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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3629 

To require retail establishments that use mobile device tracking technology 

to display notices to that effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2011 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require retail establishments that use mobile device 

tracking technology to display notices to that 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. NOTICES REGARDING USE OF MOBILE DEVICE 

4 TRACKING TECHNOLOGY BY RETAIL ESTAB5 LISHMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person who owns or operates 

7 a retail establishment and uses mobile device tracking 

8 technology in such establishment shall display in a promi9 nent location in such establishment a notice that such 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3629 IH

1 technology is in use and that individuals can avoid being 

2 tracked by turning off their mobile devices. 

3 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade 

5 Commission shall promulgate regulations under section 

6 553 of title 5, United States Code, to implement sub7 section (a). 

8 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

9 (a) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.— 

10 A violation of section 1(a) or a regulation promulgated 

11 pursuant to section 1(b) shall be treated as an unfair or 

12 deceptive act or practice in violation of a regulation under 

13 section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

14 (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or deceptive 

15 acts or practices. 

16 (b) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—The Federal Trade 

17 Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, 

18 by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, pow19 ers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provi20 sions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 

21 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this 

22 Act. Any person who violates this Act or the regulations 

23 promulgated under this Act shall be subject to the pen24 alties and entitled to the privileges and immunities pro25 vided in the Federal Trade Commission Act. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 3629 IH

1 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) MOBILE DEVICE.—The term ‘‘mobile de4 vice’’ means— 

5 (A) a mobile telephone; or 

6 (B) any device that uses or provides access 

7 to mobile broadband service. 

8 (2) MOBILE DEVICE TRACKING TECHNOLOGY.— 

9 The term ‘‘mobile device tracking technology’’ means 

10 technology that tracks the movement of an indi11 vidual using the radio signal emitted by a mobile de12 vice. 

13 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 This Act shall take effect on the date that is 180 days 

15 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 1102.6 Definitions. ( a ) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2052) apply to this part.
( b ) For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply: ( 1 ) *Additional information* means any information that the Commission determines is in the public interest to include in the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database.
( 2 ) *Commission or CPSC* means the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
( 3 ) *Consumer product* means a consumer product as defined in section 3(a)(5) of the CPSA, and also includes any other products or substances regulated by the Commission under any other act it administers.
( 4 ) *Harm* means injury, illness, or death; or risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission.
( 5 ) *Mandatory recall notice* means any notice to the public required of a firm pursuant to an order issued by the Commission under section 15(c) of the CPSA.
( 6 ) *Manufacturer comment* means a comment made by a manufacturer or private labeler of a consumer product in response to a report of harm transmitted to such manufacturer or private labeler.
( 7 ) *Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database,* also referred to as the Database, means the database on the safety of consumer products established and maintained by the CPSC as described in section 6A of the CPSA.
( 8 ) *Report of harm* means any information submitted to the Commission through the manner described in § 1102.10(b), regarding any injury, illness, or death; or any risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission, relating to the use of a consumer product.
( 9 ) *Submitter of a report of harm* means any person or entity that submits a report of harm.
( 10 ) *Voluntary recall notice* means any notice to the public by the Commission relating to a voluntary corrective action, including a voluntary recall of a consumer product, taken by a manufacturer in consultation with the Commission.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 on Form 10-Q of Brillian Corporation (the Company)
for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Wayne A. Pratt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Wayne A. PrattWayne A. PrattChief Financial
 Date: May 16, 2005 iv
ADDITIONAL NRC ANALYSIS CONFIRMS EARTHQUAKE SAFETY

AT DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s latest analysis of faults near the Diablo Canyon 

nuclear power plant in California continues to conclude the plant’s design would withstand 

earthquakes near the site.

The NRC’s work is laid out in Research Information Letter (RIL) 12-01, “Confirmatory 

Analysis Of Seismic Hazard At The Diablo Canyon Power Plant From The Shoreline Fault 

Zone.” The RIL, part of the ongoing effort to better understand earthquake sources near Diablo

Canyon, focuses on the latest identified source, the “Shoreline fault” about a kilometer offshore 

from the plant. The letter will be available in the NRC’s electronic document database, ADAMS, 

by entering “ML121230035” in the ADAMS search engine.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which operates the plant 12 miles southwest of San Luis 

Obispo, Calif., first notified the NRC in November 2008 about the Shoreline fault. PG&E 

updated that information in early 2011, and a team of NRC staff visited the site in October 2011. 

Based on the available information and the site visit, the NRC team analyzed ground motion 

from earthquakes the Shoreline fault could potentially generate. All of those ground motions fell 

within Diablo Canyon’s existing design limits, which are based on ground motion associated

with an earthquake from the larger Hosgri fault near the plant.

Diablo Canyon must still carry out additional earthquake evaluations, as well as a 

“walkdown” to identify any near-term actions for enhancing earthquake resistance. These 

measures are included in the NRC’s recent information request to all U.S. nuclear power plants 

as the agency implements lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident.

###

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.

