alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 960.9 Additional standard license conditions for Tier 2 systems. If the Secretary has categorized the system as Tier 2 under § 960.6, the license shall specify that the licensee shall comply with the conditions listed in § 960.8 and further shall comply with the following conditions until the Secretary notifies the licensee that the system belongs in a lower-numbered tier: ( a ) Comply with limited-operations directives issued by the Secretary, in accordance with a determination made by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State pursuant to the procedures in Section IV(D) of the MOU, that require licensees to temporarily limit data collection and/or dissemination during periods of increased concerns for national security and where necessary to meet international obligation or foreign policy interests; and: ( 1 ) Be able to comply with limited-operations directives at all times. This includes: ( i ) The ability to implement National Institute of Standards and Technology-approved encryption, in accordance with the manufacturer's security policy, wherein the key length is at least 256 bits, for communications to and from the on-orbit components of the system related to tracking, telemetry, and control and for transmissions throughout the system of the data specified in the limited-operations directive; and
( ii ) Implementing measures, consistent with industry best practice for entities of similar size and business operations, that prevent unauthorized access to the system and identify any unauthorized access in the event of a limited-operations directive;
( 2 ) Provide and continually update the Secretary with a point of contact and an alternate point of contact for limited-operations directives; and
( 3 ) During any such limited-operations directive, permit the Secretary to immediately access any component of the system for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the limited-operations directive, the Act, this part, and the license.
( b ) Conduct resolved imaging of other artificial resident space objects (ARSO) orbiting the Earth only with the written consent of the registered owner of the ARSO to be imaged and with notification to the Secretary at least five days prior to imaging. For purposes of this paragraph (b), “resolved imaging” means the imaging of another ARSO that results in data depicting the ARSO with a resolution of 3 x 3 pixels or greater.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Roscoe E. Jones, Deceased. Irving D. Jones, Appellant; Elizabeth Hodgson, Respondent.

All concur. (Appeal from part of a decree admitting to probate the alleged last will and testament of decedent, and from an order denying contestant’s motion for a directed verdict and for the setting aside of the verdict with respect to the issue of testamentary capacity.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster # 3653]
 Charlton County and the contiguous counties of Brantley, Camden, and Ware in the State of Georgia; and Baker and Nassau Counties in the State of Florida constitute a disaster area as a result of damages caused by heavy rains and severe localized flooding from Tropical Storm Jeanne that occurred on September 25 and September 26, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of the disaster may be filed until the close of business on January 18, 2005, and for economic injury until the close of business on August 16, 2005, at the address listed below or other locally announced locations:  U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. The interest rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.187Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.800Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.900Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere
4.875*For Economic Injury:*Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.900
 The numbers assigned to this disaster for physical damage are 365306 for Georgia and 365406 for Florida. The numbers assigned to this disaster for economic injury are 9AJ800 for Georgia, and 9AJ900 for Florida. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.) Dated: November 16, 2004. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 04-26015 Filed 11-23-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No: III-14-025 July 8, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Open House July 15 to Discuss Performance of 

Byron Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public open house July 15 to discuss the 

agency’s annual assessment of safety performance for the Byron nuclear power plant. The two-unit plant 

is operated by Exelon Generation Co., and is located in Byron, Ill., approximately 17 miles southwest of 

Rockford.

The open house is scheduled for 6-7:30 p.m. CDT at the Byron Station Training Building, Rm. 

107, 4450 N. German Church Road, in Byron. Attendees can have one-on-one discussions with NRC 

staff members about the plant’s 2013 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. 

“NRC inspectors spend a significant amount of time monitoring a wide range of plant activities 

to ensure the plant operates safely. Our hands-on approach is a key factor in protecting the public and 

environment,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold public meetings near 

the plant every year to make our inspectors available and accessible to answer questions and have open 

discussions about NRC oversight with those who live near the plant.”

The annual assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to the company addresses the 

performance of the plant during 2013 and will serve as the basis for the discussion.

Overall, the Byron facility operated safely in 2013. All performance indicators and inspection 

findings for Byron were green and both units remained in Column 1 of the action matrix. As a result, 

Byron Unit 1 and Unit 2 will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight during 2014. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear 

plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow,” or “red,” 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical 

measurements of plant and equipment performance. The NRC’s action matrix reflects overall plant 

performance and agency response. There are five columns in the matrix with Column 1 requiring a 

baseline level of inspections. A move to the other columns results in an increased level of NRC 

oversight and inspections.
Page | 2

Inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant, inspection 

specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and specialists from the agency’s headquarters in 

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of performance to be inspected this year by NRC inspectors are 

activities associated with radiological safety, equipment designs, and emergency preparedness.

The most current performance information for Byron Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC 

website.
#### § 1019.6 Changes to notification.

If the exporter causes any change to any of the information required by § 1019.4, or learns of any change to any of that information, at any time before the noncomplying goods reach the country of destination, the exporter must notify the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance within two working days after causing or learning of such change, and must state the reason for any such change. The Assistant Executive Director will promptly inform the exporter whether the 30-day advance notification period will be discontinued, and whether the exporter must take any other steps to comply with the advance notification requirement.
### Part B—Remote Sensing
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual  report of BidGive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James P. Walker, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:   (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/ James P. Walker, Jr. Chief Executive Officer  Date:  August 24, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dana C. Cooley, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction affirmed. All concurred; Lambert, J., not sitting.
FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION

I, Darwin L. Stump, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PDC 2002-D Limited Partnership;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

	(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 13, 2003
 /s/ Darwin L. Stump                                 

Darwin L. Stump

Chief Financial Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation 

Managing General Partner of PDC 2002-D Limited Partnership
§ 1112.49 How may a person submit information alleging grounds for adverse action, and what information should be submitted? ( a ) *Initiating information.* Any person may submit information to the Commission, such as by writing to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, or by sending electronic mail to: *labaccred@cpsc.gov .* The submission must allege that one or more of the grounds for adverse action set forth in this part exists. Any request for confidentiality must be indicated clearly in the submission. The submission should include: ( 1 ) Contact information, including a name and/or a method by which the CPSC may contact the person providing the information;
( 2 ) Identification of the third party conformity assessment body against whom the allegation is being made, identification of any officials or employees of the third party conformity assessment body relevant to the allegation, and contact information for such individuals.
( 3 ) Identification of any manufacturers, distributors, importers, private labelers, and/or governmental entities relevant to the allegation. The submission also should identify any officials or employees of the manufacturers, distributors, importers, private labelers, or governmental entities relevant to the allegation, and contact information for such individuals.
( 4 ) Description of acts and/or omissions to support each asserted ground for adverse action. Generally, the submission should describe, in detail, the basis for the allegation that grounds for adverse action against a third party conformity assessment body exists. In addition to a description of the acts and omissions and their significance, a description may include: dates, times, persons, companies, governmental entities, locations, products, tests, test results, equipment, supplies, frequency of occurrence, and negative outcomes. When possible, the submission should attach documents, records, photographs, correspondence, notes, electronic mails, or any other information that supports the basis for the allegations;
( 5 ) Description of the impact of the acts and/or omissions, where known.
( b ) *Review of initiating information.* Upon receiving the information, the CPSC will review the information to determine if it is sufficient to warrant an investigation. The CPSC may deem the information insufficient to warrant an investigation if the information fails to address adequately the categories of information outlined in paragraph (a) of this section.
### SUBCHAPTER IX—EFFECTIVE DATE AND INTERIM APPOINTMENTS
No: II-14-038 July 22, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Assigns New Resident Inspector to Farley Nuclear Power Plant 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have selected 

Kenneth Miller as the resident inspector for Southern Nuclear Operating 

Co.’s Farley nuclear power plant, located near Columbia, Ala.

The Farley plant is located in south Alabama about 18 miles east of 

Dothan, and Miller joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Phil Niebaum. 

