alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016386EN.01000102.xml

| 20.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 386/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 386/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8088 — Midea Group/Kuka)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 386/02)

On 12 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8088. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8088. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
');
	document.write('

*Today, the Administration released the fiscal year 2022 budget request for the U.S. Department of Education. “This proposal reflects the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to ensuring that student success remains at the heart of the Department of Education’s work. It calls on Congress to prioritize the physical and mental health of students and close education equity gaps, especially in underserved communities. We need to focus on not only recovering from the pandemic but also look towards our students’ education after the pandemic to ensure there are improved resources to build our education system back better than before. This budget ensures all students have access to high-quality, affordable postsecondary education, while also improving career pathways for students of all ages and levels,” said Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.*

The following materials show what this budget provides for the programs and activities of the Department of Education:

- Press Release
- The FY 2022 Education Budget Summary and Background Information [**PDF**, 447K] provides program information and detailed budget tables.
- The FY 2022 Education Budget Key Highlights [**PDF**, 184K]
- FY 2022 Justifications of Appropriations Estimates to the Congress

### FY 2022 Budget for the entire U.S. Government

- The President's FY 2022 Budget for the entire United States Government
Publications

## APPENDIX

Appendix Table A4. Liver lesion prevalences (%) in winter flounder from sampling sites along the Northeast Coast. Fish were collected during intensive studies in Long Island Sound (1987), Boston Harbor reproductive studies (1988), and Cycles 5 and 6 of the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1988 and 1989). Prevalences in bold type are significantly higher than those at the reference site at Rocky Point, Long Island Sound. n = total number of fish sampled at a site. The site may have been sampled one or more years.

Table of Contents
**EXHIBIT 31.2** **CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Joseph S. Tesoriero, Vice President and Chief Financial    Officer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    of Dole Food Company, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any    untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the    circumstances under which such statements were made, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this report, fairly    present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is    being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. /s/  Joseph    S. Tesoriero    Joseph S. Tesoriero*Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*     November 20, 2007
#### 239.7100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart includes information assurance and Privacy Act considerations. Information assurance requirements are in addition to provisions concerning protection of privacy of individuals (see FAR Subpart 24.1).
From: "Matz, Tim" <tmatz@htcnam.com>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Ts irigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Curtis Lesslie <curtis.lesslie@ashgrove. c

Date: 11/23/2009 03:31 PM Subject: Portland Cement MACT Rule

Dear Keith, I am writing to you today to express Lehigh Cement Company's concurrence with Ash Grove Cement Company's proposed Beyond the Floor standards and wo rk practices regarding mercury reductions for the Tehachapi and Durkee cement plant operations. Lehi gh has a shared interest with Ash Grove in promoting a subcategory for the outlie r sources with high mercury limestone. Lehigh is in agreement with Ash Grove on EPA setting a beyond the floor standard with work prac tices for such outliers. Lehigh specifically agrees with the following proposal for EPA to set a subcategory: 1. Limestone mercury content >225 ppb 2. Establish a floor based on the average uncontrolle d emissions of the two sources in the subcategory

category 3. Impose a minimum technology based limit of 75% c ontrol through addition of activated carbon injection 4. Require development of a Mercury Minimization Plan - Prohibit the use of fly ash as an ingredient in the kiln raw feed - Source must limit the acceptance of off-site raw materials that contain mercury - Source must minimize mercury emissions to the maximum extent possible

- Source must shuttle main baghouse dust to the finish mill to t he extent allowed by product standards - These work practices should be imposed without a specified emission control since they are site specific Lehigh requests that you and EPA strongly consider this proposal to set a beyond the floor cement NESHAPs standard with work practices for these high mercury limestone sources. Thank you,

Timothy L. Matz

Corporate Director of Environmental Affairs

Lehigh Hanson 300 East John Carpenter Freeway Irving, Texas 75062 phone: (972) 653-3787 cell: (469) 834-7349 fax: (972) 653-5693

tmatz@htcnam.com

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or legally privileged in formation. If you are not the intended recipient (or have rece ived this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized c opying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. 

# 3 Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail
225.7019-2 Prohibition. In accordance with section 2821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92), contracts for the acquisition of furnished energy for a covered military installation shall not use any energy sourced from inside the Russian Federation as a means of generating the furnished energy for the covered military installation. The prohibition— ( a ) Applies to all forms of energy that are furnished to a covered military installation; and
( b ) Does not apply to energy converted by a third party into another form of energy and not directly delivered to a covered military installation.
# C_2016386EN.01000101.xml

| 20.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 386/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 386/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8020 — Sherwin-Williams/Valspar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 386/01)

On 10 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8020. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8020. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### 252.225-7011 Restriction on acquisition of supercomputers.

As prescribed in 225.7012-3, use the following clause:

# Restriction on Acquisition of Supercomputers (JUN 2005)

Supercomputers delivered under this contract shall be manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas.

(End of clause)

[70 FR 35547, June 21, 2005]
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-6 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:26
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-6 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:27
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-6 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:28
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-6 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:29
Case: 1:12-cv-01256 Document #: 2-6 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:30
22.404-3 Procedures for requesting wage determinations. ( a ) *General wage determinations.* If there is a general wage determination on the Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov* website applicable to the project, the agency may use it without notifying the Department of Labor. When necessary, a request for a general wage determination may be made by submitting Standard Form (SF) 308, Request for Determination and Response to Request, to the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Attention: Branch of Construction Contract Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.
( b ) *Project wage determinations.* If a general wage determination is not available on Wage Determinations at *SAM.gov*, a contracting agency shall submit requests for project wage determinations on SF 308 to the Department of Labor. The requests shall include the following information: ( 1 ) The location, including the county (or other civil subdivision) and State in which the proposed project is located.
( 2 ) The name of the project and a sufficiently detailed description of the work to indicate the types of construction involved (e.g., building, heavy, highway, residential, or other type).
( 3 ) Any available pertinent wage payment information, unless wage patterns in the area are clearly established.
( 4 ) The estimated cost of each project.
( 5 ) All the classifications of laborers and mechanics likely to be employed.
( c ) *Time for submission of requests.* ( 1 ) The time required by the Department of Labor for processing requests for project wage determinations varies according to the facts and circumstances in each case. An agency should expect the processing to take at least 30 days. Accordingly, agencies should submit requests for project wage determinations for the primary site of the work to the Department of Labor at least 45 days (60 days if possible) before issuing the solicitation or exercising an option to extend the term of a contract.
( 2 ) Agencies should promptly submit to the Department of Labor an offeror's request for a project wage determination for a secondary site of the work.
( d ) *Review of wage determinations.* Immediately upon receipt, the contracting agency shall examine the wage determination and inform the Department of Labor of any changes necessary or appropriate to correct errors. Private parties requesting changes should be advised to submit their requests to the Department of Labor.
[53 FR 4935, Feb. 18, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 53480, Oct. 22, 2001; 70 FR 33666, June 8, 2005; 71 FR 36932, June 28, 2006; 83 FR 42573, Aug. 22, 2018; 86 FR 71325, Dec. 15, 2021]
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended April 30, 2009 of Flow
International Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 /s/ Allen M. Hsieh
 Allen M. Hsieh
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
July 13, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Charles W. Fischer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nexen Inc., a
Canadian Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
     on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:    April 29th, 2005                  /s/ Charles W. Fischer
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Charles W. Fischer
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
S. J. Res. 57 

One Hundred Fifteenth 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 eighteen 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 

Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 

to ‘‘Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act’’. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 

disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘‘Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance 

with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’’ (CFPB Bulletin 2013– 

02 (March 21, 2013), and printed in the Congressional Record 

on December 6, 2017, on pages S7888–S7889, along with a letter 

of opinion from the Government Accountability Office dated 

December 5, 2017, that the Bulletin is a rule under the Congressional Review Act), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Third Degree Films, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04668

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

John Does 1−4

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, December 5, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion for extension of

time [27] to serve defendant John Doe 3 is granted. This is a final extension. Status

hearing held on 12/5/2012 and continued to 1/8/2013 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice(tsa, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04668 Document #: 30 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:172
### COGEOMAP; a new era in cooperative geologic mapping

By: Juergen ReinhardtDavid M. Miller**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1003

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
22.101-2 Contract pricing and administration. ( a ) Contractor labor policies and compensation practices, whether or not included in labor-management agreements, are not acceptable bases for allowing costs in cost-reimbursement contracts or for recognition of costs in pricing fixed-price contracts if they result in unreasonable costs to the Government. For a discussion of allowable costs resulting from labor-management agreements, see 31.205-6(b).
( b ) Labor disputes may cause work stoppages that delay the performance of Government contracts. Contracting officers shall impress upon contractors that each contractor shall be held accountable for reasonably avoidable delays. Standard contract clauses dealing with default, excusable delays, etc., do not relieve contractors or subcontractors from the responsibility for delays that are within the contractors' or their subcontractors' control. A delay caused by a strike that the contractor or subcontractor could not reasonably prevent can be excused; however, it cannot be excused beyond the point at which a reasonably diligent contractor or subcontractor could have acted to end the strike by actions such as— ( 1 ) Filing a charge with the National Labor Relations Board to permit the Board to seek injunctive relief in court.
( 2 ) Using other available Government procedures.
( 3 ) Using private boards or organizations to settle disputes.
( c ) Strikes normally result in changing patterns of cost incurrence and therefore may have an impact on the allowability of costs for cost-reimbursement contracts or for recognition of costs in pricing fixed-price contracts. Certain costs may increase because of strikes; e.g., guard services and attorney's fees. Other costs incurred during a strike may not fluctuate (e.g., *fixed costs* such as rent and depreciation), but because of reduced production, their proportion of the unit cost of items produced increases. All costs incurred during strikes shall be carefully examined to ensure recognition of only those costs necessary for performing the contract in accordance with the Government's essential interest.
( d ) If during a labor dispute, the inspectors' safety is not endangered, the normal functions of inspection at the plant of a Government contractor shall be continued without regard to the existence of a labor dispute, strike, or picket line.
[48 FR 42258, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 43866, July 24, 2003]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mUlteb**$>tate~** 

# (!Courtof**~peaI~** 

# for tbejfeberaI (!CIrcuit

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Movant-Appellee, 

### v. CORDIS CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellant. 2012-1244 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in case no. 11-MC-0042, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton. ON MOTION



### ORDER The United States moves without opposition for leave to file a corrected amicus briefwith briefattached. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The briefis accepted for filing. Case: 12-1244 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 10/11/2012ABBOTT LABORATORIES V. CORDIS CORPORATION FOR THE COURT 

### /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s25 2 Case: 12-1244 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 10/11/2012