alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1819.302 Protesting a small business representation or rerepresentation. ( h ) When the contracting officer determines in writing that an award must be made to protect the public interest, the contracting officer shall notify the Headquarters Office of Procurement, Program Operations Division, the Headquarters Office of Small Business Programs, and the SBA.
[80 FR 12938, Mar. 12, 2015]
August 10, 2011

Dr. Paige Doelling

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

13626/SSMC3

1315 E West HWY Silver Spring, MD 20910

c.c. Attn: Jill Bloom Front End Processing Desk

Pesticide Re-evalua tion Division (7508P) Office of Pesticide Programs Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW Washington, DC 20460

Dear Dr. Doelling,

Enclosed is the completed study, Aquatic Ecological Exposure Assessment for Bromoxynil Use in Designated Salmon Habitat as well as several other bromoxynil studies sponsored by Bayer not previously submitted to the EPA.

We have also made two other submissions to NMFS on June 30 th and July 15 th

of 2011.

In summary, you should have received:

(June 30, 2011) I. Master labels for Bayer Crop Science bromoxynil products

2. Application parameters for each use of bromoxynil

3. Five ecological effects reports (Br uns, 2007;Dorgerloh, 2003; OdinFeurtet, 1998; Hoberh, 1998; Thompson, 1981) Note d as CBI (Confidential Business Information)

4. A Bromoxynil Pacific Northwes t market profile (GFK-KlNET Research) Noted as CBI(July 15, 2011) 1. Bromoxynil studies (Brims, 2007; Hoberg (a), 1998; Hoberg (b), 1998; Repetto, 2011) Noted as CBI

2. A literature search (preformed by Exponent) of bromoxynil peer reviewed articles which includes an independent data quality evaluation. Noted as CBI

(August 10, 2011) 1. Aquatic Ecological Exposure Assessment for Bromoxynil Use in Designated Salmon Habitat (Sabbagh, G. ; Desmarteau, D.; 2011) Noted as

CBI

2. Bromoxynil studies (Fliege, R., 2005; Eyrich, U. and Bogdoll, B.,2009; Prata, F., 2004; Prata, F., 2003; Mack ie, J.A.,1999 ; Hatcher, G. and Oddy, A.M., 2000; Greenwood, J. and Lucock, A.,2002) Noted as CBI

We hope this material will assist NMFS in their assessment and we look forward to discussions with you when we meet in September

My contact information is below should you have further questions or require clarification regard ing any of the material enclosed.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Laura Phelps Regulatory Affairs, Herbicides & PGRs Bayer CropScience

2 T.W. Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709

office: 919-549-2302

mobile:919-352-8075 email:laura.phelps@bayer.com
#### 204.1870 Procedures.

Follow the procedures and guidance at PGI 204-1870 concerning Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) codes and CAGE file maintenance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7954

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD LEE EVANS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR98-284-PJM, CA-00-2379-PJM) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 12, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Richard Lee Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Richard Lee Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Evans , Nos. CR-98-284-PJM; CA-00-2379-PJM (D. Md., filed Oct. 31, 2001; entered Nov. 1, 2001).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### 1528.301 Insurance liability to third persons.

Contracting officers shall insert the clause at 1552.228-70, Insurance Liability to Third Persons, in cost-reimbursement solicitations and contracts, except those for construction and architect-engineer services.

Note:

This clause may be used in contracts awarded utilizing architect-engineer services such as requirements for Superfund cleanups (e.g., response action contracts). The clause does not apply to Superfund indemnification for third party pollution liability or coverage for commercial pollution liability insurance as prescribed by section 119 of CERCLA as amended by SARA.

[[65 FR 58923](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/65-FR-58923), Oct. 3, 2000. Redesignated and amended at [78 FR 46290](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-46290), July 31, 2013]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John R. Lipari, Appellant.

Motion granted to extent that appeal may be prosecuted on original papers, five copies of typewritten brief, otherwise denied. Counsel is not assigned as it appears that appellant has counsel of his own choice.
<PAGE>

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                      TO
                  PPL SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

     WHEREAS, PPL Services Corporation ("PPL") adopted the PPL Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), effective July 1, 2000, for certain of
its employees; and

     WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated effective July 1, 2000; and

     WHEREAS, PPL desires to further amend the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

I.   Effective July 1, 2000 the following sections of Articles 2 and 10 are
     amended to read:

2.   Definitions.

     (d)  "Board" means the Board of Directors of PPL Services Corporation.

10.  Termination or Amendment. The Board may, in its sole discretion, terminate
     and amend this Plan from time to time provided, however, that the Plan may
     not be terminated or amended to the prejudice or detriment of any
     Participant during the three (3) year period immediately following a Change
     in Control (or, if later, thirty six (36) months from the consummation of
     the transaction giving rise to the Change in Control). Without limiting the
     generality of the foregoing, the proviso of the preceding sentence shall
     not, at any time or in any event, be amended or deleted. Subject to the
     foregoing, the Employee Benefit Plan Board may adopt any amendment that
     does not significantly affect the cost of the Plan or significantly alter
     the

                                      -1-
<PAGE>

     benefit design or eligibility requirements of the Plan. Each amendment to
     the Plan will be binding on the Participating Company to which it applies.
     No termination or amendment shall (without Participant's consent) alter
     Participant's right to monthly payments which have commenced prior to the
     effective date of such termination or amendment. Prior to a Change in
     Control, the Board specifically reserves the right to terminate or amend
     this Plan to eliminate the right of any Participant to receive payment
     hereunder prior to the time when payments are in pay status under this
     Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if PPL is liquidated, the EBPB shall
     cause the amounts due hereunder to be paid in one or more installments or
     upon such other terms and conditions and at such other time as the EBPB
     determines to be just and equitable, but in no event later than the time
     such amounts would otherwise have been paid.

II.  Except as provided for in this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the
     Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 is executed this ____ day of
_________________________, 2000.

                                PPL SERVICES CORPORATION


                                By:_______________________________
                                   Charles P. Pinto
                                   Vice President-Human Resources

                                      -2-
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 931 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 931

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in Denver, Colorado, as the ``George Sakato 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. GEORGE SAKATO POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in Denver, Colorado, shall be known 
and designated as the ``George Sakato Post Office''.
    (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 ``George 
Sakato Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate March 7, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 931

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in Denver, Colorado, as the ``George Sakato 
                             Post Office''.
```
Exhibit 12.1



THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE
RAILWAY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

(In Millions, Except Ratio Amounts)

(Unaudited)



|                                                                                            |  | Three Months Ended March 31,
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                                                                                            |  | 2003                        
|Earnings:                                                                                   |  |                             
|Income before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change                       |  | $                           
|Add:                                                                                        |  |                             
|Interest and fixed charges excluding capitalized interest                                   |  |                             
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest
factor       |  |                             
|Distributed income of investees accounted for under the equity method                       |  |                             
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                        |  |                             
|                                                                                            |  |                             
|Less: Undistributed equity in earnings of investments accounted for under the equity
method |  |                             
|                                                                                            |  |                             
|Total earnings available for fixed charges                                                  |  | $                           
|                                                                                            |  |                             
|Fixed charges:                                                                              |  |                             
|Interest and fixed charges                                                                  |  | $                           
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest
factor       |  |                             
|                                                                                            |  |                             
|Total fixed charges                                                                         |  | $                           
|                                                                                            |  |                             
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                          |  |                             
|                                                                                            |  |                             





E-2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 734 

To extend a project of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving 

the Cannonsville Dam. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2017 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend a project of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission involving the Cannonsville Dam. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY 

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT IN5 VOLVING CANNONSVILLE DAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period 

7 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 

8 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En9 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 13287, the 

10 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 734 IS

1 this section as the ‘‘Commission’’) may, at the request of 

2 the licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, 

3 in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and pub4 lic interest requirements of that section and the proce5 dures of the Commission under that section, extend the 

6 time period during which the licensee is required to com7 mence construction of the project for up to 4 consecutive 

8 2-year periods after the required date of the commence9 ment of construction described in Article 301 of the li10 cense. 

11 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—If the required date of the 

13 commencement of construction described in sub14 section (a) has expired prior to the date of enact15 ment of this Act, the Commission may reinstate the 

16 license effective as of that date of expiration. 

17 (2) EXTENSION.—If the Commission reinstates 

18 the license under paragraph (1), the first extension 

19 authorized under subsection (a) shall take effect on 

20 the date of that expiration. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 760.

#### Central Elevator Company of Baltimore City *v.*Naam Looze Vennoot Schap, etc.

March 29, 1920.

*Mr. Frederic D. McKenney*and *Mr. Shirley Carter*for petitioner.

*Mr. Charles R. Hickox*and *Mr. John M. Woolsey*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Case: 1:12-cv-01422 Document #: 37-3 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:166
Record of Discussio n Docket No. FAA- Directo r ate I dentifier: -A D
With whom outsid e th e FAA has this AD action been discussed (i .e . , De s ig n Approval Holder, manufacturer , ATA , NBAA, RAA , AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGAN I ZATION PERSON C ONTACTED DAT E TOP I CS DISCUSSED A4A R obe rt Ireland 6 / 1

/ 2015 I ss uance ofNN FR

Oth er/ Add ition al Information:
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 782 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against 

Children Task Force Program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 782 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Resources, 

3 Officers, and Technology To Eradicate Cyber Threats to 

4 Our Children Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘PROTECT Our Chil5 dren Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL INTERNET 

7 CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE 

8 PROGRAM. 

9 Title I of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 

10 (42 U.S.C. 17601 et seq.) is amended— 

11 (1) in section 105(h) (42 U.S.C. 17615(h)), by 

12 striking ‘‘2016’’ and inserting ‘‘2022’’; and 

13 (2) in section 107(a)(10) (42 U.S.C. 

14 17617(a)(10)), by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2018’’ and 

15 inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022’’. 

Passed the Senate June 15, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 782 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the National Internet Crimes 

other purposes. Against Children Task Force Program, and for
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Petty, Chaf in and Senior Judge Annunziata

STRANG-HATCHER CORPORATION 27 AND SEDGWICK CMS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1960-13-1 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 4, 2014 SHARON L. SHERMAN

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Rachel A. Riordan; Kalbaugh, Pfund & Messer smith, on briefs), for appellants. (John H. Klein; Montagna, Klein, Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellee.

Strang-Hatcher Corporation 27 and Sedgwick CMS appeal the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) finding th at Sharon L. Sherman’s (claimant) ongoing medical conditions were causally related to th e compensable injury by accident and that claimant’s need for pain management treatm ent was reasonable, medically necessary, and causally related to the accident. We have re viewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Sh erman v. Strang-Hatche r Corp., JCN VA02000008167 (Sept. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argum ent and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional pr ocess. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED
19.301-3 Rerepresentation by a contractor that represented itself as other than a small business concern. A contractor that represented itself as other than small before contract award may, but is not required to, rerepresent its size status when— ( a ) The conditions in 19.301-2(b) apply; and
( b ) The contractor qualifies as a small business concern under the applicable size standard in effect at the time of its rerepresentation.
[72 FR 36855, July 5, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 11825, Mar. 19, 2009]
August 10, 2011 

Dr. Paige Doelling 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 

13626/SSMC3 

1315 E West HWY 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

c.c. Attn: Jill Bloom 

Front End Processing Desk 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Dr. Doelling, 

Enclosed is the completed study, Aquatic Ecological Exposure Assessment for 

Bromoxynil Use in Designated Salmon Habitat as well as several other 

bromoxynil studies sponsored by Bayer not previously submitted to the EPA. 

We have also made two other submissions to NMFS on June 30th and July 15th

of 2011. 

In summary, you should have received: 

(June 30, 2011) 

I. Master labels for Bayer Crop Science bromoxynil products 

2. Application parameters for each use of bromoxynil 

3. Five ecological effects reports (Bruns, 2007;Dorgerloh, 2003; OdinFeurtet, 

1998; Hoberh, 1998; Thompson, 1981) Noted as CBI (Confidential Business 

Information) 

4. A Bromoxynil Pacific Northwest market profile (GFK-KlNET 

Research) Noted as CBI 
(July 15, 2011) 

1. Bromoxynil studies (Brims, 2007; Hoberg (a), 1998; Hoberg (b), 

1998; Repetto, 2011) Noted as CBI 

2. A literature search (preformed by Exponent) of bromoxynil peer reviewed 

articles which includes an independent data quality evaluation. Noted as CBI 

(August 10, 2011) 

1. Aquatic Ecological Exposure Assessment for Bromoxynil Use in 

Designated Salmon Habitat (Sabbagh, G.; Desmarteau, D.; 2011) Noted as 

CBI 

2. Bromoxynil studies (Fliege, R., 2005; Eyrich, U. and Bogdoll, B.,2009; 

Prata, F., 2004; Prata, F., 2003; Mackie, J.A.,1999 ; Hatcher, G. and Oddy, 

A.M., 2000; Greenwood, J. and Lucock, A.,2002) Noted as CBI 

We hope this material will assist NMFS in their assessment and we look 

forward to discussions with you when we meet in September 

My contact information is below should you have further questions or require 

clarification regarding any of the material enclosed. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Laura Phelps 

Regulatory Affairs, Herbicides & PGRs 

Bayer CropScience 

2 T.W. Alexander Drive 

RTP, NC 27709 

office: 919-549-2302 

mobile:919-352-8075 

email:laura.phelps@bayer.com
1.602-2 Responsibilities. Contracting officers are responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. In order to perform these responsibilities, contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment. Contracting officers shall— ( a ) Ensure that the requirements of 1.602-1(b) have been met, and that sufficient funds are available for obligation;
( b ) Ensure that contractors receive impartial, fair, and equitable treatment;
( c ) Request and consider the advice of specialists in audit, law, engineering, information security, transportation, and other fields, as appropriate; and
( d ) Designate and authorize, in writing and in accordance with agency procedures, a contracting officer's representative (COR) on all contracts and orders other than those that are firm-fixed price, and for firm-fixed-price contracts and orders as appropriate, unless the contracting officer retains and executes the COR duties. See 7.104(e). A COR— ( 1 ) Shall be a Government employee, unless otherwise authorized in agency regulations;
( 2 ) Shall be certified and maintain certification in accordance with the current Office of Management and Budget memorandum on the Federal Acquisition Certification for Contracting Officer Representatives (FAC-COR) guidance, or for DoD, in accordance with the current applicable DoD policy guidance;
( 3 ) Shall be qualified by training and experience commensurate with the responsibilities to be delegated in accordance with agency procedures;
( 4 ) May not be delegated responsibility to perform functions that have been delegated under 42.202 to a contract administration office, but may be assigned some duties at 42.302 by the contracting officer;
( 5 ) Has no authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract nor in any way direct the contractor or its subcontractors to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions;
( 6 ) Shall be nominated either by the requiring activity or in accordance with agency procedures; and
( 7 ) Shall be designated in writing, with copies furnished to the contractor and the contract administration office— ( i ) Specifying the extent of the COR's authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer;
( ii ) Identifying the limitations on the COR's authority;
( iii ) Specifying the period covered by the designation;
( iv ) Stating the authority is not redelegable; and
( v ) Stating that the COR may be personally liable for unauthorized acts.
[48 FR 42103, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 70 FR 57451, Sept. 30, 2005; 76 FR 14545, Mar. 16, 2011; 77 FR 12926, Mar. 2, 2012; 78 FR 37676, June 21, 2013]