alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 5313 - Simplified Acquisition

Procedures

DAFFARS PART 5313 Knowledge Center

2019 Edition

Revised: June 2023

Subpart 5313.1 - PROCEDURES

5313.106-1 Soliciting from a Single Source

5313.106-3 Award and Documentation

Subpart 5313.2 - ACTIONS AT OR BELOW THE MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD

5313.201 General

Subpart 5313.3 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION METHODS

5313.301 Governmentwide Commercial Purchase Card

5313.303-5 Purchases Under BPAs

Subpart 5313.5 - SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS

5313.500 General

5313.501 Special Documentation Requirements

Subpart 5313.1 - PROCEDURES

5313.106-1 Soliciting from a Single Source

(b) For acquisitions that exceed the micro-purchase threshold, but do not exceed the Simplified

Acquisition Threshold, the tailorable Single Source Justification or Single Source Memorandum for

Record template may be used.

5313.106-3 Award and Documentation

(a) See the tailorable Determination of Fair & Reasonable Price template when using Simplified

Acquisition Procedures under FAR 13.1.
Subpart 5313.2 - ACTIONS AT OR BELOW THE MICROPURCHASE THRESHOLD

5313.201 General

(g)(1) See MP5301.601(a)(i) .

Subpart 5313.3 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION METHODS

5313.301 Governmentwide Commercial Purchase Card

See DAFI 64-117, Government Purchase Card Program.

5313.303-5 Purchases Under BPAs

(b)(1) Individual purchases under BPAs established in accordance with FAR 13.303-2(c)(3) may be

made up to the purchase limitation identified in the BPA.

(2) Individual purchases of commercial products and commercial services, other than BPAs

established in accordance with FAR 13.303-2(c)(3), may be made up to the dollar limitation specified

in FAR 13.500.

Subpart 5313.5 - SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL ITEMS

5313.500 General

(c)(1) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

5313.501 Special Documentation Requirements

(a)(1)(ii) See the tailorable Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures

for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services template.

(a)(2) See DAFFARS 5306.304(a) for the approving officials for acquisitions using the limited or sole

source justification at FAR 13.501(a)(2).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Registriesfor evaluating patient outcomes : a user's guide
v1|v2| 
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.6508:
Item Number:0491-B-05 (online)
July 3, 2019
#### § 170.10 Proficiency examinations (sections 4p and 17(p) of the Act).

A futures association may prescribe different training standards and proficiency examinations for persons registered in more than one capacity: *Provided,* That nothing contained in the Act or these regulations, including any exemption from registration for persons registered in another capacity, shall be deemed to preclude the establishment of training standards and a proficiency examination requirement for functions performed in such other capacity.

[48 FR 35305, Aug. 3, 1983]
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-04-002 January 6, 2004

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE

FOR COOPERHEAT-MQS, INC. OF HOUSTON, TEXAS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a fine of $6,000 against

Cooperheat-MQS, Inc. of Houston, Texas, for violating NRC requirements.

In a letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallett, Administrator of the NRC’s Region IV office

in Arlington, Texas, said that as a result of an NRC inspection December 11-12, 2002, and a

follow-up investigation, the agency determined that the company violated NRC training

requirements for radiographers and failed to provide an NRC inspector with complete and

accurate information. “Specifically, we conclude that your former Facility Radiation Safety

Officer in your Berlin, Connecticut, field office falsified certain refresher training records and

provided these falsified records to an NRC inspector in an attempt to show that the refresher

training had been conducted as required by your license,” Mr. Mallett said.

“The NRC must be able to rely on licensees and their employees to conduct their

activities in accordance with NRC requirements, and to provide complete and accurate

information to the NRC during its inspections,” Mr. Mallett said. 

The company said it has taken corrective actions by conducting a review of refresher

training policies and procedures; performing refresher training for radiography personnel in its

Berlin, Conn. field office; revising and improving training documentation; and monitoring the

work of its personnel to assure they have adequate time to perform their safety responsibilities,

including training.

The NRC has classified the violations as a Severity Level III problem, which carries a

$6,000 fine. The agency uses a four-level severity scale in which Severity Level I is the most

serious. The company has 30 days to either pay the proposed civil penalty or to challenge it.
- 2 -

The NRC’s letter, its enclosures, and the company’s response will be made available to

interested members of the public through the agency’s public electronic reading room at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in accessing these documents is available

from the NRC Public Document Room at (301) 415-4737 or at 1-800-397-4209.

###
[Civil No. 268.]

#### GERALDO BONELLAS, Appellee, v. DANIEL NOONAN and wife, Appellants.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa.

Edwards & Chalmers, for Appellants.

Wilbur F. Lunt, for Appellee.

February 16, 1889.

Affirmed.
#### Kevin Lavell CARTER, Appellant, v. FIRESTONE, Appellee.

No. 06-2278.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 14, 2007.

Filed: Sept. 20, 2007.

Kevin Lavell Carter, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Laura Christine Garofalo, Michael J. Ranallo, Holland & Knight, Chicago, IL, Amy L. Nixon, Charles Edwin Reis IV, Brown & James, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

*376Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Lavell Carter appeals the district court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his Title VII complaint against BFS Retail & Commercial Operations, LLC. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Carter’s arguments, we find no basis for reversal. *See MM&S Fin., Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,*364 F.3d 908, 909 (8th Cir.2004) (de novo standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### In the Matter of Acquiring Title to Briell Street from Jackson Avenue to Flushing Avenue, in the First Ward, Borough of Queens. In the Matter of Jennie Greenblatt, Appellant, and Others. The City of New York and Others, Respondents.

The unopposed confirmation of the report of the condemnation commission by order entered December 31, 1909, without any appeal, became final and conclusive upon all parties, including this appellant. (City Charter, § 986, as amended by Laws of 1906, chap. 658.)* The petitioner having without objection, on April 4, 1910, paid her assessment for benefits, and enjoyed the effects of this condemnation, cannot now be heard to raise objections based on the decision in *Matter of City of New York, Decatur Street*(196 N. Y. 286), decided November 9, 1909. The order is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

*

 Laws of 1901, chap. 466, § 986, as amd. by Laws of 1906, chap. 658.— [Rep.
No: 16-053 September 2, 2016

Contact: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Mid-Cycle Assessments For Nation’s Nuclear Plants

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued mid-cycle assessment letters to the nation’s 99 

operating commercial nuclear power plants regarding their performance through the first half of 2016.

The mid-cycle assessment period concluded on June 30, with 96 plants in the two highest performance 

categories.

“These assessment letters are part of our annual assessment process, involving a thorough 

review of plant performance, assessing any changes needed and communicating those results,” said 

Chris Miller, director of the Division of Inspection and Regional Support in the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation. “They are part of the Reactor Oversight Process the NRC uses to ensure our 

nation’s nuclear generation facilities are safe.”

Of the 96 highest-performing reactors, 87 fully met all safety and security performance 

objectives and were inspected by the NRC using the normal “baseline” inspection program. Nine 

reactors needed to resolve one or two items of low safety significance. For this performance level, 

regulatory oversight includes additional inspection and follow-up of corrective actions. Plants in this 

level are: Davis-Besse (Ohio); Indian Point 3 (New York); Oyster Creek (New Jersey); Prairie Island 2 

(Minnesota); River Bend (Louisiana); Salem (New Jersey); Sequoyah 1 (Tennessee); and Vogtle 1 and 

2 (Georgia).

There were no reactors in the third performance category with a degraded level of performance. 

For this category, regulatory oversight includes more NRC inspections, senior management attention 

and oversight focused on the cause(s) of the degraded performance.

Three reactors, Arkansas Nuclear One 1 and 2 (Arkansas), and Pilgrim (Massachusetts), were in 

the fourth performance category at the end of the mid-cycle assessment period and require increased 

oversight. Arkansas Nuclear One 1 and 2 were in this category because of two safety findings of 

substantial significance. Pilgrim was in this category because of long-standing performance issues of 

low-to-moderate safety significance.

The NRC routinely updates information on each plant’s current performance and posts the latest 

information as it becomes available to the action matrix summary. The annual assessment letters sent to 

each operating reactor are also available through the NRC’s webpage on the Reactor Oversight Process. 

Annual construction oversight assessments for new reactors at the Vogtle, Summer and Watts Bar sites 

are also on the NRC website.
Page | 2

As part of the agency’s Project Aim initiative to become more efficient and effective, the 

Commission approved the staff’s recommendation to discontinue the mid-cycle assessments after this 

assessment period. The staff has determined this will not adversely impact the NRC’s mission, 

principles or values. In place of mid-cycle assessments, the staff will use ongoing routine assessment 

activities for site-specific oversight, including continuous assessment activities and the continued use of 

the annual assessments.
#### Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., Appellant, v. Carlisle Chemical Mfg. Co., Inc., Respondent.

In an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered, defendant interposed a counterclaim for breach of warranty. Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, striking out defendant’s answer and counterclaim, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.
### Part B—Federal-State Cooperation
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3825 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3825

   To authorize the use of multifamily housing subject to a mortgage 
  insured under section 207 of the National Housing Act as work force 
                          residential housing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2012

  Mr. Pompeo (for himself, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Yoder, and Mr. Huelskamp) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the use of multifamily housing subject to a mortgage 
  insured under section 207 of the National Housing Act as work force 
                          residential housing.

    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 ``Work Force Housing Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. WORK FORCE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.

    Section 513 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1731b) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in clause (1), by striking ``or'' at the end; 
                and
                    (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
                following: ``, or (3) the project is a work force 
                residential housing property (as such term is defined 
                in subsection (e) of this section) and is subject to a 
                mortgage insured under section 207 (12 U.S.C. 1713)''; 
                and
            (2) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) in clause (1), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
                and
                    (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
                following: ``, and (3) the term `work force residential 
                housing property' means multifamily housing the 
                dwelling units of which are rented for a minimum stay 
                of seven days and that does not provide retail hotel 
                amenities as defined by the Secretary''.
                                 <all>
```
### §16155. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force

#### (a) Establishment

Not later than 120 days after August 8, 2005, the President shall establish an interagency task force chaired by the Secretary with representatives from each of the following:

(1) The Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President.

(2) The Department of Transportation.

(3) The Department of Defense.

(4) The Department of Commerce (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology).

(5) The Department of State.

(6) The Environmental Protection Agency.

(7) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

(8) Other Federal agencies as the Secretary determines appropriate.

#### (b) Duties

#### (1) Planning

The Task Force shall work toward—

(A) a safe, economical, and environmentally sound fuel infrastructure for hydrogen and hydrogen-carrier fuels, including an infrastructure that supports buses and other fleet transportation;

(B) fuel cells in government and other applications, including portable, stationary, and transportation applications;

(C) distributed power generation, including the generation of combined heat, power, and clean fuels including hydrogen;

(D) uniform hydrogen codes, standards, and safety protocols; and

(E) vehicle hydrogen fuel system integrity safety performance.

#### (2) Activities

The Task Force may organize workshops and conferences, may issue publications, and may create databases to carry out its duties. The Task Force shall—

(A) foster the exchange of generic, nonproprietary information and technology among industry, academia, and government;

(B) develop and maintain an inventory and assessment of hydrogen, fuel cells, and other advanced technologies, including the commercial capability of each technology for the economic and environmentally safe production, distribution, delivery, storage, and use of hydrogen;

(C) integrate technical and other information made available as a result of the programs and activities under this subchapter;

(D) promote the marketplace introduction of infrastructure for hydrogen fuel vehicles; and

(E) conduct an education program to provide hydrogen and fuel cell information to potential end-users.

#### (c) Agency cooperation

The heads of all agencies, including those whose agencies are not represented on the Task Force, shall cooperate with and furnish information to the Task Force, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Department.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title VIII, §806, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 848.)
### §1461. Repealed. Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title III, §313, 68 Stat. 629

Section, acts July 31, 1953, ch. 302, title I, §101, 67 Stat. 305; June 24, 1954, ch. 359, title I, §101, 68 Stat. 283, related to conditions precedent to approval of local slum clearance programs.
### §10365. Hydroelectric power assessment

#### (a) Duty of Secretary of Energy

The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Administrator of each Federal Power Marketing Administration, shall assess each effect of, and risk resulting from, global climate change with respect to water supplies that are required for the generation of hydroelectric power at each Federal water project that is applicable to a Federal Power Marketing Administration.

#### (b) Access to appropriate data

#### (1) In general

In carrying out each assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy shall consult with the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the program, and each appropriate State water resource agency, to ensure that the Secretary of Energy has access to the best available scientific information with respect to presently observed impacts and projected future impacts of global climate change on water supplies that are used to produce hydroelectric power.

