alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §10302. Congressional declaration of purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter to assist the Nation and the States in augmenting their water resources science and technology as a way to—

(1) assure supplies of water sufficient in quantity and quality to meet the Nation's expanding needs for the production of food, materials, and energy;

(2) discover practical solutions to the Nation's water and water resources related problems, particularly those problems related to impaired water quality;

(3) assure the protection and enhancement of environmental and social values in connection with water resources management and utilization;

(4) promote the interest of State and local governments as well as private industry in research and the development of technology that will reclaim waste water and to convert saline and other impaired waters to waters suitable for municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and other beneficial uses;

(5) promote more effective coordination of the Nation's water resources research program;

(6) promote the development of a cadre of trained research scientists, engineers, and technicians for future water resources problems; and

(7) encourage long-term planning and research to meet future water management, quality, and supply challenges.

(Pub. L. 98–242, title I, §103, Mar. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 97; Pub. L. 101–397, §1(a), Sept. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 852; Pub. L. 104–147, §2, May 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1375.)

#### **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. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 10301 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1996—Par. (5). Pub. L. 104–147, §2(1), struck out "to" before "promote" and "and" after "program;".

Par. (6). Pub. L. 104–147, §2(2), substituted "; and" for period at end.

Par. (7). Pub. L. 104–147, §2(3), added par. (7).

1990—Par. (5). Pub. L. 101–397 substituted "to promote more effective coordination of" for "coordinate more effectively".
§ 1205.33 Certification testing. ( a ) *General.* Manufacturers and importers shall either test each individual rotary walk-behind power lawn mower (or have it tested) or shall rely upon a reasonable testing program to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the standard.
( b ) *Reasonable testing program.* ( 1 ) A reasonable testing program for rotary walk-behind power mowers is one that provides reasonable assurance that the mowers comply with the standard. Manufacturers and importers may define their own reasonable testing programs. Such reasonable testing programs may, at the option of manufacturers and importers, be conducted by an independent third party qualified to perform such testing programs.
( 2 ) To conduct a reasonable testing program, the mowers shall be divided into production lots. Sample mowers from each production lot shall be tested in accordance with the reasonable testing program so that there is a reasonable assurance that if the mowers selected for testing meet the standard, all mowers in the lot will meet the standard. Where there is a change in parts, suppliers of parts, or production methods that could affect the ability of the mower to comply with the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer should establish a new production lot for testing.
( 3 ) The Commission will test for compliance with the standard by using the test procedures contained in the standard. However, a manufacturer's reasonable testing program may include either tests prescribed in the standard or any other reasonable test procedures. (For example, in the shield strength test (§ 1205.4), the manufacturer might choose to use a force higher than the 50 lb force specified in the standard.)
( 4 ) If the reasonable testing program shows that a mower does not comply with one or more requirements of the standard, no mower in the production lot can be certified as complying until the noncomplying mowers in the lot have been identified and destroyed or altered by repair, redesign, or use of a different material or components to the extent necessary to make them conform to the standard. The sale or offering for sale of mowers that do not comply with the standard is a prohibited act and a violation of section 19(a)(1) of the CPSA, regardless of whether the mower has been validly certified.
Exhibit 32.2

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                           by Chief Financial Officer

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of VSB Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Raffaele M. Branca, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Date: May 9, 2006

                                             /s/ RAFFAELE M. BRANCA
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Raffaele M. Branca
                                             Executive Vice President and CFO


A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       27
Issue Date: 09/25/13 1 13-023 

 NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS 

Change Notice 13-023

 DELETED: TRANSMITTED: 

 Number Date Number Date

1. IMC 2515 App C 04/26/12 IMC 2515 App C 09/25/13 

2. IP 65001.A 10/03/07 IP 65001.A 09/25/13 

3. IP 65001.B 08/19/08 IP 65001.B 09/25/13 

4. IP 71013 09/25/13 

5. IP 73054 07/01/08 IP 73054 09/25/13 

6. TI 2515/189 09/25/13 

TRAINING: No. 

REMARKS: IMC 2515 Appendix C, “Special and Infrequently Performed Inspections,” has 

been revised to add IP 43004 and IP 71013. 

IP 65001.A, “Inspection of the As-Built Attributes for Structures, Systems, and 

Components (SSCs) Associated with ITAAC,” is a complete re-write to address 

current inspection program policies. Researched commitments for 4 years and 

found none. 

IP 65001.B, “Inspection of the ITAAC-Related Welding Program,” is a periodic 

update. Researched commitments for four years and found none. 

IP 71013, “Site Inspections at Plants with Timely Renewal Applications,” is a new 

issuance. A four year historical search for commitments was performed. 

Change Notice 11-004 for TI 2516/001,”Review of License Renewal Activities,” 

was found related to timely renewal inspection activities, and expires December 

31, 2013, at which point timely renewal inspection activities will be conducted in 

accordance with IP 71013. 

IP 73054, “Part 52, Preservice and Inservice Inspection – Review of Program,” 

has been revised to update ASME and other references, as well as to make 

editorial changes. 

TI 2515/189, “Inspection to Determine Compliance of Dynamic Restraint 

(Snubber) Program with 10 CFR 50.55a, "Regulatory Requirements for Inservice 

Examination and Testing of Snubbers,”” is an initial issuance. Researched 

commitments for four years and found none. 

DISTRIBUTION: Standard 

END
§ 785.17 Settlement. ( a ) *Settlements before issuance of a NOVA.* When the parties have agreed to a settlement of the case prior to issuance of a NOVA, a settlement proposal consisting of a settlement agreement and order will be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement for approval and signature. If the Assistant Secretary does not approve the proposal, he/she will notify the parties and the case will proceed as though no settlement proposal has been made. If the Assistant Secretary approves the proposal, he/she will issue an appropriate order, and no action will be required by the ALJ.
( b ) *Settlements following issuance of a NOVA.* The parties may enter into settlement negotiations at any time during the time a case is pending before the ALJ. If necessary, the parties may extend applicable time limitations or otherwise request that the ALJ stay the proceedings while settlement negotiations continue. When the parties have agreed to a settlement of the case, the Office of Chief Counsel will recommend the settlement to the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, forwarding a proposed settlement agreement and order, which the Assistant Secretary will approve and sign. If a NOVA has been filed, the Office of Chief Counsel will send a copy of the settlement proposal to the ALJ.
( c ) *Settlement scope.* Any respondent who agrees to an order imposing any administrative sanction does so solely for the purpose of resolving the claims in the administrative enforcement proceeding brought under this Part. The government officials involved have neither the authority nor the responsibility for initiating, conducting, settling, or otherwise disposing of criminal proceedings. That authority and responsibility are vested in the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.
( d ) *Finality.* Cases that are settled may not be reopened or appealed, absent a showing of good cause. Appeals and requests to reopen settled cases must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement within 30 calendar days of the execution of a settlement agreement.
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA
- 2007
- 27042 Directorate Identifier: 2006
- NM - 225
- AD **With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?**  (You might need to submit a separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “ **Ex Parte Contacts** .”) ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE Boeing Faron Spidel 12/22/10 Concur. Boeing Mike Siegelman 12/22/10 Concur.

Other/Additional Information: none
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68782-68783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26100]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2004-18820; Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-46]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Kennett, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a direct final rule; request for comments 
that was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, September 28, 
2004, (69 FR 57839) [FR Doc. 04-21736]. It corrects an error in the 
legal description of the Class E airspace area extending upward from 
700 feet above the surface at Kennett, MO.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, January 20, 
2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    Federal Register Document 04-21736, published on Tuesday, September 
28, 2004, (69 FR 57839) modified the Class E airspace area extending 
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kennett, MO. The modification 
expanded the airspace area to protect for diverse departures, redefined 
the extension to the Class E airspace area in terms of the 003[deg] 
bearing from the Kennett nondirectional radio beacon (NDB), decreased 
the length and width of the extension, corrected the location of the 
NDB in the legal description and corrected the Kennett Memorial Airport 
reference point (ARP) used in the legal description. However, 
publication of a revised Kennett Memorial Airport ARP in the National 
Flight Data Digest on November 8, 2004, requires a further revision to 
the Kennett, MO Class E airspace areas.

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal 
description of the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet 
above the surface at Kennett, MO, as published in the Federal Register 
on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, (69 FR 57839) [FR Doc. 04-21736] is 
corrected as follows:


Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
On page 57840, Column 2, last paragraph, third line, change ``(Lat. 
36[deg]13[min]49[sec] N., long. 90[deg]02[min]04[sec] W.)'' to read: 
``(Lat. 36[deg]13[min]33[sec] N., long. 90[deg]02[min]12[sec] W.)''


[[Page 68783]]


    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on November 8, 2004.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 04-26100 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7638** 

ERIKA E. SIFRIT , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. RANDALL S. NERO, Director; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00910

- RDB )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: June 1, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ , and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert W. Biddle, NATHANS & BIDDLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Erika E. Sifrit seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on h er 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appea lability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right
. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sifrit has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
#### Ralph E. Crellin, Respondent, v. Morris Altman, Appellant.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs.
### §3702. Sealed bids

(a) Opening of Bids.—Sealed bids shall be opened publicly at the time and place stated in the solicitation.

