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

###### National Science Foundation

###### National Science Foundation.

# SUMMARY:

                        On November 16, 2004, the                         **Federal Register**                         published a notice from the National Science Foundation (NSF) regarding availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (FEIS/FCEE) for proposed activities in Antarctica. The Notice incorrectly calculated the sixty days public notice period to fall on January 18, 2005 rather than the actual date of January 16, 2005.                    

# DATES:

The public notice period contemplated by 45 CFR 641.18(d) ends January 15, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        Dr. Polly A. Penhale, Office of Polar Programs, Room 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.                         *ppenhale@nsf.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Polly A. Penhale, Office of Polar Programs, Room 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230,                         *ppenhale@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 2403a and 45 CFR 641.18(d) notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation for proposed activities in Antarctica was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 16, 2004. That notice incorrectly calculated the sixty day public notice period contempalted by 45 CFR 641.18(d) to conclude on January 18, 2005. This notice corrects that date to the actual date when the sixty day public notice period ends, January 15, 2005.                 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 04-26405  Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3747 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 

minimum tax exemption amount and index such amount for inflation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 20, 2011 

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself and Mr. GARRETT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the alternative minimum tax exemption amount and 

index such amount for inflation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MIN4 IMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT INDEXED 

5 FOR INFLATION. 

6 (a) INCREASE.—Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘$45,000 ($72,450 in the case 

9 of taxable years beginning in 2010 and $74,450 in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3747 IH

1 the case of taxable years beginning in 2011)’’ in 

2 subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’, and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘$33,750 ($47,450 in the case 

4 of taxable years beginning in 2010 and $48,450 in 

5 the case of taxable years beginning in 2011)’’ in 

6 subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘$75,000’’. 

7 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Subsection (d) of 

8 section 55 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(4) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of 

11 any taxable year beginning after 2012, the dollar 

12 amounts in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 

13 (1) shall each be increased by an amount equal to— 

14 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

15 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter16 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

17 year in which the taxable year begins, deter18 mined by substituting ‘calendar year 2011’ for 

19 ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) 

20 thereof. 

21 If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sen22 tence is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall 

23 be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3747 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2011. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 700.9 Duty to install under a full warranty.

Under section 104(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1), the remedy under a full warranty must be provided to the consumer without charge. If the warranted product has utility only when installed, a full warranty must provide such installation without charge regardless of whether or not the consumer originally paid for installation by the warrantor or his agent. However, this does not preclude the warrantor from imposing on the consumer a duty to remove, return, or reinstall where such duty can be demonstrated by the warrantor to meet the standard of reasonableness under section 104(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1).

[42 FR 36114, July 13, 1977, as amended at 80 FR 42721, July 20, 2015]
#### § 142.1 Purpose and scope.

This part sets forth the policy and procedure with respect to the indemnification of Commission employees who are sued in their individual capacities and suffer an adverse judgment as a result of conduct taken within the scope of employment. (For purposes of this part the term Commission employees includes all present and former Commissioners and employees of the Commission). This part is intended to provide indemnification for adverse judgments for constitutional and federal statutory torts excepted from the Federal Tort Claims Act exclusive remedy provision 28 U.S.C. 2679(b) (as amended by the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-694)). In any lawsuit which is filed against the employee alleging a common law tort occurring within the scope of employment, the United States may be substituted for the individual employee and any liability which may be found will be assessed against the government, pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988.
#### § 1500.2 Authority.

Authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act is vested in the Consumer Product Safety Commission by section 30(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2079(a)).
FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION

I, Dale G. Rettinger, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-Q of PDC 2002-B 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:  August 7, 2003                
 /s/ Dale G. Rettinger                                 

Dale G. Rettinger

Chief Financial Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation 

Managing General Partner of PDC 2002-B Limited Partnership
#### Gus G. Buse, Respondent, v. Roy C. Williams, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
#### § 318.7 Enforcement.

Any violation of this part shall be treated as a violation of a rule promulgated under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and thus subject to civil penalties (as adjusted for inflation pursuant to § 1.98 of this chapter), and the Commission will enforce this part in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as are available to it pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 *et seq.*
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Quarterly July-Sept 2015 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML15279A471

Date Released: Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15279A482 - Quarterly July-Sept 2015 Report on the Status of Public Petitions under Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (Memo). (3 page(s), 11/4/2015)
    - ML15279A566 - Quarterly July-Sept 2015 Report on the Status of Public Petitions under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (Enclosure). (20 page(s), 11/4/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
No: 15-025 April 21, 2015

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues Violations, Proposed Fine for Actions Related to

Reactor Construction Incident at Chicago Bridge & Iron

The NRC has issued a Severity Level II Notice of Violation and a proposed $11,200 civil 

penalty to Chicago Bridge & Iron’s Lake Charles, La., facility for actions related to the dropping of a 

prefabricated building section for a new reactor. The NRC has also issued a Severity Level III Notice of 

Violation to a former company official.

The safety-related building section, for one of the two V.C. Summer new reactors under 

construction in South Carolina, was dropped and damaged on March 1, 2013, due to improper rigging 

and lifting practices. The NRC has concluded facility staff took deliberate actions to falsify records 

regarding the damage and the causes for dropping the section. The NRC concluded a former company

official deliberately instructed subordinates to initially provide false statements as to the cause of the 

drop. 

The willful actions described in the NRC’s notices were significant because they appeared to 

include an understanding of the nuclear safety implications that resulted from mishandling of and 

damage to the building section. Despite this understanding, the facility’s officials and employees 

involved in the incident knowingly disregarded quality assurance program requirements designed to 

promptly identify and correct a deficient condition.

