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

[Federal Register: September 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 189)]
[Notices]               
[Page 60493]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30se10-126]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Renewal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 14 (a) (2) (A) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, and in accordance with section 102-3.65, title 41 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA gives notice it has renewed the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) for a 2-year period 
beginning September 17, 2010. The Committee's primary purpose is to 
provide the public with an earlier opportunity to participate in the 
FAA's rulemaking process. It will continue to operate in accordance 
with the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Department 
of Transportation Order 1120.3B, Committee Management Policy and 
Procedures.
    For further information about the ARAC, please contact Ms. Renee 
Butner, FAA Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-5093.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2010.
Pamela A. Hamilton-Powell,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-24538 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
### §3352h. Timeliness standard for rendering determinations of trust for personnel vetting

#### (a) Timeliness standard

#### (1) In general

The President shall, acting through the Security Executive Agent and the Suitability and Credentialing Executive Agent, establish and publish in such public venue as the President considers appropriate, new timeliness performance standards for processing personnel vetting trust determinations in accordance with the Federal personnel vetting performance management standards.

#### (2) Quinquennial reviews

Not less frequently than once every 5 years, the President shall, acting through the Security Executive Agent and the Suitability and Credentialing Executive Agent—

(A) review the standards established pursuant to paragraph (1); and

(B) pursuant to such review—

(i) update such standards as the President considers appropriate; and

(ii) publish in the Federal Register such updates as may be made pursuant to clause (i).

#### (3) Omitted

#### (b) Quarterly reports on implementation

#### (1) In general

Not less frequently than quarterly, the Security Executive Agent and the Suitability and Credentialing Executive Agent shall jointly make available to the public a quarterly report on the compliance of Executive agencies (as defined in section 105 of title 5) with the standards established pursuant to subsection (a).

#### (2) Disaggregation

Each report made available pursuant to paragraph (1) shall disaggregate, to the greatest extent practicable, data by appropriate category of personnel risk and between Government and contractor personnel.

#### (c) Complementary standards for intelligence community

The Director of National Intelligence may, in consultation with the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council established pursuant to Executive Order 13467 (50 U.S.C. 3161 note; relating to reforming processes related to suitability for Government employment, fitness for contractor employees, and eligibility for access to classified national security information) establish for the intelligence community standards complementary to those established pursuant to subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 118–31, div. G, title VII, §7702, Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Executive Order 13467, referred to in subsec. (c), is Ex. Ord. No. 13467, June 30, 2008, 73 F.R. 38103, which is set out as a note under section 3161 of this title.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 7702 of Pub. L. 118–31. Subsec. (a)(3) of section 7702 of Pub. L. 118–31 amended section 3341 of this title.

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

#### Definitions

For definition of "intelligence community" as used in this section, see section 7002 of Pub. L. 118–31, set out as a note under section 3003 of this title.
### §21062. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

In addition to any other amounts authorized to be appropriated under this part, there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and for each subsequent fiscal year such sums as may be necessary, for the purpose of making payments under section 21061(a) of this title; except that none of the funds provided by this subsection shall be used to initiate or otherwise participate in any litigation related to election-related disability access, notwithstanding the general authorities that the protection and advocacy systems are otherwise afforded under subtitle C of title I of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15041 et seq.).

#### (b) Availability

Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authority of this section shall remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title II, §292, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1703.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 106–402, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1677. Subtitle C of title I of the Act is classified generally to part C (§15041 et seq.) of subchapter I of chapter 144 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 15001 of Title 42 and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15462 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
### Part B—Emergency Management Capabilities
### §5526. Funds available on reimbursable basis

Funds available to an agency for payment of pay, allowances, and differentials to or for the accounts of employees of the agency are available on a reimbursable basis for payment of pay, allowances, and differentials to or for the accounts of employees of another agency under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 481.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 3078. | Sept. 26, 1961, Pub. L. 87–304, §8, 75 Stat. 664. |

Statutes at Large

The word "civilian" is omitted as unnecessary in view of the definition of "employee" in section 5521(2), and the fact that military personnel are not "employed".

