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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3778 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish a point of 

order to prohibit the extension of the public debt limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed to and is in effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2012 

Mr. LAMBORN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish 

a point of order to prohibit the extension of the public 

debt limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget 

has been agreed to and is in effect. 

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 ‘‘Budget Before Bor5 rowing Act of 2012’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3778 IH

1 SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF 

2 DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION. 

3 Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

4 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(g) POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF

7 DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION.—(1) It shall not be in order 

8 in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider 

9 any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or con10 ference report thereon, to extend the public debt limit un11 less a concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed 

12 to and is in effect for the fiscal year during which such 

13 measure is being considered. 

14 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in 

15 the House of Representatives or the Senate only by the 

16 affirmative vote of two-thirds of its Members, duly chosen 

17 and sworn. 

18 ‘‘(3) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Mem19 bers, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Sen20 ate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 

21 point of order under paragraph (1).’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 12.102 Disqualification of Administrative Judge. ( a ) *At their own request.* An Administrative Judge may withdraw from a voluntary decisional proceeding when they consider themselves to be disqualified on the grounds of personal bias, conflict of interest, or similar bases. In such event the Administrative Judge shall immediately notify the Commission and each of the parties of the withdrawal and of the basis for such action.
( b ) *Upon the request of a party.* Any party may request an Administrative Judge to disqualify themselves on the grounds of personal bias, conflict of interest, or similar bases. Interlocutory review of an adverse ruling by the Administrative Judge may be sought without certification of the matter by the Administrative Judge only in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 12.309.
[86 FR 64356, Nov. 18, 2021]
§ 23.8 Misrepresentation as to products containing more than one precious metal. ( a ) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the relative quantity of each precious metal in a product that contains more than than one precious metal. Marketers should list precious metals in the order of their relative weight in the product from greatest to least (*i.e.,* leading with the predominant metal). Listing precious metals in order of relative weight is not necessary where it is clear to reasonable consumers from context that the metal listed first is not predominant.
( b ) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading: ( 1 ) Use of the terms “Platinum + Silver” to describe a product that contains more silver than platinum by weight.
( 2 ) Use of the terms “14K/Sterling” to describe a product that contains more silver than gold by weight.
( c ) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive: ( 1 ) For a product comprised primarily of silver with a surface-layer application of platinum, “900 platinum over silver.”
( 2 ) For a product comprised primarily of silver with visually distinguishable parts of gold, “14k gold-accented silver.”
( 3 ) For a product comprised primarily of gold with visually distinguishable parts of platinum, “850 Platinum inset, 14K gold ring.”
§ 1630.81 Policy on recall of noncomplying carpets and rugs. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this section is to state the policy of the Commission concerning recall of carpets and rugs which are subject to and fail to comply with the Standard for the Surface Flammability of Carpets and Rugs (FF 1-70) (16 CFR part 1630, subpart A). In this policy statement, the Commission reaffirms that provisions of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) authorize recall of any product which fails to comply with an applicable flammability standard issued under that Act. Additionally, this policy statement announces general principles which will be followed by the Commission in exercising the authority contained in the FFA to require recall of carpets and rugs from various levels of distribution, including carpets and rugs in the possession of the ultimate consumer.
( b ) *Recall from distributors and retailers.* The Commission will exercise the authority contained in the FFA to order recall of carpets and rugs which fail to comply with the Standard for the Surface Flammability for Carpets and Rugs and which are in the possession of any distributor, retailer, or other person or firm in the chain of distribution, where the facts, including the number and pattern of test failures, indicate that such action is necessary and appropriate.
( c ) *Recall from consumers.* ( 1 ) In cases involving carpets and rugs distributed in commerce by a domestic manufacturer, or imported into the United States, after July 11, 1978, the Commission will exercise the authority contained in the FFA to order recall of carpets and rugs which fail to comply with the Standard for the Surface Flammability of Carpets and Rugs and which are in the possession of ultimate purchasers, including installed carpet, where the facts, including the number and pattern of test failures, indicate that such action is necessary and appropriate.
( 2 ) The Commission may exercise the authority of section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2064) to order the repair, replacement, or repurchase of any carpets or rugs in the possession of ultimate purchasers, including installed carpet, if such carpets and rugs present a “substantial product hazard” as that term is used in the Consumer Product Safety Act in any case involving carpets or rugs which were distributed in commerce by a domestic manufacturer or imported into the United States, on or before July 11, 1978, or any time thereafter.
(Sec. 5, 15 U.S.C. 1194, 67 Stat. 112, June 30, 1953; sec. 5, 15 U.S.C. 45(b), 38 Stat. 719, Sept. 26, 1914; sec. 15, 15 U.S.C. 2064, 86 Stat. 1221, Oct. 27, 1972)
[44 FR 2169, Jan. 10, 1979]
March 31, 2016 

The Honorable Gary R. Herbert 

Governor of Utah 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2220 

Dear Governor Herbert: 

In 1976, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) adopted a recommendation 

from several State organizations, including the National Governors Association, that each State 

appoint a single person to act as a liaison to the NRC to help improve Federal/State 

cooperation. The NRC looks to the Governor-appointed State Liaison Officer to be the primary 

communication channel between the State and the NRC. The State Liaison Officer serves as 

the key person in the State to keep the Governor and other State agencies informed about 

issues under the NRC’s jurisdiction (specifically matters addressing nuclear regulation, nuclear 

security, nuclear emergency preparedness, and radiological public health and safety) and to 

provide the NRC with State information on particular nuclear safety, security, and 

environmental issues. 

