alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1130.7 Requirements for Web site registration or alternative e-mail registration. ( a ) *Link to registration page.* The manufacturer's Web site, or other Web site established for the purpose of registration under this part 1130, shall be designed with a link clearly identified on the main web page that goes directly to “Product Registration.”
( b ) *Purpose statement.* The registration page shall have the following statement at the top of the page: “PRODUCT REGISTRATION FOR SAFETY ALERT OR RECALL ONLY. We will use the information provided on this page only to contact you if there is a safety alert or recall for this product. We will not sell, rent, or share your personal information. If you register on this Web site you do not need to fill out the card that came with your product.”
( c ) *Content of registration page.* The Web site registration page shall request only the consumer's name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, product model name and number, and the date of manufacture. The consumer's telephone number and e-mail address shall not be required for the consumer to submit the registration form. No other information shall appear on the electronic registration form, except for identification of the manufacturer or a link to the manufacturer's home page, a field to confirm submission, and a prompt to indicate any incomplete or invalid fields before submission. Accessing the electronic registration form shall not cause additional screens or electronic banners to appear.
( d ) *Alternative for manufacturers without a Web site.* A manufacturer that lacks a Web site shall provide for consumers to register their product through e-mail. Such e-mail addresses shall be set up to provide an automatic reply to confirm receipt of the consumer's registration information.
[74 FR 68676, Dec. 29, 2009. Redesignated at 77 FR 9525, Feb. 17, 2012]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3546 

To allow an occupancy preference for veterans in housing projects developed 

on property of the Department of Veterans Affairs with assistance provided under the Department of Housing and Urban Development program for supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Mr. TURNER of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To allow an occupancy preference for veterans in housing 

projects developed on property of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs with assistance provided under the Department of Housing and Urban Development program 

for supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Senior Veterans Hous5 ing Assistance Act of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3546 IH

1 SEC. 2. OCCUPANCY PREFERENCE FOR VETERANS. 

2 Notwithstanding section 202 of the Housing Act of 

3 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q) or any other provision of law ap4 plicable to assistance under such section or to a project 

5 assisted under such section, a preference may be estab6 lished for occupancy by veterans who are very low-income 

7 elderly persons in dwelling units in any supportive housing 

8 project for the elderly that— 

9 (1) is provided assistance under such section by 

10 the Department of Housing and Urban Develop11 ment; and 

12 (2)(A) is or would be located on property of the 

13 Department of Veterans Affairs; or 

14 (B) is subject to an enhanced use lease with the 

15 Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
p.1 

OAR Box 1394 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

34) ll-C-4 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/3/2008 7:52:00 AM Sheet 34 of 56 
P.2 

YC^Cw «*«6 FROM COTS._SD,CPE.,SE RTP SC TD 994IK34_ P.B Bgg* 

I have thought of a f«w items not clearly covered by the 

questionnaire: processes, product, (s) associated with «ach proceo3 

and HAP emissions associated with each process. Table 1 should be 

completed for each process (for sauli product). QuanUxies ot each 

f««?dstock, intermediate, and product is a key piece of information 

that could be given in Table 1. Table _3 should also be completed 

for eacn separate process. Transfer operations ahould include 

pumping and pouring. There are also emissions from mixing (for 

most if not all processes) which may b« included under • other. * 

Then th« emissions from the actual application could be included in 

either process fugitives, stacks or oLher (as long as th« emission 

point is described in great enough detail for us to understand 

where the fimLssions arc actually coming from.) TL is quite 

understandable that a plant would not know r.he emissions (even em 

eotimate) from each emission point. The quantity of resin used, in 

that case, over a particular period of ti.u« (annual or less) would 

be useful. (Then wc can estiuiar.p using AP-42 factora in certain 

t-tises.) Question IV under . "emissions and source reduction 

techniques" can potentially provide great info, for example -

plants that may have done a caae study una particular housekeeping 

changs that actually have data to show a sav Lugs on material 

purchased. Or, plants may have inPttuted a spraygun training 

progx-am and discovered a positive effect (or maybe if chcy did not 

think the particular change wa*. worthwile, that would be good 

information as well.) Certainly, ony control equipment of any type 

is required to be listed as well. Also, the elimination of MeCl 

would bc a key puinr. of discussion, if that was the casa, in 

question IV. 

Let me know of any questions, and 1 look forward to talking to you 

soon. 

Madeleine 

n IMl OCT I <
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-7844-2]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlement.