Since 2010, Miller worked as one of the NRC resident inspectors

for construction at the Watts Bar nuclear plant’s Unit 2 and then as a 

resident inspector for the operating Watts Bar Unit 1. The Watts Bar plant is located near Spring City, 

Tenn., about 60 miles southwest of Knoxville.

Miller began his NRC career as a reactor inspector in the NRC’s Region II office in Atlanta in

early 2007. Prior to joining the NRC, he was employed as an engineer in the nuclear power industry for 

more than 35 years and participated in the construction, startup and operation of 19 commercial nuclear 

plants. 

Miller has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Northeastern University in 

Boston and a master’s degree in systems management from the University of Southern California in 

Los Angeles. In addition, he is a registered professional engineer in five states. 

“Ken Miller has the experience, knowledge and dedication to carry out the NRC mission of 

protecting people and the environment by helping to ensure the safety of the Farley plant,” said NRC 

Region II Administrator Victor McCree. 

At least two NRC resident inspectors are assigned to each operating U.S. commercial nuclear 

plant. They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major 

work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. Resident inspectors can serve at a 

reactor site for up to seven years. 

 The Farley resident inspectors can be reached at 334-899-3386.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26258]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 18, 2004, 1:30 p.m. 
to November 18, 2004, 2:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on November 18, 2004, 69 FR 67597-67598.
    The meeting will be held December 3, 2004, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. 
The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public

    Dated: November 18, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-26258 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
### SUBCHAPTER IX—DEFENSE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

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

#### Revolving Fund

Establishment of revolving fund under which to account for assets and liabilities in connection with community facilities or defense housing under sections 1592 to 1592o of this title, see section 1701g–5 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

#### Expiration Date

For prohibition of construction of housing or community facilities by United States under this subchapter, see section 1591c of this title.
### §11421. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(1), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section, Pub. L. 100–77, title VII, §701, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §322, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3956, related to State literacy initiatives.

A prior section 11421, Pub. L. 100–77, title VII, §702, July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 525; Pub. L. 100–297, title VI, §6001, Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 423; Pub. L. 100–628, title VII, §701, Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3244; Pub. L. 101–645, title VI, §611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4734, related to State literacy initiatives, prior to the general amendment of this part by Pub. L. 103–382.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(c)(2)(A), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059, which provided that the repeal made by subsection (b)(1) (repealing sections 11421, 11461 to 11466, 11471, and 11472 of this title) would take effect on July 1, 1999, was repealed by Pub. L. 113–128, title V, §511(a), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1705.
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 20, 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”), Automotive Life Institute (“ALI”) 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: Automotive Life Institute, Indialantic, FL. The nature and scope of ALI's standards development activities are: Development of automotive lift safety standards including, but not limited to, standards for construction, installation, operation, inspection, and maintenance.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25867  Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Robert Ortiz, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Denise Ortiz, et al., Respondents, v Roseny Nunez et al., Defendants, and Empire City Subway Company, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 185]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered August 31, 2005, which, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to an earlier order and denied defendant Empire City Subway’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The infant plaintiff was injured when he slipped on gravel while crossing a street. Empire City had performed excavation *760work on a nearby street. The motion court correctly found triable issues of fact as to whether Empire City was responsible for the dangerous gravel condition *(see e.g. Lau v City of New York,*22 AD3d 529 [2005]; *Rodriguez v Parkchester S. Condominium,*178 AD2d 231 [1991]).

Empire City’s argument that it should not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor is unavailing. Although one retaining an independent contractor is generally not liable for the latter’s negligence, there are exceptions to this rule, such as where the party for whose benefit the work is done knows or has reason to believe that the assigned task involves special dangers inherent in the work or which should have been anticipated (see *Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.,*79 NY2d 663 [1992]). In any event, anyone undertaking work on a public highway is under a nondelegable duty to avoid creating conditions dangerous to the users of that thoroughfare *(Emmons v City of New York,*283 AD2d 244 [2001]; *Tytell v Battery Beer Distrib.,*202 AD2d 226 [1994]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.