I am writing to request the continued participation of the State of Utah in the NRC’s 

State Liaison Officer program. It is my understanding that the most recent State Liaison 

Officer, Mr. Rusty Lundberg, has been replaced by Mr. Scott T. Anderson, Director of the 

Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control in the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality. The NRC will continue to work with Mr. Anderson to keep you informed 

of our programs and activities; however, to ensure continued clear communication between the 

NRC and the State of Utah, I would appreciate your written affirmation of Mr. Anderson, or 

another individual as your selected appointee as State Liaison Officer for the State of Utah. 

I am providing you with a copy of the NRC brochure entitled, “State Liaison Officer 

Program,” which provides background information on, and describes the role of, the State 

Liaison Officer. I am also enclosing a copy of the NRC “2015-2016 Information Digest,” which 

provides information describing the NRC’s mission and its regulatory programs. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this correspondence or wish to obtain 

additional information about the State Liaison Officer program, please contact Mr. Daniel 

Collins, Director, Division of Material Safety, State, Tribal, and Rulemaking Programs, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, at (301) 415-3340 or by e-mail at 

Daniel.Collins@nrc.gov. 
 -2- 

I thank you in advance for your assistance. The Commission looks forward to the 

continued participation by the State of Utah in the NRC’s State Liaison Officer program. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns 

 

Enclosures: 

1. NRC Brochure, 

 “State Liaison Officer Program” 

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 2015-2016 Information Digest, 

 NUREG-1350, Volume 27 

 

cc: w/o enclosures 

 Scott T. Anderson, Utah Department of 

 Environmental Quality
#### Wanda Janicka, Respondent, v. Jules Michael, Appellant.

*669In our opinion, the maximum rent “prescribed on March first, nineteen hundred fifty, pursuant to the federal housing and rent act of nineteen hundred forty-seven, as amended ”, within the meaning of the State rent control statute (L. 1946, ch. 274, § 4, as amd. by L. 1950, ch. 250), was the rent fixed by the order of the area rent director issued February 17, 1950, to wit, $165 per month, although the next rent payment date was March 15, 1950. Cases involving orders of Federal authorities retroactive in effect but issued after March 1, 1950, are not applicable. Nolan, P. J., Carswell and Sneed, JJ., concur; Johnston, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the rent prescribed on March 1, 1950, was the rent which would be recoverable in a nonpayment summary proceeding brought on that date. Since (1) $200 would be recoverable in such a proceeding, (2) $200 was payable on March 1st, and (3) $200 was not only payable but actually paid for the month including that date, it seems to me that $200 was the rent prescribed on that date. Wenzel, J., concurs with Johnston, J.
### §1309. Amounts disregarded not to be taken into account in determining eligibility of other individuals

Any amount which is disregarded (or set aside for future needs) in determining the eligibility of and amount of the aid or assistance for any individual under a State plan approved under subchapter I, X, XIV, XVI, or XIX,1 shall not be taken into consideration in determining the eligibility of and amount of aid or assistance for any other individual under a State plan approved under any other of such subchapters.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1109, as added July 18, 1952, ch. 945, §7, 66 Stat. 778; amended Pub. L. 87–543, title I, §141(c), July 25, 1962, 76 Stat. 205; Pub. L. 89–97, title I, §121(c)(2), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 352; Pub. L. 90–248, title II, §241(c)(2), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 917; Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §108(g)(1), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2168.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–193 struck out "or part A of subchapter IV," after "subchapter I, X, XIV, XVI, or XIX,".

1968—Pub. L. 90–248 struck out "IV," after "I," and inserted ", or part A of subchapter IV," after "XIX".

1965—Pub. L. 89–97 substituted requirement that amounts disregarded be not taken into account in determining eligibility of other individuals, for former provisions which had provided that: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 302(a)(10)(A), 602(a)(7), 1202(a)(8), 1352(a)(8), and 1382(a)(14) of this title, a State plan approved under subchapter I, IV, X, XIV, or XVI of this chapter may until June 30, 1954, and thereafter shall provide that where earned income has been disregarded in determining the need of an individual receiving aid to the blind under a State plan approved under subchapter X of this chapter, the earned income so disregarded (but not in excess of the amount specified in section 1202(a)(8) of this title) shall not be taken into consideration in determining the need of any other individual for assistance under a State plan approved under subchapter I, IV, X, XIV, or XVI of this chapter".