# SUMMARY:

                        Under section 122h(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental                               ( print page 69924)                            Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into an Agreement for Recovery of past response costs at the Middlesboro, Tannery Superfund Site located in Middlesboro, Bell county, Kentucky. EPA will consider public comments on the agreement until January 3, 2005. EPA may withdraw from or modify the Agreement should such comments disclose facts or consideration which indicate the Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the Agreement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, (WMD-SEIMB), 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887,                         *Batchelor.Paula@epa.gov.*

Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication.

Dated: November 16, 2004.

Rosalind H. Brown,

Chief, Superfund Enforcement Information Management Branch.

[FR Doc. 04-26479 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

 REFER TO: M150414B 

April 21, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – MEETING WITH THE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE ON THE MEDICAL USES OF ISOTOPES, 9:30 

A.M., TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015, COMMISSIONERS’ 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed on a variety of medical issues by representatives from the 

Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). The topics discussed included 

an Overview of ACMUI Activities; Current Patient Rights Issues before the ACMUI; ACMUI’s 

Comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 20; Molybdenum99 Production and Impacts to the Medical Community; and ACMUI’s Views on Yttruim-90 

Microsphere Brachytherapy. 

There were no requirements identified for staff action. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
#### Charlie COOMER, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 30, 1948.

Fritz Krueger for movant.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, and H. K. Spear, Assistant Attorney General, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; Judgment affirmed.
J-S34031-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

NASIR ANTHONY MALIK GRANT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 625 MDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-22-CR-0001705-2019

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

NASIR ANTHONY GRANT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 626 MDA 2021

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered April 22, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-22-CR-0001532-2019

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:FILED: FEBRUARY 23, 2022

I join the majority in full. As the dissent points out, defense counsel 

made a statement on the record during the plea hearing suggesting that Grant

was eligible for boot camp. Counsel said that Grant was “looking forward to” 

making a change “through boot camp.” N.T., 1/21/20, at 7. That statement 

lends some support to Grant’s testimony that his attorney told him the 

Commonwealth could waive Grant’s ineligibility for boot camp. The PCRA court 
J-S34031-21

- 2 -

unfortunately did not make an explicit finding of fact one way or the other as 

to whether counsel ever gave Grant such advice. 

Nonetheless, as the majority explains, the PCRA court did find as a fact 

that Grant would have pleaded guilty even if counsel had not allegedly 

misinformed him about his eligibility for bootcamp. In view of that finding, I

agree that Grant failed to carry his burden to prove prejudice. 

Judge Dubow joins the concurring statement.
§ 1500.45 Method for determining extremely flammable and flammable contents of self-pressurized containers. ( a ) *Equipment required.* The test equipment consists of a base 8 inches wide, 2 feet long, marked in 6-inch intervals. A rule 2 feet long and marked in inches is supported horizontally on the side of the base and about 6 inches above it. A paraffin candle 1 inch or more in diameter, and of such height that the top third of the flame is at the height of the horizontal rule, is placed at the zero point in the base.
( b ) *Procedure.* The test is conducted in a draft-free area that can be ventilated and cleared after each test. Place the self-pressurized container at a distance of 6 inches from the flame source. Spray for periods of 15 seconds to 20 seconds (one observer noting the extension of the flame and the other operating the container) through the top third of the flame and at a right angle to the flame. The height of the flame should be approximately 2 inches. Take three readings for each test, and average. As a precaution do not spray large quantities in a small, confined space. Free space of previously discharged material.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sidney Cohen, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

(See memorandum filed in *People*v. *Abel, ante,*p. 623, filed herewith.) All concur. (Appeal from a judgment which sentenced defendant to imprisonment for four months, with a fine of $500.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Keith E. Glover, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Proxim Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Proxim Corporation

                                   By:     /s/ KEITH E. GLOVER
                                       -----------------------------------------

                                   Name:   Keith E. Glover
                                   Title:  Vice President,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
                                   Dated:  March 31, 2003
#### § 301.27 Labels and method of affixing.

At all times during the marketing of a fur product the required label shall be conspicuous and of such durability as to remain attached to the product throughout any distribution, sale, or resale, and until sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer.

[79 FR 30458, May 28, 2014]
#### § 1118.4 Subpoenas.

The Commission may issue to any person or firm a subpoena requiring the production of documentary evidence (subpoena duces tecum) and/or attendance and testimony of witnesses (subpoena ad testificandum) relating to any matter under investigation. Procedures regarding compliance with subpoenas and motions to limit or quash subpoenas are provided for in § 1118.9.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

#### § 1.13 [Reserved]
#### § 1513.2 Definitions.

As used in this part 1513:

*Bed. See Bunk bed.*

*Bed end structure* means an upright unit at the head and foot of the bed to which the side rails attach.

*Bunk bed* means a bed in which the underside of any foundation is over 30 inches (760 mm) from the floor.

