alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RECS HH DataHOUSEHOLD DATA FROM 1993 RECSHouse ID Sampled1Age Distribution from Age IndexAdjustedRECS97 CDD CDD AdjustedRECS97 HDD HDD 93 Avg 93 Marginal RateLarge YearAge Avg. Age House ID WeightCoolUEC CoolUEC 65 65-30 HeatUEC HeatUEC 65 65-30 Elec Rate Summer WinterDivisionState MadeIndexAge Dist.(Mbtu/yr) (Mbtu/yr) (cent/kWh) (in 93$/kWh)HOUSE ID 1 1 1 11 17450 2508 2547 1307 1287 1599 664 839 2020 10.7 $0.135 $0.110 9 2 7HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION 2 3 32 15570 10952 7042 1005 1563 11898 16221 4679 3432 7.1 $0.104 $0.050 5 0 7Equip Age Index 4 3 7 73 43862 14135 10398 1625 2209 5492 7810 3919 2756 5.7 $0.063 $0.038 7 0 7Equip. Age 14 4 14 144 10872 5426 6210 1789 1563 8389 5583 2284 3432 8.0 $0.087 $0.069 5 0 55 20 205 20705 10187 7793 2432 3179 2716 2821 998 961 7.7 $0.072 $0.069 5 4 8SEER 8.18 96 10 106 25482 5747 4545 1236 1563 20960 21094 3454 3432 7.8 $0.124 $0.057 5 0 8HSPF 6.28 7 10 107 20385 10497 7260 1081 1563 25885 32552 4316 3432 5.4 $0.046 $0.049 5 0 3Cooling UEC 735kWh/yr8 10 108 16564 17474 21619 3933 3179 6885 2042 285 961 8.4 $0.095 $0.092 5 4 12Heating UEC 469kWh/yr9910 109 18657 1106 1231 1740 1563 2671 1849 2376 3432 8.3 $0.089 $0.062 5 0 510 31141 4453 2963 1040 1563 18357 21839 4083 3432 7.9 $0.064 $0.060 5 0 8Avg. Elec Price in 1997 (97$) 10.70cents/kWh11 19411 17609 19758 3567 3179 6677 2279 328 961 8.7 $0.057 $0.091 5 4 6Marg. Elec Price in 1997 (97$) 11.46cents/kWh12 29242 12127 15102 2751 2209 17310 9974 1588 2756 8.0 $0.081 $0.064 7 0 713 23687 13858 12659 2904 3179 3916 3390 832 961 7.7 $0.070 $0.080 5 4 7Avg. Elec Price in 1998 (98$) 10.49cents/kWhConversion from 1997$ to 1998$0.9814 18950 13542 17504 4109 3179 6734 1892 270 961 8.4 $0.064 $0.080 5 4 7Marg. Elec Price in 1998 (98$) 11.24cents/kWh15 16482 2676 2651 1275 1287 2546 3495 2773 2020 11.9 $0.131 $0.121 9 2 7Wt.Avg. Average Elec Price in 1997 (97$) 7.5316 10872 8736 9630 1723 1563 22729 15941 2407 3432 7.7 $0.089 $0.069 5 0 4RECS House ID1008Wt.Avg. Marginal Elec Price in 1997 (97$) 6.9917 12105 8100 5015 1107 1788 13385 17630 4365 3314 5.4 $0.048 $0.051 6 0 7RECS Weight17450Wt. Avg. Average Elec Price in 1998 (98$) 7.3918 11717 16106 4059 654 2595 25104 53717 6950 3248 6.6 $0.066 $0.063 8 0 5RECS Cooling UEC2508Wt. Avg. Marginal Elec Price in 1998 (98$) 6.8619 13754 3444 7015 660 324 45574 57354 6042 4801 4.2 $0.040 $0.041 9 0 7RECS Heating UEC159920 28539 8352 8780 1643 1563 20081 14961 2557 3432 7.8 $0.090 $0.069 5 0 41997 RECS21 10544 12483 14427 3674 3179 4877 1974 389 961 8.1 $0.077 $0.074 5 4 9HH Average Cooling UEC 2630kWh/yr22 72469 19403 21796 3571 3179 9954 3439 332 961 7.6 $0.082 $0.078 5 4 8HH Average Heating UEC 3921kWh/yr23 17813 3560 2412 1059 1563 11115 14853 4586 3432 7.2 $0.103 $0.053 5 0 7HH Avg Cooling SEER 9.3224 17652 3687 3282 1029 1156 15648 13731 5273 6009 7.5 $0.064 $0.066 4 0 4HH Avg Cooling HSPF 6.7725 5918 8319 5532 1189 1788 12223 14395 3903 3314 5.7 $0.054 $0.056 6 0 726 18907 1093 1992 2346 1287 1323 376 574 2020 10.4 $0.104 $0.103 9 2 1127 22822 4772 5197 3462 3179 1381 493 343 961 11.0 $0.092 $0.081 5 4 7Page 1
### §14043e–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14043e–1 was editorially reclassified as section 12472 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §15974. Coal gasification

The Secretary is authorized to provide loan guarantees for a project to produce energy from a plant using integrated gasification combined cycle technology of at least 400 megawatts in capacity that produces power at competitive rates in deregulated energy generation markets and that does not receive any subsidy (direct or indirect) from ratepayers.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title IV, §414, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 755.)
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC

Exhibit 32.3

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 DIRECTV Financing Co., Inc. (the "Corporation") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chase Carey, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:



/s/ CHASE CAREY Chase Carey President and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 6, 2008


---



QuickLinks
Presidential Documents

72109

Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 238

Monday, December 13, 2004

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2005–07 of November 29, 2004

Presidential Determination on Waiver of Conditions on Obligation and Expenditure of Funds for Planning, Design, and 

Construction of a Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in 

Russia 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 1303 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) (the 

‘‘Act’’), I hereby certify that waiving the conditions described in section 

1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public 

Law 106–65), as amended, is important to the national security interests 

of the United States, and include herein, for submission to the Congress, 

the statement, justification, and plan described in section 1303 of the Act. 

This waiver shall apply through the remainder of calendar year 2004 and 

for all of calendar year 2005. 

You are authorized and directed to transmit this certification, including 

the statement, justification, and plan, to the Congress and to arrange for 

the publication of this certification in the 

W

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, November 29, 2004. 

[FR Doc. 04–27354

Filed 12–10–04; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P
# MP5325_7003_3_3 DNAD Exception

When a program office concludes that domestically melted or produced specialty metal cannot be procured (as described in DFARS 225.7003-3(b)(5)) to support the production of a particular end item or component, the contracting officer must prepare a DNAD D&F for specialty metals. The SecAF may approve a DNAD for an individual contract if a compliant specialty metal of satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity, and in the required form, cannot be procured as and when needed at a fair and reasonable price. This approval authority is not delegable. A Class DNAD requires the approval of the USD(A&S).

**Parent topic:**MP5325.7003-3 - Exceptions
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Lisa M. De La Pointe, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn
Filter Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002
(the "Report").

         The undersigned certifies that: (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 operation of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as
of the 14th day of August 2002.



                                              /s/ Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                              ----------------------
                                              Name: Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
FINAL 

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS IN 17 WESTERN STATES

( ) DRAFT ( X ) FINAL 

LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

PROJECT LOCATION: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming 

COMMENTS ON THIS FINAL PROGRAMMATIC 

EIS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: 

Mr. Brian Amme 

PEIS Project Manager 

Nevada State Office 

1340 Financial Boulevard 

P.O. Box 12000 

Reno, Nevada 89520-0006 

Fax: (775) 861-6712 

DATE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC EIS FILED WITH 

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY: June 29, 2007 

DATE BY WHICH COMMENTS MUST BE 

POSTMARKED TO THE BLM: July 30, 2007 

ABSTRACT 

This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts associated with the Bureau of Land Management’s use of herbicides on the human and natural environment. An 

accompanying Final Programmatic Environmental Report (PER) discloses the potential impacts to vegetation and the 

environment from utilization of non-herbicide treatment techniques, including, but not limited to, fire, mechanical, 

manual, and biological control methods. Together, herbicide and non-herbicide treatments make up the integrated pest 

management program that the BLM would apply to approximately 6 million acres annually of public lands in 17 western 

U.S. states, including Alaska. Alternatives analyzed in the PEIS include the No Action Alternative, or continuation of 

present management, as outlined in four previous EISs dating from 1986 to 1992. In addition, four action alternatives 

were evaluated: 1) the Preferred Alternative, which includes herbicide treatments on about 932,000 acres annually and 

adoption of four new herbicides for use on public lands; 2) a no herbicide use alternative; 3) a no aerial spraying 

alternative; and 4) an alternative that would limit herbicide use to non-acetolactate synthase-inhibiting active ingredients. 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL FOR PEIS: Bud Cribley 

Acting Assistant Director 

Bureau of Land Management
Subpart 3416.3—Cost-Reimbursement Contracts    **Parent topic:** PART 3416—TYPES OF CONTRACTS3416.303 Cost-sharing contracts.       (b) *Application.* Costs that are not reimbursed under a cost-sharing contract may not be charged to the Federal Government under any other grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other arrangement.3416.307 Contract clauses.       (a) If the clause at FAR 52.216–7 (Allowable Cost and Payment) is used in a contract with a hospital, the contracting officer must modify the clause by deleting the words “Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 31.2” from paragraph (a)          (1)  			and substituting “45 CFR part 75, appendix IX.”          (b) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.216–70 (Additional cost principles) in all solicitations of and resultant cost-reimbursement contracts with nonprofit organizations other than educational institutions, hospitals, or organizations listed in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E.
### §247d–6f. Provision of medical countermeasures to Indian programs and facilities

In the event that the Secretary deploys the contents of the Strategic National Stockpile under section 247d–6b(a) of this title, or otherwise distributes medical countermeasures to States to respond to a public health emergency declared by the Secretary under section 247d of this title, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the applicable States, make such contents or countermeasures directly available to Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations (as such terms are defined in section 5304 of title 25), which may include through health programs or facilities operated by the Indian Health Service, that are affected by such public health emergency.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §319F–5, as added Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title II, §2408(b), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5789.)
March 2 4 , 2015

Mr. Mathew Berman

LA Sky Aerials

377 Fresh Meadows Road

Simi Valley, CA 93065

Dear Mr. Berman :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your February 26 , 2015 exemption request on behalf of LA Sky Aerials into the

public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0507 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further.