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. 12-112 October 12, 2012
AGENDA

EPA’s Outreach Meeting with Potential Small Entity Representatives

Risk Management Plan Modernization Proposed Rule

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

9:30 am – 12:00 pm Eastern time

9:30-10:00 am Introductions and Overview of SBAR Panel Process (Bill Nickerson, Office of 

Policy, EPA)

10:00-11:45 am Overview of RMP Modernization (Kim Jenkins, Office of Emergency 

Management, EPA)

(Potential SERs can ask questions throughout presentation)

• Existing Program

• Relationship to other federal programs 

• Proposed Provisions 

• Cost estimates

11:45 am-12:00 pm Summary and Closing (Laura Free, OP, EPA)

Logistics

Teleconference dial-in number: (866) 299-3188

Conference code: 202 566 2372

Dial the toll-free teleconference number listed above. At the prompt, enter the conference code 

followed by the pound [#] sign. Note: You will hear music until the leader dials into the call. 

Adobe Connect: https://epa.connectsolutions.com/rmp_sbar/

Attending the meeting in person:

This meeting will be held at EPA Headquarters in the William Jefferson Clinton North Building, Room 

7530, at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC. Any invited Small Entity Representative 

may attend in person if desired. 

We are unable to pay for travel expenses to Washington, DC for the meeting. If you would like to attend 

in person, you must RSVP with Laura Free at (202) 564-2653 or free.laura@epa.gov for 

directions and building access information. 

Materials:

1. “Pre-Panel RMP Outreach FINAL 9-2-15 for SERs V8” PowerPoint presentation – will be 

presented at the meeting. Sent in email on 9/18. 

2. “PSM RMP Common Chemical List” Excel file – provided as reference, questions are welcome. 

Sent in email on 9/10.

3. “EPA RMP 40cfr68.130 Chemical List” PDF – provided as reference, questions are welcome. Sent 

in email on 9/10.

4. “OSHA PSM Appendix A Chemical list” PDF - provided as reference, questions are welcome. Sent 

in email on 9/10.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68369-68370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26065]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.
    Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary Applicants:

Westcove Investments, Inc. dba Cargo Link International, 1810 Borrego 
Drive, West Covina, CA 91791. Officers: Rey Nicolas Dumandan, 
President/CEO (Qualifying Individual), Maria Lourdes A. Timbol, 
Secretary.

Seagold (USA) Inc., 219 Stuyvesant Avenue, Lyndhurst, NY 07071. 
Officer: Tariq Mahmood, President (Qualifying Individual).

Trans Freight (USA) Inc., 317 W. Main Street, Unit 419, Alhambra, CA 
91801. Officer: Sammy Jing Huang, President (Qualifying Individual).
Nelcon Cargo Corporation, 179 Morningside Drive, Miami Springs, FL 
33166. Officers: Nydia Bermudez, President (Qualifying Individual), 
Estela Perez, Vice President.


[[Page 68370]]


Dispatch Logistics Services Logistics Air Limited, 3744 Industry 
Avenue, Suite 404, Lakewood, CA 90712. Officers: Carla Yuen-Yi Leung, 
Vice President (Qualifying Individual), Leung Lai Kin, Director.

    Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants:

Xima Freight Services, Inc., 8217 NW 66th Street, Miami, FL 33166. 
Officers: Xiomara L. Salazar, Vice President (Qualifying Individual), 
Maite Avila, President.

D.B. Group America, Ltd., 182-17 150th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Jamaica, NY 
11413. Officers: Gian Mario Favalli, Assistant Treasurer (Qualifying 
Individual), Vittorino De Bortoli, President.

    Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants:

USA Cargo & Courier Inc., 5900 NW 97th Avenue, Unit C1 & C2, Miami, FL 
33178. Officers: Heriberto Sanchez, Ocean Manager (Qualifying 
Individual), Alexander Moreno, President.

A & A International Shipping Inc., 333 N. Marine Avenue, Wilmington, CA 
90744. Officers: Algis Gulbinas, President (Qualifying Individual), 
Anton Tombu, CEO.