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
§ 1807.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities conducted by the NACIC.
( b ) The NACIC shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1614 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, is responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to NACIC, Director, Washington, DC 20505.
( d ) The NACIC shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The NACIC may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the NACIC receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The NACIC shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, The NACIC shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing: ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the NACIC of the letter required by paragraph (g) of this section. The NACIC may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the Director.
( j ) The NACIC shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the NACIC determines that it needs additional information from the complainant, it shall have 60 days from the date it receives the additional information to make its determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The Director may delegate the authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated.
§ 2003.12 Review of agency exemptions from automatic declassification under section 3.3 of the Order. All classified records that are more than 25 years old and have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code, are automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. However, agency heads may exempt information that would otherwise fall into this category on specific bases set out in section 3.3 of the Order. The ISCAP reviews and approves, denies, or amends agency proposals to exempt such information from automatic declassification. ( a ) *Agency notification of exemptions.* The agency head or designated senior agency official notifies the Executive Secretary of proposed agency exemptions in accordance with the requirements of the Order and its implementing directives. Agencies provide any additional information or justification that the Executive Secretary believes is necessary or helpful in order for the ISCAP to review and decide on the exemption.
( b ) *Preparation of the exemptions files.* The Executive Secretary notifies the Chair of an agency's submission. At the direction of the ISCAP, the Executive Secretary supervises the preparation of an exemption file, pertinent portions of which are presented to the members of the Panel for review prior to a vote on the exemptions. The exemption file eventually includes all records pertaining to the ISCAP's consideration of the agency's exemptions.
( c ) *Resolution.* The Panel may vote to approve an agency exemption, to deny an agency exemption, to amend an agency exemption, or to remand the matter to the agency for further consideration. A decision to deny or amend an agency exemption requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present.
( d ) *Notification.* The Executive Secretary promptly notifies the designated senior agency official in writing of the Panel's decision.
( e ) *Agency appeals.* Within 60 days of receipt of an ISCAP decision that denies or amends an agency exemption, the agency head may petition the President through the National Security Advisor to overrule the Panel's decision.
( f ) *Protection of classified information.* All persons involved in the appeal will make every effort to minimize the inclusion of classified information in the appeal file. Any classified information contained in the exemption file is handled and protected in accordance with the Order and its implementing directives. Information that the agency maintains is exempt from declassification remains classified unless and until a final decision is made to declassify it.
( g ) *Maintenance and disposition of file.* The Executive Secretary maintains the exemption file among the ISCAP's records in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207 (the Presidential Records Act).
### §302301. Regulations

The Secretary, in consultation with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the National Trust, shall promulgate regulations for State Historic Preservation Programs. The regulations shall provide that a State program submitted to the Secretary under this chapter shall be approved by the Secretary if the Secretary determines that the program provides for—

(1) the designation and appointment by the chief elected official of the State of a State Historic Preservation Officer to administer the program in accordance with section 302303 of this title and for the employment or appointment by the officer of such professionally qualified staff as may be necessary for those purposes;

(2) an adequate and qualified State historic preservation review board designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer unless otherwise provided for by State law; and

(3) adequate public participation in the State Historic Preservation Program, including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3194.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 302301 | 16 U.S.C. 470a(b)(1). | Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §101(b)(1), Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 915; Pub. L. 91–383, §11, as added Pub. L. 94–458, §2, Oct. 7, 1976, 90 Stat. 1942; Pub. L. 93–54, §1(d), July 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 139; Pub. L. 96–205, title VI, §608(a)(1), (2), Mar. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 92; Pub. L. 96–515, title II, §201(a), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2990. |

Section

Before paragraph (1), the words "or revise" are omitted as unnecessary.

In paragraph (1), the words "chief elected official" are substituted for "Governor" for clarity because the definition of "State" in section 300316 of the new title includes entities in which the chief elected official is not the Governor.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 996 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.996

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 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''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DR. RUDY LOMBARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3901 MacArthur Blvd., in New Orleans, Louisiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dr. Rudy Lombard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dr. Rudy 
Lombard Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Servino Simmons, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 437]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered May 3, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and *236sentencing him to concurrent terms of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). The victim’s identification testimony was extensively corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The court properly permitted limited inquiry into a prior robbery, whose underlying facts differed significantly from the instant robbery, since the prior incident was indicative of defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society, and its probative value on the issue of credibility outweighed its prejudicial effect *(see e.g. People v White,*297 AD2d 258 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 772 [2002]). The court also properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after the People attempted to go beyond the court’s ruling, since the court sustained defendant’s objections and the offending questions were never answered. The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions that questions are not evidence *(see People v Fray,*306 AD2d 188 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 620 [2003]).

The court properly precluded defendant’s uncle from testifying that, in the month preceding the robbery, defendant generally came directly home every evening after work and remained there. This was not admissible as habit evidence, because there was no showing of such a repetitive pattern as to be predictive of defendant’s conduct *(see*Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4-601, at 197-198 [Farrell 11th ed]; *Halloran v Virginia Chems.,*41 NY2d 386, 389 [1977]). In the circumstances presented, the proffered testimony concerning defendant’s usual behavior during the period in question had no probative value with regard to whether he may have behaved differently on a particular night. The uncle was not an alibi witness, since he had no recollection of defendant’s whereabouts on the night of the crime. Defendant’s related claims regarding the prosecutor’s summation, and all of his constitutional arguments concerning the exclusion of the proffered habit evidence, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument is without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and Buckley, JJ.
#### § 196.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.
§ 195.8 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) *Periodic compliance reviews.* The responsible Department official or his designee(s) shall from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with this part.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any person who believes himself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by this part may by himself or by a representative file with the responsible Department official a written complaint. A complaint must be filed not later than 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the responsible Department official.
( c ) *Investigations.* The responsible Department official will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this part. The investigation should include, where appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination of whether the recipient has failed to comply with this part.
( d ) *Resolution of matters.* ( 1 ) If an investigation pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section indicates a failure to comply with this part, the responsible Department official will so inform the recipient and the matter will be resolved by informal means whenever possible. If it has been determined that the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, action will be taken as provided in § 195.9.
( 2 ) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the responsible Department official will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
( e ) *Intimidatory or retaliatory acts prohibited.* No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 601 of the Act or this part, or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part. The identity of complainants shall not be disclosed except when necessary to carry out the purposes of this part including the conduct of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising thereunder.
[29 FR 19291, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended at 38 FR 17960, July 5, 1974. Redesignated and amended at 56 FR 32965, July 18, 1991]
P.O Bo x 3350 Lihue, HI 96766 PH 808

- 651

- 0679/Fax 808

- 245

- 2029 **We, Ai**  **r Ventures Haw aii**  **certificate# I96A 349P and LOA**  **# 40JJWP13 w**  **ould like to apply for a grant of exemption from Title**  **14, Part 120, to permit us, operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover, w**  **ith an equivalent level of safety , our**  **safe ty**  **- sensitive employ**  **ees under one drug and alcohol testing program.**  **We are currently**

**covered for both our 135 and our A ir Tour**  **programs by**

**an approved FAA**

**/DOT drug and alcohol testing program, through a Consortium/Third Party** 
**Administrator: Professional**  **Ai r Charter Services, Inc.**  **(program manager John Carpenter) Drug A**  **batement / A MPP Consortium**  **Kansas City , MO**  **816 942 2144**
Appeal No. 77-48.

#### Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake *et al. v.*William Davis and John P. Coyne.

*Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey, Milton Stanzler, Jordan Stanzler,*for Citizens for Preservation of Waterman Lake.

*George W. Shuster,*Town Solicitor, for Intervenor, Town of Glocester.

*James M. Shannahan,*for William Davis.

*John F. Dolan,*for John P. Coyne.

*Joseph T. Trainor,*for John P. Coyne, for defendants.

The plaintiffs’ motion to file a brief in excess of fifty pages is granted.