*Foundation* means the base or support on which a mattress rests.

*Guardrail* means a rail or guard on a side of the upper bunk to prevent a sleeping occupant from falling or rolling out.
No. 15-078 November 19, 2015

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Seeks Public Comment on Potential Changes 

to Regulations on Power Reactor Decommissioning

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks public comment on potential changes to its 

regulations governing the decommissioning of commercial nuclear power plants.

In an “advance notice of proposed rulemaking” published today in the Federal Register, the 

agency announced its intention to develop a draft regulatory basis to support a new decommissioning 

rule. The new rule would establish clear requirements for decommissioning reactors in emergency 

preparedness, physical security and fitness-for-duty, among other areas, thereby reducing the need for 

exemptions from current requirements designed for operating reactors. It would also address the 

timeliness of decommissioning and the role of state and local governments and other organizations. The 

result would be a more efficient, open and reliable decommissioning process.

The NRC began a similar rulemaking process in 2000-2001, but stopped after the September 11 

terrorist attacks prompted a stronger focus on security. However, five reactors have permanently shut 

down since the beginning of 2013, and three more are expected to cease operations by 2019. The five 

reactors now undergoing decommissioning required several exemptions from NRC’s regulations for 

operating reactors to reflect their decommissioning status. By incorporating changes into regulation, the 

NRC believes the transition from operation to decommissioning can become more efficient and 

effective for both the agency and the licensee, as well as more open and transparent for the public.

The Federal Register notice explains the basis for the potential rulemaking in detail and 

provides instructions for submitting comments. NRC staff will conduct a public meeting to discuss the 

draft regulatory basis and receive public comments. That meeting is tentatively scheduled for Dec. 9, 

from 10 a.m to 5 p.m., in the Commission Hearing Room at agency headquarters at 11555 Rockville 

Pike, in Rockville, Md.

Written comments will be accepted through Jan. 4.
### Part A—Planning and Operations Assistance
### SUBCHAPTER III—IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

721 

CAF 14-00126 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MARY E. COUNTRYMAN, ALSO KNOWN 

AS MARY E. CONLEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

WILLIS C. COUNTRYMAN, JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

RUTHANNE G. SANCHEZ, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, WATERTOWN. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter

A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered December 23, 2013 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other

things, awarded petitioner custody of the subject children. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Family Court.

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3441 

To repeal the Department of Energy’s weatherization assistance program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2011 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the Department of Energy’s weatherization 

assistance program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Green Initiative 

5 Abuse Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PRO7 GRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. 

8 Part A of title IV of the Energy Conservation and 

9 Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6861 et seq.), and the items 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3441 IH

1 relating thereto in the table of contents of such Act, are 

2 repealed. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §13777. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–322, title III, §30307, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1846, which authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1996 to 2000, was omitted as obsolete.
#### Alf. Ripon, Defendant in Error, v. Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,104.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 11, 1916.

Rehearing denied January 25, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Alf. Ripon, plaintiff, against the Alcazar Amusement Company, defendant, to recover damages for the breach of a contract whereby the plaintiff was engaged to perform for one week at the defendant’s theater. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Though the contract, consisting of a printed form filled in, was not signed by the plaintiff it was signed by the defendant, which also entered the engagement upon its books. On the date when the performances were to begin the plaintiff presented himself, but permission to perform was refused. Having been unable, after diligent search, to obtain an engagement elsewhere during the week specified in the contract, the plaintiff sued for the stipulated remuneration, for which he recovered judgment.

Frank P. Leffingwell, for plaintiff in error.

Adolph Marks, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

*417Abstract of the Decision.

1. Contracts, § *4*
      ***
      *—what constitutes contract for services.*Where a writing signed by the defendant only, purporting to engage the services of the plaintiff to appear at the defendant’s théater, is orally accepted by the plaintiff, and the defendant makes an entry on its books of the plaintiff’s engagement, a valid contract, oral if not written, is entered into, on the breach whereof by the defendant, in refusing to allow the plaintiff to perform in accordance with the terms thereof, a suit will lie for the stipulated remuneration, such writing not being a mere proposal revocable by defendant and subject to cancellation before performance of such services.

2. Contracts, § *196*
      ***
      *—when printed portion of contract not controlling.*A written agreement consisting of a printed form, filled in and signed by the defendant, whereby he engages the services of the plaintiff fop one week, reciting that a failure on the part of either party to perform on “such week” shall not be a violation of its terms, will, on the refusal of the defendant to accept performance, support an action by the plaintiff to recover the stipulated remuneration for such services on his tendering performance, it being evident that the printed form was designed to cover a case where the term of the engagement extends over a period longer than one week.