These notices cover events that happened more than two years ago, and reflect facility 

performance at that time. Recently completed NRC inspections have indicated the Lake Charles 

facility’s safety culture is improving, and that facility staff better understand the importance of 

conducting work with integrity. NRC staff will continue inspecting work activities at all Chicago 

Bridge & Iron facilities to further assess the company’s implementation of corrective actions imposed 

by the NRC’s September 2014 Confirmatory Order that included actions to address and correct 

deliberate misconduct at the Lake Charles facility.
#### Dan SPIVEY, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 7, 1950.

Shumate & Shumate for movant.

A. E. Funk, Attorney General, John B. Browning, Assistant Attorney General, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
#### Schenectady Discount Corporation, Appellant, v. James E. Smith, Respondent.

*870Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Santry, JJ.
§ 1019.5 Time notification must be made to Commission; reductions of time. ( a ) *Time of notification.* The notification of intent to export must be received by the Commission's Assistant Executive Director for Compliance at least 30 days before the noncomplying goods are to leave the customs territory of the United States. If the notification of intent to export includes more than one shipment of noncomplying goods to a foreign country, the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance must receive the notification at least 30 days before the first shipment of noncomplying goods is to leave the customs territory of the United States.
( b ) *Incomplete notification.* Promptly after receiving notification of intent to export, the Assistant Executive Director will inform the exporter if the notification of intent to export is incomplete and will described which requirements of § 1019.4 are not satisfied. The Assistant Executive Director may inform the exporter that the 30-day advance notification period will not begin until the Assistant Executive Director receives all the required information.
( c ) *Requests for reduction in 30-day notification requirement.* Any exporter may request an exemption from the requirement of 30-day advance notification of intent to export by filing with the Commission's Assistant Executive Director for Compliance (Washington, DC 20207) a written request that the time be reduced to a time between 10 and 30 days before the intended export. The request for reduction in time must be received by the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance at least 3 working days before the exporter wishes the reduced time period to begin. The request must: ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Be entitled “Request for Reduction of Time to File Notification of Intent to Export Noncomplying Goods to [indicate name of country]”;
( 3 ) Contain a specific request for the time reduction requested to a time between 10 and 30 days before the intended export); and
( 4 ) Provide reasons for the request for reduction in time.
( d ) *Response to requests for reduction of time.* The Assistant Executive Director for Compliance has the authority to approve or disapprove requests for reduction of time. The Assistant Executive Director shall indicate the amount of time before export that the exporter must provide the notification. If the request is not granted, the Assistant Executive Director shall explain the reasons in writing.
Exhibit 32

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


          The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify to
the best of their  knowledge that this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a) or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  and the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



Date: May 15, 2006                  By: /s/ William M. Tandy
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: William M. Tandy
                                        Title:Chief Executive Officer




Date: May 15, 2006                  By: /s/ Michael D. Wortham
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Michael D. Wortham
                                        Title:Chief Financial Officer
Unassociated Document


    

     

    701
      N Green Valley Pkwy, Suite 200, Henderson, NV 89074 702-990-3387/ fax
      702-990-3301

    


    From
      The Desk Of:

    Stanley
      L. Teeple, Secretary

    stanteeple@msn.com

     

    SCHEDULE
      3.1(h)

    


    TO

    


    RESTRICTED
      EQUITY PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     

    In
      October 2006, a subcontractor of Mid-East Oil Company (“Mid-East”), our operator
      under a Drilling and Operating Agreement filed Mechanic’s Liens against both
      Mid-East and us on certain oil and gas properties drilled by the subcontractor
      for claims aggregating $390,253, due to the failure of Mid-East to pay our
      obligations for the drilling costs because we have not paid Mid-East. The
      Company has engaged counsel to resolve these lien claims, which were still
      pending as of June 10, 2007. However, we expect to pay off our obligations
      to
      the subcontractor in the near future with the development of pending
      funding.
### §12858. Transition

#### (a) Authority of Secretary

Upon the termination of the Trust as provided in section 12859 of this title, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall exercise any authority of the Board of Directors and the Trust in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter as may be necessary to provide for the conclusion of the outstanding affairs of the Trust.

#### (b) Applicability of Trust provisions

Any assistance under this subchapter shall, after termination of the Trust, be subject to the provisions of this subchapter that would have applied to such assistance if the termination had not occurred.

#### (c) Certification of Fund to Treasury

Upon a determination by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that the National Homeownership Trust Fund is no longer necessary, the Secretary shall certify any amounts remaining in the Fund to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit into the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts any amounts remaining in the Fund.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title III, §309, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4133.)
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.



|                                        |  |                              |  |                                             |     |  
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- | --- | -
|Company                                 |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | Percentage OwnershipAs of December 31, 2015 |    
|SPIL (B.V.I.) Holding Limited           |  | British Virgin Islands       |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware U.S.A. Inc.                 |  | United States of America     |  |                                             | 100 | %
|SPIL (Cayman) Holding Limited           |  | Cayman Islands               |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware Technology (Suzhou) Limited |  | Peoples Republic of China   |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware Investment Co., Ltd.        |  | Taiwan                       |  |                                             | 100 | %
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3778 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Budget Before Borrowing Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION.

    Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Point of Order Against Consideration of Debt Limit 
Extension.--(1) It shall not be in order in the House of 
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution, 
or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, to extend the public 
debt limit unless a concurrent resolution on the budget has been agreed 
to and is in effect for the fiscal year during which such measure is 
being considered.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in the House of 
Representatives or the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-
thirds of its Members, duly chosen and sworn.
    ``(3) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen 
and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair on a point of order under paragraph (1).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York v. James Speranza.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.