alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
25.201 Policy. ( a ) Except as provided in 25.202, use only domestic construction materials in construction contracts performed in the United States.
( b ) The Buy American statute restricts the purchase of construction materials that are not domestic construction materials. For manufactured construction materials, the Buy American statute, E.O. 13881, and E.O. 14005 use a two-part test to define domestic construction materials. ( 1 ) The article must be manufactured in the United States; and
( 2 ) ( i ) Except for construction material that consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel or a combination of both, the cost of domestic components must exceed 60 percent of the cost of all the components, except that the percentage will be 65 percent for items delivered in calendar years 2024 through 2028 and 75 percent for items delivered starting in calendar year 2029, but see paragraph (c) of this section. In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 1907, this domestic content test of the Buy American statute has been waived for acquisitions of COTS items (see 12.505(a)).
( ii ) For construction material that consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel or a combination of both, the cost of foreign iron and steel must constitute less than 5 percent of the cost of all the components used in such construction material (see the definition of “foreign iron and steel” at 25.003). The cost of foreign iron and steel includes but is not limited to the cost of foreign iron or steel mill products (such as bar, billet, slab, wire, plate, or sheet), castings, or forgings utilized in the manufacture of the construction material and a good faith estimate of the cost of all foreign iron or steel components excluding COTS fasteners. This domestic content test of the Buy American statute has not been waived for acquisitions of COTS items in this category, except for COTS fasteners.
( c ) ( 1 ) A contract with a period of performance that spans the schedule of domestic content threshold increases specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section shall be required to comply with each increased threshold for the items in the year of delivery, unless the senior procurement executive of the contracting agency allows for application of an alternate domestic content test for that contract under which the domestic content threshold in effect at time of contract award will apply to the entire period of performance for the contract. This authority is not delegable. The senior procurement executive shall consult the Office of Management and Budget's Made in America Office before allowing the use of the alternate domestic content test.
( 2 ) When a senior procurement executive allows for application of an alternate domestic content test for a contract, see 25.1102(a)(3) or (c)(4) for use of the appropriate Alternate clause to reflect the domestic content threshold that will apply to the entire period of performance for that contract.
[86 FR 6187, Jan. 19, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 12792, Mar. 7, 2022]
Flood of September 2008 in Northwestern Indiana (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ofr/2010/1098/) Appendix 2

Approximate flood-peak extents and depths, flood of September 2008, for Turkey Creek near Schererville, 

Indiana. Aerial photograph courtesy of Indiana University, Indiana Spatial Data Portal, 2008 National Agriculture Imagery Program, accessed June 2, 2009, at http://www.indiana.edu/~gisdata/statewide/08naip.html.

I 65 S

I 65 N

US HWY 30

STATE HWY 53

STATE HWY 73

STATE HWY 55

US HWY 30

STATE HWY 53

0 0.5 1 Mile

E

X

P

L

A

N

ATIO

N

Limit of studyDirection of flowMajor road

Flo

o

d

D

e

pth

12.8 feet (deep)0.1 foot (shallow)

Approximate flood-peak extents and depths, flood of September 2008, for Turkey Creek near Schererville, Indiana.

Aerial photograph courtesy of Indiana University, Indiana Spatial Data Portal, 2008 National Agriculture Imagery Program,

accessed June 2, 2009, at http://www.indiana.edu/~gisdata/statewide/08naip.html
March 24, 2011

Mathy Stanislaus via email aastanislaus@epa.gov 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Nancy Stoner via email stoner.nancy@epa.gov

 Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Programs

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

RE: International Food Additives Council 2007 Petition for Rulemaking Correction, CAS 

Numbers in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 302.4, Table 302.4 – List of 

Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities, Appendix A to Section 302.4 – Sequential 

CAS Registry Number List of CERCLA Hazardous Substances, and Section 116.4 Designation 

of Hazardous Substances

Dear Ms. Bodine and Mr. Grumbles:

The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) is an association representing companies who produce high 

quality substances used worldwide as food additives, including Sodium Trimetaphosphate (STMP), Sodium 

Tripolyphosphate (STPP) and Sodium Hexametaphosphate (SHMP).

In March 2007, IFAC submitted a Petition, pursuant to CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, and the Administrative 

Procedure Act, requesting that EPA correct a technical error in listing the CAS Registry Numbers for STMP, 

STPP and SHMP as hazardous substances under 40 CFR §§ 116.4 and 302.4. The grounds for this request, set 

forth in IFAC’s petition, are (1) that EPA’s Clean Water Act §116.4 rule lists Sodium phosphate, tribasic but 

instead of the CAS number for this substance,1incorrectly provides the CAS numbers for STMP, STPP and 

SHMP, and (2) this error is compounded in CERCLA §302.4 rules, which rely on and repeat the incorrect CAS 

designations from §116.4. 

To date, to the best of our knowledge no action has been taken on IFAC’s petition. We urge EPA to act on 

IFAC’s request and to provide IFAC with the status of that request. For your convenience, a copy of the IFAC 

petition is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

Lyn O’Brien Nabors

Lyn O’Brien Nabors

President

Enclosure

Cc: Lynn Beasley @ Beasley.lynn@epa.gov

 

1

 The correct CAS numbers for Sodium phosphate, tribasic are 7601-54-9, 10101-89-0, and 10361-89-4.
# C_2017082EN.01000201.xml

| 17.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8199 — Bunge/European Oilseed Processing Facilities)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 82/03)

On 6 February 2017, 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 32017M8199. 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 32017M8199. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
#### Charles Haviv et al., Respondents, v Barry J. Bellovin, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[832 NYS2d 454]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Barry J. Bellovin appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered April 11, 2006, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for the imposition of sanctions to the extent of striking his answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the *709Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

To impose a sanction for spoliation of evidence, it must be established that the individual to be sanctioned was responsible for the loss or destruction of evidence crucial to the establishment of a claim or defense, at a time when he was on notice that such evidence might be needed for future litigation (see *Kirschen v Marino,*16 AD3d 555 [2005]; *Iannucci v Rose, 8*AD3d 437 [2004]; *Baglio v St John’s Queens Hosp.,*303 AD2d 341 [2003]).

On this record, questions exist as to the responsibility of the defendant Barry J. Bellovin for the loss or destruction of the subject medical records and whether he had notice of the need for the records in this litigation. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on this issue and a new determination of the motion thereafter. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
# C_2017069EN.01000101.xml

| 4.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8368 — KKCG/Foxconn Technology/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 69/01)

On 22 February 2017, 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 32017M8368. 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 32017M8368. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Search HelpMore Search Options
Search 
EERE Information Center
Printable VersionArchives
Previous issues of Building E2 News are available here, listed by publication date. You can also view the current issue.
- Spring   2010 
Printable Version- Buildings E2   News Home
- Archives 
- Subscribe 

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of EnergyWebmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: May 11, 2010
FILED 12/17/2012

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
May 10, 2005

Dear Chief State School Officers:

On April 7, at George Washington's Mount Vernon home, I announced a new path for No Child Left Behind (NCLB).  Many chief state school officers were able to be with us for that announcement.  On that day, we articulated a new, common-sense approach to implementing NCLB and outlined a set of guiding principles that will set the parameters for flexibility we can offer.  We are committed to providing you with the flexibility you need to implement the law in a manner that reflects your State's unique circumstances and priorities, in keeping with NCLB.

These guiding principles are intended to ensure that the fundamental requirements of NCLB are in place.  Our goal, however, is not to "reward" mere compliance with the particulars of the statute.  Instead, we offer real flexibility to States that demonstrate that they are improving achievement and narrowing achievement gaps by holding schools and districts accountable for results; are providing real choices for parents; are ensuring that parents have accurate and meaningful information about their children's schools; and are improving teacher quality.

The enclosures to this letter include a "Dear Colleague" letter and information regarding the process to request approval of amendments to your State's accountability plan or consolidated plan should you wish to incorporate additional flexibility, including:

1. "The Pursuit of Raising Achievement," which explains the process for requesting approval of additional flexibility in general; and
2. 2.	"Interim Flexibility: Accountability for Students with Disabilities Accountability Plan Amendments for 2004-05," which explains the process for requesting approval of additional flexibility for making adequate yearly progress determinations for the students with disabilities subgroup based on 2004-05 assessments.

This information should help you make amendment requests.  Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have additional questions or concerns.  I look forward to working with you as we embark on this new path together.

| | Sincerely,        
| | ------------------
| | /s/               
| | Margaret Spellings

Enclosures:Amendment RequestDear Colleague LetterAccountability Plan AmendmentsInterim Options



For further information on this topic, please see the press release.

|Last Modified: 05/11/2005
|-------------------------
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 94-5181. Carol MIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, Defendant-Appellee. Dec. 9, 1994. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (No. 94-6851-CIV-WJZ), William J. Zloch, Judge. Before HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM: This case has been expedited because of the serious medical condition of the appellant and the urgent need for a speedy resolution. Appellant, Carol Mire, has and is being treated for ovarian cancer. The question before us is whether or not a specific treatment is covered or excluded by health insurance provided to her through her husband's employment. The treatment and subsequent hospitalization involved in the recommended HDC/PSCR is described by appellant as: 1. induction phase or chemotherapeutic agents administered in low doses; 2. mobilization phase which consists of chemotherapeutic agents administered in intermediate doses; 3. leukapheresis, the removal of the stem cells which are subsequently frozen and stored; 4. HDC which consists of the administration of FDA approved chemotherapeutic agents in high doses; 5. the reinfusion of the stored stem cells into the patient's body;6. hospitalization for observation purposes. The Blue Cross policy involved contains the following exclusion: The following services, supplies or equipment are not Covered Services under this Contract, and, therefore, BCBSF has no liability for such services, supplies or equipment. The insured is solely responsible for the payment of charges for all services or supplies excluded in this Section.

. . . . . 32. Any service or supply relating to any evaluation, treatment or therapy involving the use of high-dose chemotherapy and adjuvant autologous bone marrow transplant, autologous peripheral stem cell rescue, or autologous stem cell rescue for any disease other than acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute non-lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkins' disease, non-Hodgkins' lymphoma, neuroblastoma, breast cancer or germ-cell malignancies. It is Mire's contention that while the above clause excludes any and all treatment, services and supplies related to HDC and PSCR, it does not include the HDC and PSCR treatment itself. We are simply unable to agree. We conclude that the plain meaning of the exclusion eliminates coverage for this suggested treatment for appellant's non-germ cell ovarian cancer. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

# **Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

Aspyra, Inc.

Calabasas,CA

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-71599) and on Forms S-3 (File No. 33-89278and File No. 333-134926) of our report dated April 12, 2006, relating to thefinancial statements of Aspyra, Inc. (formerly known as Creative ComputerApplications, Inc.) appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB forthe year ended December 31, 2005.

| /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP    |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| Los Angeles, California |
| August 29, 2006         |

 

----
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3306 DATE May 6, 2013

CASE

TITLE

Williams vs. Tucker et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff's objections [40] are overruled. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

On May 3, 2013, the court entered an order addressing the issues Plaintiff raised in his submission titled, "Notice

of Objection to the recent ruling entered on 4.16.13" [38]. This order addresses the issues Plaintiff raises in his

submission titled, "Plaintiff's Second Notice of objection" [40]. 

In this second submission, Plaintiff asserts that once he learned of the "change of judge" on January 3, 2013---

reassignment of this case from the assigned District Judge to this court based on consent---he objected to this

reassignment by "sending a motion of notice of objection to the court via mail." (R. 40.) Plaintiff also points

out that based on the pre-printed information on the consent form he executed, he has the right to change his mind

about consenting and to have his case returned to the previously assigned District Judge. 

Plaintiff's objections are overruled for the following reasons. First, despite his claims, the docket does not reflect

that Plaintiff objected to the reassignment of his case to this court sometime in January 2013. The reassignment

order was entered on December 21, 2012. (R. 33.) However, there are no docket entries from December 21,

2012, until this court's ruling denying Plaintiff's motion to bar settlement agreement and to seal it [32] on April

16, 2013. 

Second, the case is properly before this court. Plaintiff is correct that the consent form states that, "[i]f an

objection is filed by any party, the case will be reassigned to the district judge before whom it was last pending."

(R. 28.) But, Plaintiff ignores the pre-printed sentence preceding this sentence that must be considered together. 

The preceding sentence provides that, "[s]hould this case be reassigned to a magistrate judge other than the

magistrate judge designated pursuant to Local Rule 72, the undersigned may object within 30 days of such

reassignment." This means that if a party consents to a particular magistrate judge but then the case is eventually

reassigned to a different magistrate judge, the party may file an objection within 30 days of the reassignment in

order to have the case returned to the previously assigned District Judge. Here, even if Plaintiff filed a timely

12C3306 Williams vs. Tucker et al Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

objection, the case cannot be reassigned because the magistrate judge designated on this case has never changed. 

In fact, when Plaintiff executed the consent, he identified this court as the designated magistrate judge. 

This court is not particularly interested in keeping this case but the system of consent and reassignment must be

followed. 

12C3306 Williams vs. Tucker et al Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                   ------------


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  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, 2007 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 27, 2007                          /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Marvin F. Romanow
                                                 Executive Vice President
                                                 and Chief Financial 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.
No. 07-13-00388-CR

Harold Rosales From the 211th District Court

Appellant of Denton County

v. July 28, 2014

The State of Texas Opinion by Justice Campbell

Appellee §

§

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 28, 2014, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those which

may have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
Source Low High Units

Cost 

Basis 

Year Low High Control Level

Based on 

Retrofits

LADCO, 2005 1500 2000 $/ton 2003 1947 2597 70 to 90% Yes Taken from WRAP. 

WRAP, 2003 1500 2000 $/ton 2003 1947 2597 70 to 90% Yes Annualized cost. Cost basis year not specifed, presumed 2003.

NESCAUM, 2005 1000 1500 $/ton 2004 1175 1762 90 to 95% Yes Annualized cost. Cost basis year not specifed, presumed 2004.

NESCAUM, 2005 70 190 $/kW 2005 78 212 90 to 95% Yes Capital cost. Cost basis ysear not specified, presumed 2004

Khan, 2004 111 111 $/kW 2004 130 130 90% Yes Capital cost. Low and high costs not specified. Formula based. Value is for 300 MW plant.

DOE/EIA, 2009 118 150 $/kW 2008 107 136 90% Yes Capital cost. Based on CUECOST. Low is for 300 MW, high is 900 MW.

Hoskins, 2003 80 160 $/kW 2002 106 211 NA Yes Captial cost. 20 units in survey.

Chicanowicz, 2004 56 185 $/kW 2003 73 240 NA Yes Capital cost. Varies by size range. 26 units surveyed.

Marano, 2006 100 200 $/kW 2005 111 223 NA Yes Capital cost. Varies by size range. 72 units in survey

Original Adjusted to 2009

Comparison of Annualized Costs Estimates for EGU NOx Controls

Notes
Year PCI

2000 394.1

2001 394.3

2002 395.6

2003 402

2004 444.2

2005 468.2

2006 499.6

2007 525.4

2008 575.4

2009 521.9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

In

d

e

x

Chemical Engineering's Plant Cost Index
MOG, 2007.

Note: The "Curve Fit of Data From Industry Survey" uses data point from Cichanowicz (2004).
Low High CDPHE

NESCAUM, 2005 78 212

Khan, 2004 130 130

DOE/EIA, 2009 107 136

Hoskins, 2003 106 211

Chicanowicz, 2004 73 240

Marano, 2006 111 223

$/kW
78

130

107 106

73

111

212

130 136

211

240

223

50

100

150

200

250

300

$/k

W (2

0

0

9

$), A

dju

ste

d*

Comparison of SCR 

Capital Costs

Low High

0

Reference 

.