    Dated: November 19, 2004.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-26065 Filed 11-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### Stephanie Evans, Respondent, v P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[822 NYS2d 348]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered November 28, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part the motion of defendant PC.I. Paper Conversions, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence and products liability action to recover for injuries sustained when her hand was caught in an offset machine she was operating at the plant of defendant P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc. (PCI). Plaintiff had been placed in the employ of PCI by her general employer, Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. (CPS). On appeal from an order denying that part of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff was its special employee and that plaintiffs action against it is thus barred pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law §§11 and 29, PCI contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that there is a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff was a special employee of PCI *(see generally Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.,*78 NY2d 553 [1991]). We disagree, and affirm. Although PCI established that it exercised complete control over “the manner, details and ultimate result of [plaintiffs] work” *1311
      *(id.*at 558; *see Majewicz v Malecki,*9 AD3d 860, 861 [2004]; *Davis v Butler,*262 AD2d 1039 [1999]), on this record there is a triable issue of fact whether an agreement or understanding between CPS and PCI restricted PCI from employing plaintiff as an offset machine operator, and thus whether CPS surrendered control over plaintiffs work to PCI with respect to the task plaintiff was performing at the time of her injury *(cf. Thompson,*78 NY2d at 559; *see generally O’Brien v Garden Way Mfg.,*72 AD2d 860, 860-861 [1979]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
§ 1025.3 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Application* means an *ex parte* request by a party for an order that may be granted or denied without opportunity for response by any other party.
( b ) *Commission* means the Consumer Product Safety Commission or a quorum thereof.
( c ) *Commissioner* means a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
( d ) *Complaint Counsel* means counsel for the Commission's staff.
( e ) *Motion* means a request by a party for a ruling or order that may be granted or denied only after opportunity for responses by all other parties.
( f ) *Party* means any named person or any intervenor in any proceedings governed by these Rules.
( g ) *Person* means any individual, partnership, corporation, unincorporated association, public or private organization, or a federal, state or municipal governmental entity.
( h ) *Petition* means a written request, addressed to the Commission or the Presiding Officer, for some affirmative action.
( i ) *Presiding Officer* means a person who conducts any adjudicative proceedings under this part, and may include an administrative law judge qualified under Title 5, United States Code, section 3105, but shall not include a Commissioner.
( j ) *Respondent* means any person against whom a complaint has been issued.
( k ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
( l ) *Staff* means the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Additional definitions relating to prohibited communications are in § 1025.68.
§ 10.66 Conduct of the hearing. ( a ) *Expedition.* Hearings shall proceed expeditiously and insofar as practicable hearings shall be held at one place and shall continue, without suspension, until concluded.
( b ) *Rights of parties.* Every party shall be entitled to due notice of hearings, the right to be represented by counsel, and the right to cross-examine witnesses, present oral and documentary evidence, submit rebuttal evidence, raise objections, make arguments and move for appropriate relief. Nothing in this paragraph limits the authority of the Commission or the Administrative Law Judge to exercise authority under other provisions of the Commission's rules, to enforce the requirement that evidence presented be relevant to the proceeding or to limit cross-examination to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.
( c ) *Examination of witnesses.* All witnesses at a hearing for the purpose of taking evidence shall testify under oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the Administrative Law Judge. A witness may be cross-examined by each adverse party and, in the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, may be cross-examined, without regard to the scope of direct examination, as to any matter which is relevant to the issues in the proceeding.
( d ) *Expert witnesses.* The Administrative Law Judge, at his discretion, may order that direct testimony of expert witnesses be made by verified written statement rather than presented orally at the hearing. Any expert witness whose testimony is presented in this manner shall be available for oral cross-examination, and may be examined orally upon re-direct following cross-examination.
( e ) *Exhibits.* The original of each exhibit introduced in evidence or marked for identification shall be filed and retained in the docket of the proceeding, unless the Administrative Law Judge permits the substitution of copies for the original documents. A copy of each exhibit introduced by a party or marked for identification at his request shall be supplied by him to the Administrative Law Judge and to each other party to the proceeding.
[41 FR 2511, Jan. 16, 1976, as amended at 63 FR 55793, Oct. 19, 1998; 63 FR 68829, Dec. 14, 1998]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony S. Zumbolo, Respondent, against Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*681Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 20 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT G. LILE,Plaintiff-Appellee/CrossAppellant, v. Nos. 98-3292 & 98-3294 DAVID R. McKUNE and CHARLES SIMMONS,Defendants-Appellants/CrossAppellees.
OPINION ON REMAND FROM THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Timothy G. Madden, Kansas Department of Corrections , Topeka, Kansas, for Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Matt Wiltanger (David J. Waxse and Paul W. Rebein w ith him on the briefs) of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Overland Park, Kansas, for PlaintiffAppellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before SEYMOUR , McKAY, and EBEL , Circuit Judges.

_________________________ McKAY , Circuit Judge.

_________________________-2-

On remand from the United States Supreme Court’s pl urality opinion in McKune v. Lile , 536 U.S. __ , 122 S. Ct. 2017 (2002), we vacate o ur prior opinion, order and mandate to the district court an d remand with direction to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Petitioners -Appellants’ claims pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitutiondo not rise to the level of compulsion contemplated by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion. Id. at 2032- 35 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see Marks v. United States , 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (when no single rationale explains the resul t of a fragmented Supreme Court, the holding is the “position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds ” (quoting Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15 (1976)). REMANDED
.
§ 23.1 Deception (general). It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the type, kind, grade, quality, quantity, metallic content, size, weight, cut, color, character, treatment, substance, durability, serviceability, origin, price, value, preparation, production, manufacture, distribution, or any other material aspect of an industry product. Note 1 to § 23.1 :
If, in the sale or offering for sale of an industry product, any representation is made as to the grade assigned the product, the identity of the grading system used should be disclosed.
Note 2 to § 23.1 :
To prevent deception, any qualifications or disclosures, such as those described in the guides, should be sufficiently clear and prominent. Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.
Note 3 to § 23.1 :
An illustration or depiction of a diamond or other gemstone that portrays it in greater than its actual size may mislead consumers, unless a disclosure is made about the item's true size.
### SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE DESIGN INITIATIVES