alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §300h–8. State ground water protection grants

#### (a) In general

The Administrator may make a grant to a State for the development and implementation of a State program to ensure the coordinated and comprehensive protection of ground water resources within the State.

#### (b) Guidance

Not later than 1 year after August 6, 1996, and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall publish guidance that establishes procedures for application for State ground water protection program assistance and that identifies key elements of State ground water protection programs.

#### (c) Conditions of grants

#### (1) In general

The Administrator shall award grants to States that submit an application that is approved by the Administrator. The Administrator shall determine the amount of a grant awarded pursuant to this paragraph on the basis of an assessment of the extent of ground water resources in the State and the likelihood that awarding the grant will result in sustained and reliable protection of ground water quality.

#### (2) Innovative program grants

The Administrator may also award a grant pursuant to this subsection for innovative programs proposed by a State for the prevention of ground water contamination.

#### (3) Allocation of funds

The Administrator shall, at a minimum, ensure that, for each fiscal year, not less than 1 percent of funds made available to the Administrator by appropriations to carry out this section are allocated to each State that submits an application that is approved by the Administrator pursuant to this section.

#### (4) Limitation on grants

No grant awarded by the Administrator may be used for a project to remediate ground water contamination.

#### (d) Amount of grants

The amount of a grant awarded pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50 percent of the eligible costs of carrying out the ground water protection program that is the subject of the grant (as determined by the Administrator) for the 1-year period beginning on the date that the grant is awarded. The State shall pay a State share to cover the costs of the ground water protection program from State funds in an amount that is not less than 50 percent of the cost of conducting the program.

#### (e) Evaluations and reports

Not later than 3 years after August 6, 1996, and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall evaluate the State ground water protection programs that are the subject of grants awarded pursuant to this section and report to the Congress on the status of ground water quality in the United States and the effectiveness of State programs for ground water protection.

#### (f) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIV, §1429, as added Pub. L. 104–182, title I, §131, Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1672.)
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:12 AM

To: Exparte Communications

Subject: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power

Supplies; Proposed Rule Making

‐ Ex Parte Communication

Apple Inc. met with DOE to discuss the notice of proposed rule making the

Department sent out regarding battery chargers and external power supplies.

Below is a list of t opics that Apple discussed with DOE.

‐ Discussion regarding Battery Charger product Class 8 and that it does not scale

with battery capacity. Class 8 is for DC

‐ DC battery chargers.

‐ Timeline for the effective date of the DOE battery charger efficiency

regulation and the external po wer supply regulation.

‐ Flexibility of DOE Battery Charger efficiency mark to be placed on the retail

package as an alternate to marking the product surface.

‐ Discussion of replacement parts and refurbished products produced prior to the

DOE effective date.

‐ Discussion of DOE proposed EPS Level VI efficiency criteria as co mpared to that

of Level V and how the implementation date

has an impact on manufacturers.
### §300e–14a. Health services for Indians and domestic agricultural migratory and seasonal workers

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in connection with existing authority (except section 254b 1 of this title) for the provisions of health services to domestic agricultural migratory workers, to persons who perform seasonal agricultural services similar to the services performed by such workers, and to the families of such workers and persons, is authorized to arrange for the provision of health services to such workers and persons and their families through health maintenance organizations. In carrying out this section the Secretary may only use sums appropriated after December 29, 1973.

(Pub. L. 93–222, §6(b), Dec. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 936; Pub. L. 95–626, title I, §102(b)(2), Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3551; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 254b of this title, referred to in text, was in the original a reference to section 329 of the Public Health Service Act, act July 1, 1944, which was omitted in the general amendment of subpart I (§254b et seq.) of part D of subchapter II of this chapter by Pub. L. 104–299, §2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3626. Section 2 of Pub. L. 104–299 enacted a new section 330 of act July 1, 1944, which is classified to section 254b of this title.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–626 substituted "section 254b" for "section 247d".

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

1 See References in Text note below.
§ 192.23 Administration of benefits. ( a ) The Director General of the Department of State or Agency Head will issue certifications or other documents when required for purposes of the Civil Relief Act.
( b ) The Director General of the Department of State or Agency Head shall whenever possible promptly inform the chief legal officer of each U.S. State in which captives maintain residence of all persons determined to be captives eligible for assistance under this subpart.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harold Davis-El, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person and for assignment of counsel on an appeal from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered April 29, 1960 denying, without a hearing, defendant’s *coram nobis*application. Motion denied. Prom the papers submitted on this motion it affirmatively appears as matter of law that defendant is not *690entitled, to any relief by way of *coram. nobis*because all the alleged errors were reviewiable on an appeal from the original judgment of conviction ,(cf. *People ex rel. Meers*v. *Martin,*4 N Y 2d S98; *People*y. *Allgood,*2 A 1) 2d 931, 93-2; *People*v. *Scboenfeld,*1 A D 2d 897). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Phillip Gramaglia et al., Defendants.

Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: We conclude that defendants have not on this application met their burden of demonstrating that there is "reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had” in Erie County (CPL 230.20, *888subd 2). If it develops during the *voir dire*that a fair and impartial jury cannot be drawn, an appropriate application may then be made. The relief requested in the application before us now is premature. (See *People v Di Piazza,*24 NY2d 342; *People v Hatch,*46 AD2d 721; *People v Sekou,*45 AD2d 982). Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ. (Order entered Feb. 13, 1978.)
#### § 33.10 Payments.

The Office Director, Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, will pay the claimant the amount calculated under § 33.9. Payment will be made as promptly as practicable, but may be delayed pending the appropriation of sufficient funds, should fee collections not be adequate to sustain the operation of the Fund. The Director shall notify the claimant of the amount approved for payment as promptly as practicable and the same shall thereafter constitute a valid, but non-interest bearing obligation of the Government. Delays in payments are not a direct consequence of seizure and detention and cannot therefore be construed as increasing the compensable period for lost fishing time. If there is a question about distribution of the proceeds of the claim, the Director may request proof of interest from all parties, and will settle this issue.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-41177

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AGUSTO LAZO-AGUIRRE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-15-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Agusto Lazo-Aguirre has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Lazo-Aguirre has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lazo-Aguirre’s 

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-41177 Document: 00515022744 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2019
No. 18-41177

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-41177 Document: 00515022744 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2019
### §296a. Application

#### (a) In general

To be eligible to receive a grant or contract under this subchapter, an eligible entity shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an application that meets the requirements of this section, at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require.

#### (b) Plan

An application submitted under this section shall contain the plan of the applicant for carrying out a project with amounts received under this subchapter. Such plan shall be consistent with relevant Federal, State, or regional program plans.

#### (c) Performance outcome standards

An application submitted under this section shall contain a specification by the applicant entity of performance outcome standards that the project to be funded under the grant or contract will be measured against. Such standards shall address relevant national nursing needs that the project will meet, and how such project aligns with the goals in section 296e(a) of this title. The recipient of a grant or contract under this section shall meet the standards set forth in the grant or contract application.

#### (d) Linkages

An application submitted under this section shall contain a description of the linkages with relevant educational and health care entities, including training programs for other health professionals as appropriate, that the project to be funded under the grant or contract will establish.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VIII, §802, as added Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §123(4), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3564; amended Pub. L. 116–136, div. A, title III, §3404(a)(2), Mar. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 392.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 296a, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VIII, §802, as added Sept. 4, 1964, Pub. L. 88–581, §2, 78 Stat. 909; amended Aug. 16, 1968, Pub. L. 90–490, title II, §201(b), 82 Stat. 780; Nov. 18, 1971, Pub. L. 92–158, §§2(d)(3), (e), (f), 13, 85 Stat. 468, 480; July 29, 1975, Pub. L. 94–63, title IX, §§910(a)(2), 941(a), 89 Stat. 355, 363, related to time of submission, determinations, etc., respecting applications for construction grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–92, §§9(a)(1), 10(a), Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 400, 402, effective Oct. 1, 1985.

#### Amendments

2020—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 116–136 inserted ", and how such project aligns with the goals in section 296e(a) of this title" after "project will meet".
#### The People of the State of New York v. Leon Lieberman.

Motion granted on condition stated in order. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
§ 38.251 General requirements. A designated contract market must: ( a ) Collect and evaluate data on individual traders' market activity on an ongoing basis in order to detect and prevent manipulation, price distortions and, where possible, disruptions of the physical-delivery or cash-settlement process;
( b ) Monitor and evaluate general market data in order to detect and prevent manipulative activity that would result in the failure of the market price to reflect the normal forces of supply and demand;
( c ) Demonstrate an effective program for conducting real-time monitoring of market conditions, price movements and volumes, in order to detect abnormalities and, when necessary, make a good-faith effort to resolve conditions that are, or threaten to be, disruptive to the market; and
( d ) Demonstrate the ability to comprehensively and accurately reconstruct daily trading activity for the purposes of detecting trading abuses and violations of exchange-set position limits, including those that may have occurred intraday.
( e ) Adopt and implement rules governing market participants subject to its jurisdiction to prevent, detect, and mitigate market disruptions or system anomalies associated with electronic trading;
( f ) Subject all electronic orders to exchange-based pre-trade risk controls to prevent, detect, and mitigate market disruptions or system anomalies associated with electronic trading; and
( g ) Promptly notify Commission staff of any significant market disruptions on its electronic trading platform(s) and provide timely information on the causes and remediation.
[77 FR 36700, June 19, 2012, as amended at 86 FR 2071, Jan. 11, 2021]
#### § 19.13 Lump-sum payment.
#### § 18.21 Decision of the Board of Appellate Review.

The Board of Appellate Review shall decide the appeal on the basis of the record. The decision of the Board shall be final, and not subject to further administrative review. Copies of the Board's decision shall be forwarded promptly to the parties by the Board.
Glllll McUarth~ 

Con)ntic.rinlicr 

Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

December 28, 2007 

Re: Adequacy Determination of the Connecticut State Implementation Plan with Regard to Clean 

Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard Program Infrastructure 

Dear Administrator Varney: 

I am pleased to submit the enclosed determination of the adequacy of Connecticut's State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) in meeting the program infrastructure requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The program 

infrastructure requirements concern implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. To 

confirm that states have made the necessary submissions concerning infrastructure, EPA issued a guidance 

memo on October 2, 2007 directing states to review their existing ozone SIPs for adequacy under CAA Section 

110(a), and, after determining such adequacy exists, to state such in a letter to EPA. EPA has requested that 

states make this determination before January 7, 2008 for 8-hour ozone SIPs and April 4, 2008 for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) SIPSThis submission addresses the adequacy of Connecticut's SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

infrastructure; a similar submission with regard to the PM2.5 NAAQS requirements will be addressed with the 

PM2.5 NAAQS SIP that the Department is planning to submit to EPA in April 2008. 

The EPA guidance memo identifies fourteen elements necessary for NAAQS program infrastructure. 

Attached is a document that identifies with each of these fourteen elements the Connecticut SIP provisions, 

laws and regulations that satisfy those elements for 8-hour ozone. Upon Connecticut's submittal of its final 8-

hour ozone attainment demonstration in 2008, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection will 

fully satisfy all of the CAA Section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure elements for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

If we can be of assistance as you review this matter, please contact Anne Gobin, Chief, Bureau of Air 

Management, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection at (860) 424-3026. Thank you for your 

consideration in this matter. 

Enclosure 

cc: David Conroy (EPA Region I) 

Anne Gobin (CT DEP) 

Amey Marrella (CT DEP) 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

I)EPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

79 ELM STREET HARTFORI). CT 06106-5127 

PHONE : 800-4,4-1001 

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 

http :ildep state.ct .us 

An f_cpuu! Opnuntuxt~ ~ Einplucer
§ 231.05 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged to the performance of this Guarantee. The Guarantee shall be unconditional, and shall not be affected or impaired by: ( a ) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or
( b ) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder.
#### § 241.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of this Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
# OAR Box 

# 1828

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 254 ) ll-K - (I ) -6 7 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:57AM

Sheet 254 of 325 P. 1P.2 _ 

# /A \ Pl A\ _ _Q II-K-(I)-6 7

INDUSTRIAL BOILE RNSP S IMPAC T ANALYSI S - SIXT H ROUND TES T CASE S - IFCA

M MODE L RESULTS . EEA , Inc . Septembe r 9 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-6 7
#### § 225.113 Suspension or Termination of IRB Approval of Research.

An IRB shall have authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Any suspension or termination of approval shall include a statement of the reasons for the IRB's action and shall be reported promptly to the investigator, appropriate institutional officials, and the department or agency head.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.110 Are any of my Federal assistance awards exempt from this part?

This part does not apply to any award that the Procurement Executive determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARK ETHAN MCFALL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 105 MM 2014

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3 rd day of September, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED . Counsel is directed to file a Petition for

Allowance of Appeal within 15 days of this order.
#### § 1509.515 Are there any exceptions to those actions?

The ADF President may waive with respect to a particular award, in writing, a suspension of payments under an award, suspension or termination of an award, or suspension or debarment of a recipient if the ADF President determines that such a waiver would be in the public interest. This exception authority cannot be delegated to any other official.
§ 1633.8 Findings. ( a ) *General.* In order to issue a flammability standard under the FFA, the FFA requires the Commission to make certain findings and to include these in the regulation, 15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). These findings are discussed in this section.
( b ) *Voluntary standards.* No findings concerning compliance with and adequacy of a voluntary standard are necessary because no relevant voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury that is addressed by this regulation has been adopted and implemented.
( c ) *Relationship of benefits to costs.* The Commission estimates the potential total lifetime benefits of a mattress that complies with this standard to range from $45 to $57 per mattress set (based on a 10 year mattress life and a 3% discount rate). The Commission estimates total resource costs of the standard to range from $8 to $22 per mattress. This yields net benefits of $23 to $50 per mattress set. The Commission estimates that aggregate lifetime benefits associated with all mattresses produced the first year the standard becomes effective range from $1,024 to $1,307 million, and that aggregate resource costs associated with these mattresses range from $175 to $511 million, yielding net benefits of about $514 to $1,132 million. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the benefits from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.
( d ) *Least burdensome requirement.* The Commission considered the following alternatives: alternative maximum peak heat release rate and test duration, alternative total heat released in the first 10 minutes of the test, mandatory production testing, a longer effective date, taking no action, relying on a voluntary standard, and requiring labeling alone (without any performance requirements). The alternatives of taking no action, relying on a voluntary standard (if one existed), and requiring labeling alone are unlikely to adequately reduce the risk. Requiring a criterion of 25 MJ total heat release during the first 10 minutes of the test instead of 15 MJ would likely reduce the estimated benefits (deaths and injuries reduced) without having much effect on costs. Both options of increasing the duration of the test from 30 minutes to 60 minutes and decreasing the peak rate of heat release from 200 kW to 150 kW would likely increase costs significantly without substantial increase in benefits. Requiring production testing would also likely increase costs. Therefore, the Commission finds that an open flame standard for mattresses with the testing requirements and criteria that are specified in the Commission rule is the least burdensome requirement that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury for which the regulation is being promulgated.