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to conside r the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exempti on.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### FITZPATRICK v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 23, 1905.)

Injuries—Evidence—Hypothetical Questions.

Where, In an action for Injuries, alleged to have been sustained In an accident on August 22, 1904, a physician who examined plaintiff a little more than two weeks after the accident testified that he found “an old scar” over the right eye, it was error for the court to permit the witness to answer a hypothetical question assuming that the scar was caused by the accident.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

Action by Thomas A. Fitzpatrick against the New York City Railway Company. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, GIEGERICH, and McCALL, JJ.

Henry W. Goddard and William E. Weaver, for appellant.

SCOTT, J.

Manifest error was committed in permitting certain hypothetical questions to be put to the physician called by plaintiff. He testified that he had examined the plaintiff on September 8,1904, a little more than two weeks after the accident. He testified that he found "an old scar” just outside of the outer angle of the right eye, and a painful point on the back part of the he'ad. It seems to be evident that any scar which justified the description óf “old” on September 8th could not have been the result of an accident on August 22d. The next question was a hypothetical one, commencing as follows: “Assuming that Mr. Fitzpatrick was thrown from a car August 22, 1904, sustaining a bruise over the right eye that inflicted a scar that you found there on September 8, 1904.” Here it was assumed what could not have been the fact— that the scar which the doctor described as “old” was the result of an injury received in the accident of which complaint was made. The question was properly objected to, and an exception taken to its admission. The doctor evidently saw the false assumption, for he replied guardedly that the facts stated indicated that the plaintiff had had concussion of the brain “some time,” which is evidently very different from saying that he had had it as the result of an accident on August 22d. The next question pushed the error even further, for it asked the doctor to assume “that he did have concussion of the brain at that time,” of which there was not the slightest evidence. As to this question the proper objection and exception were taken. By this method of examination it was made *249to appear to the jury that an “old scar,” which, in the very nature of things, if “old,” could not have resulted from the accident, indicated that the plaintiff had suffered on August 22d an injury which was liable to have permanent effects. The verdict was a substantial one, and we are not able to say that the errors pointed out did not prejudice the defendant.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### § 4.15 Continued applicability of antifraud section.

The provisions of section 4*o* of the Act shall apply to any person even though such person is exempt from registration under this part 4, and it shall continue to be unlawful for any such person to violate section 4*o* of the Act.

[50 FR 15884, Apr. 23, 1985]
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 89 FR 71806, Sept. 4, 2024.

#### § 3.63 Service of order issued by an Administrative Law Judge or the Commission.

A copy of any order issued pursuant to § 3.60 of this part shall be served promptly upon the applicant or registrant, the Market Participants Division, the Division of Enforcement, the National Futures Association, and any contract markets where the applicant or registrant is a member or has trading privileges in accordance with the provisions of § 3.50(a) of this part.

[57 FR 23154, June 2, 1992, as amended at 67 FR 62351, Oct. 7, 2002; 78 FR 22419, Apr. 16, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 71803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Global Positioning 
System will meet in closed session on January 13, 2005, at Strategic 
Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. The Task Force 
will review a range of issues dealing with Galileo (or some other 
future radio navigation satellite system) and provide recommendations 
to address these issues.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will address: Provision 
of capabilities and services within GPS to ensure its viability in 
commercial markets; the impact on frequency spectrum use, signal 
waveforms and power management; access and denial issues throughout the 
spectrum of conflict; possible alternatives to a global radio 
navigation system including the development of small compact timing 
devices and/or navigation units; and vulnerabilities and upgrade 
strategies for all global radio navigation satellite systems (GRNSS). 
In addition, the Task Force will assess areas in which DoD should seek 
strong partnering relationships outside DoD, both within government and 
industry. It will recommend research and development areas that are 
uniquely in DoD interest and might not be accomplished by the private 
sector.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: December 6, 2004.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-27124 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC TO HOLD SECOND PUBLIC FORUM

IN VICINITY OF OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

 In addition to an open house planned for tonight to discuss its 2011 assessment of the 

Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a 

subsequent meeting to provide another opportunity for public interaction. The details of that 

session, including the date, time and location, still have to be determined.

 The open house set for tonight will take place from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 151 

Route 72 West in Stafford Township, N.J. Members of the public will have an opportunity to 

learn first-hand from NRC staff members about the plant’s safety performance during 2011 and 

the NRC’s oversight of the facility. The meeting format will allow citizens to discuss plantrelated topics on a one-on-one basis with NRC inspectors assigned to the plant and their NRC 

Region I supervisor.

Oyster Creek is located in Lacey Township (Ocean County), N.J. It is the site of a single 

boiling-water reactor, which is owned and operated by Exelon Generation Co., LLC.

###

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, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. I-12-012

Contact: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

March 28, 2012

Email: opa1.resource@nrc.gov