#### (2) Access to data for certain assessments

In carrying out each assessment under subsection (a), with respect to the Bonneville Power Administration and the Western Area Power Administration, the Secretary of Energy shall consult with the Commissioner to access data and other information that—

(A) is collected by the Commissioner; and

(B) the Secretary of Energy determines to be necessary for the conduct of the assessment.

#### (c) Report

Not later than 2 years after March 30, 2009, and every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that describes—

(1) each effect of, and risk resulting from, global climate change with respect to—

(A) water supplies used for hydroelectric power generation; and

(B) power supplies marketed by each Federal Power Marketing Administration, pursuant to—

(i) long-term power contracts;

(ii) contingent capacity contracts; and

(iii) short-term sales; and

(2) each recommendation of the Administrator of each Federal Power Marketing Administration relating to any change in any operation or contracting practice of each Federal Power Marketing Administration to address each effect and risk described in paragraph (1), including the use of purchased power to meet long-term commitments of each Federal Power Marketing Administration.

#### (d) Authority

The Secretary of Energy may enter into contracts, grants, or other agreements with appropriate entities to carry out this section.

#### (e) Costs

#### (1) Nonreimbursable

Any costs incurred by the Secretary of Energy in carrying out this section shall be nonreimbursable.

#### (2) PMA costs

Each Federal Power Marketing Administration shall incur costs in carrying out this section only to the extent that appropriated funds are provided by the Secretary of Energy for that purpose.

#### (f) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2023, to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 111–11, title IX, §9505, Mar. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 1336.)
#### Albert S. Barker, as Administrator of the Estate of Dorothy Barker, Deceased, Respondent, v. J. J. Newberry Company, Appellant.

Memorandum: The court submitted to the jury only questions of fact bearing on the question of negligence of the defendant, contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate, and whether the blow upon intestate’s breast was the sole and exclusive cause of the subsequently discovered *705cancer. The finding, implicit in the jury’s verdict that the breast cancer was caused solely and exclusively by the blow, we feel is against the weight of the evidence. It follows that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. All concur, Taylor, P. J., on the further ground that the finding of negligence on the part of the defendant is against the weight of evidence, except Kimball and Wheeler, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
Summary of Director Fees



 EXHIBIT 10.17 
 SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR FEES 
 Compensation paid to nonemployee directors 
 Annual retainer: $50,000 Annual restricted stock award: $75,000 
 Annual stock option grant: $35,000 
 Compensation for attendance at Committee meetings (in person or by phone)

 Audit Committee: $1,250 
 Compensation Committee: $1,000 
 Nominating and Governance Committee: $1,000 
 Additional Compensation for Board and Committee Chairpersons 
 Nonemployee chairperson of the Board: 
 Annual Retainer: $35,000 
 Annual restricted stock award: $30,000 
 Annual stock option grant: $15,000 
 Audit Committee (if not Board chairperson): $10,000 
 Compensation Committee (if not Board chairperson) $10,000 
 Nominating and Governance Committee (if not Board chairperson): $7,500 
 Upon a nonemployee director’s
initial election or appointment to the Board on a date other than the date of an annual meeting of stockholders, each such nonemployee director shall automatically be granted a prorated annual option grant and restricted stock award, based on the
number of full calendar months between the date of initial election or appointment and the date of the first anniversary of the then last annual meeting of stockholders. 
 Directors shall be paid cash compensation on a quarterly basis. Directors will also be reimbursed for reasonable Coinstar-related travel expenses.
FORM 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended: March 31, 2002

Check here if Amendment [ x ]; Amendment Number:1
This Amendment (Check only one.):  [ x ] is a restatement.
                                   [   ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:    Continental Assurance Company
Address: CNA Plaza
         Chicago,IL 60685


13F File Number: 28-386

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the
person by whom it is signed hereby represent that the person
signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all
information contained herein is true, correct, and complete, and
that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of
this form.


Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name: Lynne Gugenheim
Title:  Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Phone: (312) 822 4921
Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:
November 12,2002
Chicago, Illinois,  60685
I AM SIGNING THIS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

Report Type (Check only one.):

 [    ]              13F HOLDINGS REPORT.

 [  x ]              13F NOTICE.

 [    ]              13F COMBINATION REPORT.

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

The securities on which Continental Assurance Company exercises
shared investment discretion have been reported upon by CNA Financial
Corporation on behalf of Continental Assurance Company.
<Page>