The IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the subject or the legally authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral presentation. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the summary, and the person actually obtaining consent shall sign a copy of the summary. A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in addition to a copy of the short form.
( c ) ( 1 ) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed informed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds any of the following: ( i ) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the informed consent form and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject (or legally authorized representative) will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will govern;
( ii ) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context; or
( iii ) If the subjects or legally authorized representatives are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and provided there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained.
( 2 ) In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
EX-10.2



 




Exhibit 10.2


Third Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement between Osteotech, Inc. and

Community Blood Center d/b/a Community Tissue Services




     This
Third Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement (“Amendment”)
is entered into as of the 14th
day of May, 2007 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between Community Blood Center, an Ohio
not-for-profit corporation also doing business as Community Tissue Services (“CTS”), and Osteotech,
Inc. (“OTI”), a Delaware corporation.



RECITALS



1. OTI and CTS entered into a Tissue Recovery Agreement (“Agreement”) dated as of March 1, 2006, as
amended by the First and Second Amendments to Tissue Recovery Agreement, dated February 14, 2007
and May 14, 2007, respectively (as amended, the “Agreement”).



2. OTI and CTS now desire to amend the Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, OTI and CTS hereby
agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:





	 	1.	 	Section 1.1.1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add CTS will provide to
OTI ****** recovered with Bone Tissue ****** provided by CTS to OTI.
	 
	 	2.	 	Exhibit C, Tissue Reimbursement Fee Schedule, is hereby
amended to add a fee of $*** for ****** provided to OTI.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands as of the Amendment Effective
Date.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Osteotech, Inc.	 	 	 	Community Blood Center

d/b/a Community Tissue Services
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 /s/ Julia M. Belden	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	 Sam Owusu-Akyaw	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Julia M. Belden	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer