alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 913.25 Approval of Illinois abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments.

The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

| Original amendment submission date | Date of final publication | Citation/description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| January 19, 1984 | June 11, 1984 | Emergency reclamation program. |
| September 6, 1989 | February 14, 1990 | Non-coal reclamation. |
| June 29, 1990 | November 2, 1990 | Procedures for public participation, ranking and selection of reclamation projects, liens, bids and contracts. |
| August 13, 1992 | January 14, 1993 | Ch. 961/2, par. 8001.03; 8002.13. |
| July 2, 1993 | September 21, 1993 | 20 ILCS 1920 §§ 2.11, .13; 62 IAC 2501.37. |
| April 10, 1995 | July 11, 1995 | Executive Order No. 2 (1995), part I(C); part II(D); part III(A), (C); part IV(F). |
| October 22, 1998 | January 22, 1999 | Illinois Plan Narrative; 62 IAC 2501.1, .4, .7, .8, .10, .11, .13, .16, .19, .22, .25, .28, .31, and .40; 44 IAC 1150.10, 20, .30, .100, .200, .300, .400, .500, .700, .800, .900, .1000, .1100, .1200, .1300, .1325, and .1350. |

[62 FR 9938, Mar. 5, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 3419, Jan. 22, 1999; 69 FR 42870, July 19, 2004]
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4557-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]


Iowa; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4557-DR), dated August 17, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 8, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of 
August 17, 2020.

    Greene, Grundy, Guthrie, Hardin, Iowa, Jackson, and Washington 
Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-28726 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
§ 1903.14 Disorderly conduct. A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence, or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person commits any of the following prohibited acts: ( a ) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent behavior.
( b ) Acts in a manner that is physically threatening or menacing, or acts in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of peace.
( c ) Makes noises that are unreasonable considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonable prudent person under the circumstances.
( d ) Uses obscene language, an utterance, or gesture, or engages in a display or act that is obscene.
( e ) Impedes or threatens the security of persons or property, or disrupts the performance of official duties by employees, officers, contractors or visitors on an Agency installation or obstructs the use of areas on an Agency installation such as entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, concourses, offices, elevators, stairways, roadways, driveways, walkways, or parking lots.
#### § 193.2 Applicability.

The provisions of this part apply to all components of the Department of Defense.
§ 1656.7 Employer responsibilities. Employers participating in the Alternative Service Program are responsible for: ( a ) Complying with the employment agreement with Selective Service;
( b ) Providing a clear statement of duties, responsibilities, compensation and employee benefits to the ASW;
( c ) Providing full-time employment for ASWs;
( d ) Assuring that wages, hours and working conditions of ASWs confrom with Federal, state and local laws;
( e ) Providing adequate supervision of ASWs in their employ; and
( f ) Providing nondiscriminatory treatment of ASWs in their employ.
DJI Inspire 1 Users Guide ver 1.2 references for Section 333.

Compass Calibration (pg 49)

Low Battery Auto Go Home
Dynamic home point 

Current RTH (return to home)
Low battery alarm
§ 845.20 Final assessment and payment of penalty. ( a ) If the person to whom a notice of violation or cessation order is issued fails to request a hearing as provided in § 845.19, the proposed assessment shall become a final order of the Secretary and the penalty assessed shall become due and payable upon expiration of the time allowed to request a hearing.
( b ) If any party requests judicial review of a final order of the Secretary, the proposed penalty shall continue to be held in escrow until completion of the review. Otherwise, subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the escrowed funds shall be transferred to the Office in payment of the penalty, and the escrow shall end.
( c ) If the final decision in the administrative and judicial review results in an order reducing or eliminating the proposed penalty assessed under this part, the Office shall within 30 days of receipt of the order refund to the person assessed all or part of the escrowed amount, with interest from the date of payment into escrow to the date of the refund at the rate of 6 percent or at the prevailing Department of the Treasury rate, whichever is greater.
( d ) If the review results in an order increasing the penalty, the person to whom the notice or order was issued shall pay the difference to the Office within 15 days after the order is mailed to such person.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Korys, Respondent, v. J. H. Williams *&*Company et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. For many years claimant was exposed in the employer’s plant to harmful high-level noise; and in the course of his employment suffered a loss of hearing. On March 27, 1958 he left the employment; and a series of audio-metric tests disclosed that on October 6, 1958 he suffered a 27% and 28% permanent loss of hearing in the left and right ears respectively. There is medical proof that this disablement was due to the employment and existed at the time claimant left the employment on March 27, 1958. A series of tests was necessary after exposure to noise terminated, to determine the extent of the hearing loss. Thus the record based on the subsequent tests and the opinion of medical witnesses clearly demonstrates that the occupational disease was disabling when claimant left employment on March 27; and this was the date of disablement found by the board. Appellants argue that “the date of disablement is October 6, 1958 when the loss of hearing became permanent”. It is obvious *866the loss of hearing did not “ become permanent ” then; rather this is merely a date when medical witnesses could be certain of the extent of permanent impairment that existed while claimant was exposed to noise and at the time he left employment. Nothing made the disease permanent in October. The significance of the October date is that the tests showing its earlier permanency were merely completed at that time. If it required a week to make laboratory tests to demonstrate an infectious disease, it could scarcely be said that the disease did not exist until the tests were finished. The additional point made by appellants that claimant contracted the disease many years before October 6, 1958 and was “not employed” on that date and hence was barred by section 40 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law is wholly without substance. Here claimant continued in the “same employment with the same employer” and meets the specific exception provided by that section. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
§ 191.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Implements the DoD Humans Goals Charter; 29 U.S.C. 791, 792, 793, and 795; guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); Executive Order 11830; General Services Administration Order ADM 5420.71A; Executive Orders 11141; 11246 Part II, 11375, and 12086; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-11; 42 U.S.C. 2000E-16; Executive Order 11478; 38 U.S.C. 2014; 29 U.S.C. 631(b) and 633a; 5 U.S.C. chapters 43 and 72; Secretary of Defense Policy on Sexual Harassment, July 17, 1981; Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics) Multiple Addressee Memorandum, August 16, 1981; and 29 U.S.C. 206(d) by establishing the Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program, to include affirmative action programs, consistent with guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the DoD Human Goals Charter.
( b ) Consolidates in a single document provisions of Secretary of Defense Multiple Addressee Memorandum, June 23, 1981; DoD Directive 1100.11, DoD Directive 1450.1, DoD Directive 5120.46, and DoD Directive 1100.15, therefore cancelling each document.
( c ) Authorizes, as an integral part of the Civilian EEO Program, the establishment of Special Emphasis Programs (SEPs) entitled the Federal Women's Program (FWP), the Hispanic Employment Program (HEP), and the Program for People with Disabilities (PPD), the Asian/Pacific Islander Employment Program (AEP), the American Indian/Alaskan Native Employment Program (AIEP), and the Black Employment Program (BEP).
( d ) Establishes the Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC), the Civilian EEO Review Board, the SEP Boards.
( e ) Authorizes the issuance of DoD Instructions and Manuals to implement this part and guidance from standard-setting agencies such as EEOC and OPM, consistent with DoD 5025.1-M.
[53 FR 30990, Aug. 17, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 10170, Mar. 11, 1991; 57 FR 35755, Aug. 11, 1992]
#### Arthur W. Dickinson and Charlotte M. Dickinson, defendants in error, v. Henry Meinshausen and Mary S. W. Meinshausen, plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 29,164.

Arbitration on claim of vendor’s lien. Award for complainants. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924. *Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Rehearing denied May 14, 1925.

C. Oscar Carlson, for plaintiffs in error.

Einar C. Howard, for defendants in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice O ’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward M. Barr, Jr., Appellant.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers, five handwritten briefs, and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include September 1960 Term of court. Application for counsel denied. (See *People*v. *Breslin,*4 N Y 2d 73.)
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The  Board  of  Directors
American  Technical  Ceramics  Corp.:


We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-50913 and No. 333-76582) of American Technical Ceramics Corp.,
of  our  report,  dated  August  29,  2002, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of American Technical Ceramics Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002
and  2001,  and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity  and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows, for each of the years in
the  three-year  period  ended  June  30, 2002, which report appears in the 2002
Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  American  Technical  Ceramics  Corp.



                                                /s/ KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
September 27, 2002


<PAGE>
# C_2009256EN.01002101.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Clearstream v Commission

(Case T-301/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Financial services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Refusal to provide cross-border clearing and settlement services - Discriminatory pricing - Relevant market - Imputability of the infringement)

2009/C 256/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Clearstream Banking AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and Clearstream International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: H. Satzky and B. Maassen, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: T. Christoforou, A. Nijenhuis and M. Schneider, and subsequently by A. Nijenhuis and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2004) 1958 final of 2 June 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/38.096 — Clearstream (Clearing and Settlement)).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Clearstream Banking AG and Clearstream International to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Clearstream Banking AG and Clearstream International to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---
§ 1704.9 Determination by originator or interested party. ( a ) *In general.* The originating element(s) of the classified information (document) is always an interested party to any mandatory declassification review. Other interested parties may become involved through a referral by the D/IMD when it is determined that some or all of the information is also within their official cognizance.
( b ) *Required determinations:* These parties shall respond in writing to the D/IMD with a finding as to the classified status of the information, including the category of protected information as set forth in section 1.4 of the Order, and if older than ten years, the basis for the extension of classification time under sections 1.5 and 3.3 of the Order. These parties shall also indicate whether withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted in accordance with sections 3.5(c) and 6.2(d) of the Order.
( c ) *Time.* Responses to the requester shall be provided on a first-in/first-out basis, taking into account the business requirements of the originating element(s) and other interested parties, and, in accordance with Executive Order 13526, ODNI will respond to requesters within one year of the receipt of requests.
( d ) *Deciding official.* The IMD FOIA Branch Chief, in consultation with the D/IMD and the Classification Management Branch Chief, will ordinarily be the deciding official on initial reviews of MDR requests to the ODNI.
#### In the Matter of Century Operating Corporation, Appellant, v Jerome Prince, as Chairman of the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 13, 1978, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, vacated, and the petition granted, without costs and without disbursements. This proceeding was brought on behalf of the owner of a building on the East Side of Manhattan to contest the determination of the Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB) that the landlord could collect a certain rent for an apartment retroactive only to July 1, 1977 instead of retroactive to the start of the lease dated November 1, 1976. The tenant of the apartment filed a complaint with the CAB alleging rent overpayment on the ground that the former tenant of the apartment was paying much less and therefore the rent increases constituted overcharges. The petitioner landlord took over the building after the filing of the complaint when title was conveyed after foreclosure and a receivership. The CAB requested previous leases for the subject premises in order to determine the proper monthly rental, but the petitioner could not comply due to the change in ownership and inability to locate the requested documents. The CAB therefore accepted the tenant’s claim as to the prior situation and directed petitioner to refund overpayments. Thereafter, petitioner found the documents, which substantiated its position, and the CAB granted the increase but retroactive only to the month following production of the former tenant’s lease rather than retroactive to the present tenant’s lease date. Inasmuch as the petitioner landlord had a valid excuse for not having initially produced the old documents, and the CAB was accepting them and finding for the petitioner’s position as to proper rent, it was arbitrary and capricious not to permit retroactivity to the first day of the new lease. (See *Matter of Colton v Berman,*21 NY2d 322, 329.) Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
§ 211.10 Reporting determinations to Congress. ( a ) Not later than 30 days after making a determination of unacceptable risk pursuant to § 211.6, the senior officer shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on such determination and the basis for such determination.
( b ) Such a report shall include— ( 1 ) An explanation of the operational impact that led to the determination.
( 2 ) A discussion of the mitigation options considered.
( 3 ) An explanation of why the mitigation options were not feasible or did not resolve the conflict.
§ 2004.40 Information system security. ( a ) The responsible CSA must authorize an entity information system before the entity can use it to process classified information. The CSA must use the most complete, accurate, and trustworthy information to make a timely, credible, and risk-based decision whether to authorize an entity's system.
( b ) The responsible CSA issues to entities guidance that establishes protection measures for entity information systems that process classified information. The responsible CSA must base the guidance on standards applicable to Federal systems, which must include the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), Public Law 113-283, and may include National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) publications, and Federal information processing standards (FIPS).
#### Samuel C. Ray *vs.*City of St. Paul.

May 13, 1889.

Municipal Corporation — Street Defects. — The city of St. Paul deposited, and permitted others to deposit, refuse material in the Mississippi river, close to and adjoining the end of a graded public street, so that the deposit appeared to be a prolongation and part of the street, and the same was dangerous to .any one stepping thereon. Held, that the city might be guilty of such negligence in the premises as to render it liable to any one injured by stepping on the deposit.

*459Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, *Brill, J.,*presiding, overruling its demurrer to the complaint.

*W. P. Murray,*for appellant.

*I. V. D. Heard,*for respondent.

Gilpillan, C. J.

The substance of the complaint is that the city deposited, and permitted others, in violation of its own ordinances, to deposit garbage, snow, ice, and other refuse material in the Mississippi river, close to and adjoining the end of Sibley street, a public graded street of the city, which terminates at the river, so that the deposit appeared to be a prolongation of the street, and a part thereof, but which was dangerous to any person stepping thereon, and that plaintiff, without any negligence on his part, supposing said deposit to be a part of Sibley street, stepped upon it, and, by reason of its dangerous character, was thrown down, and his leg broken. ■ This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint.

It is undoubtedly true that a municipal corporation, having the duty of keeping public streets in repair and safe condition, is not bound to go beyond their limits for the purpose, nor is it generally bound to erect railings to prevent travellers straying off the street to adjoining land upon which there may be dangerous places; but it is bound to provide such guards where the street itself is unsafe for travel by reason of the close proximity of excavations, embankments, deep water, etc. *City of St. Paul*v. *Kuby,*8 Minn. 125, (154,) was such a ease. That was the case of .a sidewalk, along one side of which was a dangerous declivity outside the limits of the street. This court sustained a finding that the city was liable for negligence in not having a sufficient railing along the sidewalk. Of course it could make no difference in the. principle controlling that the dangerous place is at the end instead of alongside of the street, if the nearness of the dangerous place renders the street unsafe for public use. And certainly the case of the city is not any better from the fact that it contributed to create the dangerous place, and, by making it appear to be a part of the street, rendered the use of the street unsafe. The demurrer was properly overruled.

Order affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 329 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 996 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 3, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3901 MacArthur Blvd., in New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Dr. Rudy Lombard Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DR. RUDY LOMBARD POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 3901 MacArthur Blvd., in New 

6 Orleans, Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Dr. Rudy Lombard Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 996 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. Rudy Lombard 

5 Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 329 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 996 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postbard Post Office’’. New Orleans, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Dr. Rudy Lom- al Service located at 3901 MacArthur Blvd., in 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS