alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §10205. Service step adjustments

(a) Definition.—In this section, the term "calendar week of active service" includes all periods of leave with pay or other paid time off, and periods of non-pay status which do not cumulatively equal one 40-hour workweek.

(b) Adjustments.—Each member whose current performance is at an acceptable level of competence shall have a service step adjustment as follows:

(1) Each member in service step 1, 2, or 3 shall be advanced successively to the next higher service step at the beginning of the first pay period immediately following the completion of 52 calendar weeks of active service in the member's service step.

(2) Each member in service step 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11 shall be advanced successively to the next higher service step at the beginning of the first pay period immediately following the completion of 104 calendar weeks of active service in the member's service step.

(3) Each member in service step 12 shall be advanced successively to the next higher service step at the beginning of the first pay period immediately following the completion of 156 calendar weeks of active service in the member's service step.

(Added Pub. L. 111–282, §2(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 3036.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on first day of first pay period which begins after Oct. 15, 2010, see section 5 of Pub. L. 111–282, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 5102 of this title.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Spain v Commission**

**(Case T-266/04)**

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Withdrawal of fruit and vegetables – Check on all products withdrawn – Arable crops and beef premiums – Period of 24 months

1.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulations Nos 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c) and 1258/1999, Art. 7(4); Commission
Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 98, 105, 122-123, 141-143, 213, 217, 248-250)*

2.                     *Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see paras 120, 261)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | PARTIAL ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Spain. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 48, corrigendum in OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35), inasmuch as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Communities of the Basque Region and La Rioja in financial year 1998/1999 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the one hand, and expenditure incurred before 22 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Region in financial year 1999/2000 relating to arable crops and beef premiums, on the other; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
#### John J. De Lury et al. v. Jerry Wurf et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before December 5, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Motion for an enlargement of time dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of this court herein. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
**Exhibit 10.1**

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

COBRA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

FOR SELECT EXECUTIVES 

WHEREAS, Cobra Electronics Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and maintains a deferred compensationplan titled the “Cobra Electronics Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Select Executives” (the “Plan”) for the benefit of a select group of management and highly compensated employees; and 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects. 

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 11 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. Effective January 1, 2001, Section 2(i) of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 

(i) Years of Service. The number of complete years included in the period of time commencing on January 1, 1999 and ending on the date the Participant’s employment with the Company terminates; provided, however, that forany individual who is not selected by the Company to participate in the Plan and identified on Exhibit A until on or after January 1, 2001, “Years of Service” shall mean the number of complete years included in the period of timecommencing on the date set forth in Exhibit A for such purpose and ending on the date the Participant’s employment with the Company terminates. 

2. Effective July 31, 2001, Exhibit A to the Plan shall be amended to read as follows: 

EXHIBIT A

PLAN PARTICIPANTS 

Gerald Laures, whose Years of Service, as defined in Section 2(i), shall be determined with respect to the period of time commencing January 1, 1999 and ending on the date his employment with the Company terminates. 

Anthony Mirabelli, whose Years of Service, as defined in Section 2(i), shall be determined with respect to the period of time commencing onJanuary 1, 1999 and ending on the date his employment with the Company terminates. 

Michael Smith, Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer, whose Years of Service, as defined in Section 2(i), shall be determined with respect to the period of time commencing on January 31, 2001 and ending on the date his employment with the Company terminates. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorizedofficer this 6th day of September 2001. 

 

 

1
### §306105. Agency programs and projects

Consistent with the agency's missions and mandates, each Federal agency shall carry out agency programs and projects (including those under which any Federal assistance is provided or any Federal license, permit, or other approval is required) in accordance with the purposes of this division and give consideration to programs and projects that will further the purposes of this division.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3226.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 306105 | 16 U.S.C. 470h–2(d). | Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §110(d), as added Pub. L. 96–515, title II, §206, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2996. |

Section
# C_2010301EN.01002002.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/20

---

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission

(Case T-452/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - French-language publishing - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Decision to approve the purchaser of the assets sold - Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser - Trustee’s independence - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)

2010/C 301/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: W. van Weert, O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Whelan, O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and F. Arbault, then A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Wendel Investissement SA (Paris) (represented by: initially C. Couadou and M. Trabucchi, then M. Trabucchi and F. Gordon, lawyers); and Lagardère SCA (Paris) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, I. Girgenson and S. Sorinas Jimeno, then A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, lawyers

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision (2004) D/203365 of 30 July 2004 relating to the approval of Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | annuls Commission Decision (2004)D/203365 of 30 July 2004 on the approval of Wendel Investissement SA as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EEC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls Commission Decision (2004)D/203365 of 30 July 2004 on the approval of Wendel Investissement SA as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EEC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP);

| 2. | orders the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS;

| 3. | orders Wendel Investissement to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Wendel Investissement to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, of 19.2.2005.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1100-1 Type and quality of firefighting equipment. Firefighting equipment required under this subpart shall meet the following minimum requirements: ( a ) Waterlines: Waterlines shall be capable of delivering 50 gallons of water a minute at a nozzle pressure of 50 pounds per square inch.
( b ) Portable water cars: A portable water car shall be of at least 1,000 gallons capacity (500 gallons capacity for anthracite mines) and shall have at least 300 feet of fire hose with nozzles. A portable water car shall be capable of providing a flow through the hose of 50 gallons of water per minute at a nozzle pressure of 50 pounds per square inch.
( c ) A portable chemical car shall carry enough chemicals to provide a fire extinguishing capacity equivalent to that of a portable water car.
( d ) Portable foam-generating machines or devices: A portable foam-generating machine or device shall have facilities and equipment for supplying the machine with 30 gallons of water per minute at 30 pounds per square inch for a period of 35 minutes.
( e ) Portable fire extinguisher: A portable fire extinguisher shall be either ( 1 ) a multipurpose dry chemical type containing a nominal weight of 5 pounds of dry powder and enough expellant to apply the powder or
( 2 ) a foam-producing type containing at least 21 ⁄ 2 gallons of foam-producing liquids and enough expellant to supply the foam. Only fire extinguishers approved by the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., or Factory Mutual Research Corp., carrying appropriate labels as to type and purpose, shall be used. After March 30, 1971, all new portable fire extinguishers acquired for use in a coal mine shall have a 2A 10 BC or higher rating.
( f ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the fire hose shall be lined with a material having flame resistant qualities meeting requirements for hose in Bureau of Mines' Schedule 2G. The cover shall be polyester, or other material with flame-spread qualities and mildew resistance equal or superior to polyester. The bursting pressure shall be at least 4 times the water pressure at the valve to the hose inlet with the valve closed; the maximum water pressure in the hose nozzle shall not exceed 100 p.s.i.g.
( 2 ) Fire hose installed for use in underground coal mines prior to December 30, 1970, shall be mildew-proof and have a bursting pressure at least 4 times the water pressure at the valve to the hose inlet with the valve closed, and the maximum water pressure in the hose nozzle with water flowing shall not exceed 100 p.s.i.g.
#### Francis X. Isabella, an Infant, by Yolanda Isabella, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Stella Isabella et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by the infant plaintiff while he was residing with the defendants' Stella Isabella and Mario Isabella (who are husband and wife) for the purpose of their prospective legal adoption of him as their child — such adoption having been consummated less than five months after the accident and a few months prior to commencement of the action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 26, 1962, which denied his motion made pursuant to rules 103, 109, 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice: (1) to strike out said defendants’ “ complete and special ” defense to the effect that at the time of the accident they stood *in loco parentis*to the plaintiff and, consequently, he was an unemancipated infant who lacked the legal capacity to sue them; and (2) for summary judgment in his favor against the said defendants Isabella. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur; Ughetta, Acting P. J., and Hill, J., concur as to the denial of summary judgment under rule 113, but dissent as to the denial under rules 103 and 109 — to strike out the defense as insufficient, and vote to reverse the order in this respect and to grant the motion to strike out the defense pursuant to rules 103 and 109, with the following memorandum: Plaintiff, an infant, was injured in an automobile collision while he was a guest passenger in an automobile operated by the defendant Stella Isabella and owned by her husband, the defendant Mario Isabella. It is established (by failure to deny averments in the moving affidavit) that when the said defendants took the infant plaintiff from the Angel Guardian Home in 1961 the Home retained authority over the person of the plaintiff; that the placement of the infant with the said defendants was on a trial basis; and that the care of the infant by said defendants was subject to the Home’s instructions and to the terms and conditions imposed by it. Such undefined status of the infant, but with the Home reserving unto itself the absolute dominion and control over him, obtained as of the time of the accident. Obviously, during this trial or probationary period, in view of such reservation of control by the Home, there was not — indeed there could not he — either a *de facto*or a *de jure*parent-and-child relationship between said defendants and the infant. In the absence of such a relationship *at the time of the accident*the asserted defense must fail.
#### Florence R. McOmber *vs.*Adolph Balow.

April 23, 1889.

Appeal from Justice — Amendments in District Court. — Where the district court acquires jurisdiction of a cause upon appeal from justice’s court upon law and fact, the trial proceeds *de novo,*and the appellate court may allow an amendment of the complaint increasing the amount of plaintiff’s claim beyond that to which the jurisdiction of the justice is limited.

This action coming on for trial in the district court for Clay county, before *Mills,*J., on defendant’s appeal, on law and facts, from a judgment of a justice of the peace, the plaintiff was allowed, against defendant’s objection and exception, to amend the complaint so as to change his demand from $99 to $160. Defendant declined to answer, and the court on plaintiff’s motion ordered judgment for $160 against defendant, for his failure to answer. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

*W. B. Douglas,*for appellant.

*0. Mosness,*for respondent.

Vanderburgh, J.

In cases of appeal from justice’s court upon law and fact, the trial proceeds *de novo,*as if the action had been originally brought in the district court. In this case the action is upon contract, and the amount claimed to be due thereon in the justice’s court was $99. Upon the new trial in the district court, upon an appeal by the defendant, the plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint so as to claim damages in the sum of $160. The only question presented by the bill of exceptions upon this appeal is whether the district court had jurisdiction to allow such an amendment. This question can hardly be considered an open one in this state. See *Bingham*v. *Stewart,*14 Minn. 153, (214.) The district court had concurrent jurisdiction with the justice’s court of the cause of action in this case, and, when the case came into that court by appeal, it stood, as to all subsequent proceedings, as if originally brought there; and the power of the court to allow amendments of the character complained of is undoubtedly the same as if the action had originally *389been commenced therein. The action of the court in such cases could only be questioned in case of an abuse of discretion. The same rule prevails elsewhere under similar statutes. *Dressler*v. *Davis,*12 Wis. 58; *Palmer*v. *Wylie,*19 John. 276; *Jackson*v. *Covert,*5 Wend. 139.

Order affirmed.
From: "DELONEY, SCOTT" <SDELONEY@idem.IN.gov>

To: Edward Doty/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathleen Dagostino/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, John 

Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "PEDERSEN, CHRISTINE" <CPEDERSE@idem.IN.gov>

Date: 09/14/2011 11:12 AM

Subject: Redesignation/Maintenance Plan Clarification

This note is to provide clarification concerning a statement referenced in Section 8.2 of 

Indiana’s Petitions for Redesignation and Maintenance Plans for the PM2.5 annual 

standard. In reference to the Action Level Response, Indiana’s documents include the 

following statement: “In the event that the Action Level is triggered and is not found to 

be due to an atypical unfavorable meteorological condition”....

I wish to clarify that Indiana considers an atypical unfavorable meteorological condition 

to be equivalent to the U.S. EPA’s interpretation of an exceptional event. This 

clarification pertains to Section 8.2 of Indiana’s submittals for Southwest Indiana, 

Northwest Indiana, Central Indiana, and Indiana’s portions of Louisville and Cincinnati.

I hope this clarification is helpful in your review of Indiana’s submittals. Please contact 

me if you need any further clarification or assistance.

Scott Deloney

Air Programs Branch

Office of Air Quality

sdeloney@idem.in.gov

(317) 233-5694
§ 1801.44 Action by appeals authority. ( a ) *Preparation of docket.* The Coordinator shall provide a summation memorandum for consideration of the Director, NACIC; the complete record of the request consisting of the request, the document(s) (sanitized and full text) at issue, and the findings of any concerned office chiefs or designee(s).
( b ) *Decision by the Director, NACIC.* The Director, NACIC shall personally decide each case; no personal appearances shall be permitted without the express permission of the Director, NACIC.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Government Accountability Office

# AGENCY:

Government Accountability Office (GAO).

# ACTION:

Request for letters of nomination and resumes.

# SUMMARY:

The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) established MACPAC to review Medicaid and CHIP access and payment policies and to advise Congress on issues affecting Medicaid and CHIP. CHIPRA gave the Comptroller General of the United States responsibility for appointing MACPAC's members. GAO is now accepting nominations for MACPAC appointments that will be effective May 2021. Nominations should be sent to the email address listed below. Acknowledgement of submissions will be provided within a week of submission.

# DATES:

Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted no later than January 26, 2021, to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Submit letters of nomination and resumes to                         *MACPACappointments@gao.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Susan Anthony at (312) 220-7666 or                         *anthonys@gao.gov*                         if you do not receive an acknowledgment or need additional information. For general information, contact GAO's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 512-4800.                    

Authority:Public Law 111-3, sec. 506; 42 U.S.C. 1396.

Gene L. Dodaro,

Comptroller General of the United States.

[FR Doc. 2020-28477 Filed 12-31-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
### §100906. Advisory committees

(a) Establishment.—To facilitate the administration of the System, the Secretary, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may consider advisable, may appoint and establish advisory committees in regard to the functions of the Service as the Secretary considers advisable.

(b) Charter Exception On Renewal.—Section 1013(b) of title 5 is waived with respect to any advisory commission or advisory committee established by law in connection with any System unit during the period for which the commission or committee is authorized by law.

(c) Service of Members.—Any member of any advisory commission or advisory committee established in connection with any System unit may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor is appointed.

(d) Compensation and Travel Expenses.—Members of an advisory committee established under subsection (a) shall receive no compensation for their services as such but shall be allowed necessary travel expenses as authorized by section 5703 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3118; Pub. L. 117–286, §4(a)(328), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4342.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100906(a) | 16 U.S.C. 1a–2 (matter before (a), (c) (words before comma). | Pub. L. 91–383, §3 (matter before (a)), (c), Aug. 18, 1970, 84 Stat. 826; Pub. L. 106–176, title I, §118(2), (3), Mar. 10, 2000, 114 Stat. 28. |
| 100906(b), (c) | 16 U.S.C. 1a–14. | Pub. L. 102–525, title III, §301, Oct. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 3441. |
| 100906(d) | 16 U.S.C. 1a–2(c) (words after comma). | |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–286 substituted "Section 1013(b) of title 5" for "Section 14(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)".