(b) Criteria for Awarding Contract.—The executive agency shall evaluate the bids in accordance with section 3701(a) of this title without discussions with the bidders and, except as provided in section 3701(b) of this title, shall award a contract with reasonable promptness to the responsible source whose bid conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Federal Government, considering only price and the other price-related factors included in the solicitation.

(c) Notice of Award.—The award of a contract shall be made by transmitting, in writing or by electronic means, notice of the award to the successful bidder. Within 3 days after the date of contract award, the executive agency shall notify, in writing or by electronic means, each bidder not awarded the contract that the contract has been awarded.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3770.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3702(a) | 41:253b(c) (1st sentence). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303B(c), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, §2711(a)(2), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1179; Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §§1061(c)(2), 1063(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3267, 3268. |
| 3702(b) | 41:253b(c) (2d sentence). | |
| 3702(a) | 41:253b(c) (3d, last sentences). | |

Section
§ 1212.15 Specifications. ( a ) *Requirement.* Before any multi-purpose lighters that are subject to the standard are distributed in commerce, the manufacturer or importer shall ensure that the surrogate multi-purpose lighters used for qualification testing under § 1212.14 are described in a written product specification. (Section 1212.4(c) requires that six surrogate multi-purpose lighters be used for testing each 100-child panel.)
( b ) *Contents of specification.* The product specification shall include the following information: ( 1 ) A complete description of the multi-purpose lighter, including size, shape, weight, fuel, fuel capacity, ignition mechanism, and child-resistant features.
( 2 ) A detailed description of all dimensions, force requirements, or other features that could affect the child-resistance of the multi-purpose lighter, including the manufacturer's tolerances for each such dimension or force requirement.
( 3 ) Any further information, including, but not limited to, model names or numbers, necessary to adequately describe the multi-purpose lighters and any child-resistant features.
***EXHIBIT 32***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 report on Form 10-K of Providence Resources, Inc. for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Gilbert Burciaga, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

|   | (1) | This 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 this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: April 1, 2008

 

/s/ Gilbert Burciaga  

Gilbert Burciaga, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36
NRC TO DISCUSS POST-FUKUSHIMA “REGULATORY FRAMEWORK”

NOV. 8 IN ROCKVILLE, MD

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with members of the public and 

other interested parties on Nov. 8 to discuss the staff’s progress in considering a revised

regulatory framework, one of the broadest recommendations of the NRC’s Japan Near-Term 

Task Force. The task force was established to examine issues raised by the 2011 Fukushima 

nuclear accident.

The meeting will be held from 1 to 4:15 p.m. in Room T2B1 of the NRC’s White Flint 

complex at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Md. NRC staff will explain their latest thinking 

regarding the task force’s Recommendation 1, which calls for “establishing a logical, systematic, 

and coherent regulatory framework for adequate protection that appropriately balances defensein-depth and risk considerations.” The agency’s five Commissioners directed the staff to provide, 

by February 2013, options on how to address Recommendation 1.

The meeting will also address aspects of a risk-informed regulatory framework proposed 

earlier this year by a separate task force led by Commissioner George Apostolakis. The public 

will have the opportunity to ask the NRC staff questions about these efforts during the meeting, 

which will include a teleconference and webinar. Those planning to attend the meeting or who 

need teleconference and webinar information should contact Daniel Doyle at 301-415-3748 or 

daniel.doyle@nrc.gov by Nov. 2, to help ensure enough meeting materials and phone lines are 

available for attendees.

The NRC continues to evaluate and act on the lessons learned from Fukushima to ensure 

U.S. nuclear power plants implement appropriate safety enhancements. Following direction from 

the agency’s five Commissioners, the NRC’s activities are being led by a steering committee 

comprised of senior NRC management. The agency has also established the Japan LessonsLearned Project Directorate, a group of more than 20 full-time employees focused exclusively on 

implementing the task force’s recommendations and related activities.

###

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

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

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

No. 12-120 November 1, 2012
NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

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.
### Part A—Powers and Duties
#### Jeanette Greenhut, Respondent, v. Henry Greenhut, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified so as to deny examination as to items 14 through 24. No examination is required as to item 24, since the defendant had admitted in his answer that he has refused to furnish the plaintiff with an accounting. The plaintiff is not entitled to examine the defendant as to the other items until she has first established the existence of the alleged partnership and her right to an accounting. As so modified the order is affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Breitel and Botein, JJ.