1962—Pub. L. 87–543 substituted reference to section 302(a)(10)(A) for 302(a)(7) and inserted references to section 1382(a)(14) and subchapter XVI.

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–193 effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 601 of this title.

1 So in original. The comma probably should not appear.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

June 24, 2016 

 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

 REFER TO: M160602B 

 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Rochelle C. Bavol, Acting Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM – BRIEFING ON 

RESULTS OF THE AGENCY ACTION REVIEW MEETING 

(AARM), 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2016, 

COMMISSIONERS’ CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT 

NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC 

ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed by the NRC staff on the results of its annual Agency Action 

Review Meeting (AARM) regarding licensee performance held on April 27, 2016. In addition, 

representatives of Entergy briefed the Commission on performance improvement activities at 

Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Entergy (ANO) was 

represented by Chris Bakken, Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear Officer; Tim Mitchell, 

Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations; Donna Jacobs, Chief Operating Officer; Jeremy 

Browning, Site Vice President, ANO; and John McCann, Vice President, Regulatory Assurance. 

Entergy (Pilgrim) was represented by Chris Bakken, Executive Vice President & Chief Nuclear 

Officer; Tim Mitchell, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations; John Ventosa, Chief Operating 

Officer; John Dent, Site Vice President, Pilgrim Station; and John McCann, Vice President, 

Regulatory Assurance. 

The staff should provide very consistent attention on the needed inspection resources at the 

Vogtle and V.C. Summer construction sites over the next 12 to 24 months. 

Proposed significant changes or pilot programs related to the Reactor Oversight Process and 

the Significance Determination Process should be provided to the Commission, accompanied 

by thorough, data-driven analysis that clearly identifies the program performance issues that 

need to be addressed. The staff should provide for Commission approval the set of criteria 

being developed to define when Commission approval is needed, as discussed in Enclosure 1 

of SECY-16-0047. 

 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 
 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

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

 PDR
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 343 

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 

for Members of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2011 

Mr. MATHESON (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. PETERS, Mr. AUSTRIA, Mr. 

COBLE, Mr. QUIGLEY, and Ms. KAPTUR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in 

addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a 

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay 

adjustments for Members of Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUST4 MENTS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) 

6 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 

7 31) is repealed. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 343 IH

1 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 

5 and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; 

6 and 

7 (3) by striking ‘‘as adjusted by paragraph (2) 

8 of this subsection’’ and inserting ‘‘adjusted as pro9 vided by law’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

11 on December 31, 2012. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
### Part D—Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part D, consisting of section 6251 of this title, was redesignated part E of this subchapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–58.
Exhibit 32


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


<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


                          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 Quarterly  Report of Xpention  Genetics,  Inc.  (formerly
Bayview Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended August
31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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:  April 19, 2006


/s/ David Kittrell
---------------------------------------
David Kittrell, CEO and CFO
No: I-14-038 October 15, 2014

CONTACT: Diane Screnci 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan 610-337-5331

New NRC Resident Inspector

Assigned to Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have selected Brandon Reyes 

as the new Resident Inspector at the Beaver Valley nuclear plant in Shippingport, Pa. The two-unit 

site is operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company. 

“Brandon Reyes has the experience, training and commitment to safety 

that is needed for the NRC to carry out its mission of protecting people and 

the environment,” said NRC Acting Region I Administrator David C. Lew.

Reyes joined the NRC’s Region I office as a reactor engineer in 2013. 

Prior to joining the agency, he was a licensed operator instructor at the Hatch 

nuclear plant in Baxley, Ga., and a training specialist at the Hanford Tank 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant in Richland, Wash. He served for 

seven years in the United States Navy. Reyes received a bachelor’s degree in 

nuclear engineering technology from Thomas Edison State College and master’s degrees in 

industrial engineering and business administration from Arizona State University.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant site has at least two NRC Resident Inspectors. They 

serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring significant 

work projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public. 

Reyes joins Senior Resident Inspector Jim Krafty at Beaver Valley. The resident inspectors can 

be reached at 724-643-2000.
#### § 500.7 Net quantity of contents, method of expression.

The net quantity of contents shall be expressed in terms of weight or mass, measure, numerical count, or a combination of numerical count and weight or mass, size, or measure so as to give accurate information regarding the net quantity of contents thereof, and thereby facilitate value comparisons by consumers. The net quantity of contents statement shall be in terms of fluid measure if the commodity is liquid, or in terms of weight or mass if the commodity is solid, semi-solid, or viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid. If there is a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom of declaring the contents of a liquid by weight or mass, or a solid, semi-solid, or viscous product by fluid measure, numerical count, and/or size, or (as in the case of lawn and plant care products) by cubic measure, it may be used, when such declaration provides sufficient information to facilitate value comparisons by consumers. The declaration may appear in more than one line of print or type.
#### Anna Klein, Respondent, v. Harry D. Klein, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ.