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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 47 

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 ‘‘Arbitration Agreements’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20, 2017 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. COTTON, Mr. SCOTT, 

Mr. HELLER, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. CORKER, 

Mr. SASSE, Mr. MORAN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. WICKER, Mr. ENZI, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. CRUZ, 

Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. STRANGE, and Mr. COCHRAN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

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 

‘‘Arbitration Agreements’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bu4 reau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ‘‘ArbiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:06 Jul 22, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ47.IS SJ47

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 47 IS 

1 tration Agreements’’ (82 Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19, 

2 2017)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
|   | 1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |  March              6, 2007 |   |  /s/              G. Anthony Busseni                |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                             |   | G.                Anthony Busseni                        |   |
|   |                             |   | President                and CEO                         |   |
|   |                             |   |                                                     |   |
|   |                             |   |                                                     |   |
|   |                             |   |                                                     |   |
| Date:  |  3-6-07                     |   |  /s/              Doug Carpenter                    |   |
|   |                             |   | C.                Douglas Carpenter                      |   |
|   |                             |   | Senior                Vice President, Secretary, and CFO |   |

----
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, February 25, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to February 25, 2021, 6:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting) which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 14, 2021, 86 FR 3164.                

This notice is being amended to change the date of this one-day meeting to April 22, 2021. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 21, 2021.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-01701 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-16-000056213-NOV-201710:13 AM
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 26299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8722]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Spanish Drawings From the Kunsthalle of Hamburg, 
Germany''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice, correction.

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

SUMMARY: On April 8, 2014, notice was published on page 19409 of the 
Federal Register (volume 79, number 67) of determinations made by the 
Department of State pertaining to the exhibition ``Spanish Drawings 
From the Kunsthalle of Hamburg, Germany.'' The referenced notice is 
corrected here to include an additional object as part of the 
exhibition. Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the additional object 
to be included in the exhibition ``Spanish Drawings From the 
Kunsthalle, Germany,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, is of cultural significance. The additional 
object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner 
or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
additional object at the Meadows Museum, Dallas, Texas, from on or 
about May 25, 2014, until on or about August 31, 2014, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
description of the additional object, contact Paul W. Manning, 
Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 30, 2014.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-10490 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
To:

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Fw: clarification for 2003 Allergy paper - blood Pb and IgE

From: Isabella Annesi-Maesano <isabella.annesi-maesano@inserm.fr>

To: Molini Patel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/20/2011 10:25 AM

Subject: Re: clarification for 2003 Allergy paper - blood Pb and IgE

Sent by: annesimaesano@gmail.com

Dear Dr Patel,

The units indicated in the paper are wrong. They should be microgram per liter.

Best regards

Isabella Annesi-Maesano

-- 

Dr Isabella Annesi-Maesano 

Directeur de Recherche INSERM 

Head: EPid Allergic Resp Dis Department ( www.epar.fr )

ADDRESS : EPAR UMR-S 707 INSERM & UPMC Paris6, Medical School Saint-Antoine 

Bureaux 803-4-6, 8ème étage 27, rue Chaligny 75571 Paris CEDEX 12 Tel: + 33 1 44738449 

Fax: +33 1 44738454 

Personal e-mail address: annesimaesano@gmail.com

2011/5/20 <Patel.Molini@epamail.epa.gov>

Dear Dr. Annesi-Maesano,

We are currently developing the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead and would like clarification for 

data presented in your 2003 Allergy paper:

Annesi-Maesano, I; Pollitt, R; King, G; Bousquet, J; Hellier, G; Sahuquillo, J; Huel, G (2003). In utero 

exposure to lead and cord blood total IgE. Is there a connection? Allergy 58(7):589-594.

Specifically, Table 2 (appended below and attached) indicates that the units for infant cord blood lead 

and maternal blood lead are micrograms per deciliter. 

Mean +/-SD infant cord blood lead levels are presented as 67.37 +/- 47.77, 106.06 +/- 47.78, and 38.80 

+/- 19.04 micrograms per deciliter in the Combined dataset, Study A, and Study B, respectively.

Mean +/-SD maternal blood lead levels are presented as 96.44 +/- 57.73, 133.02 +/- 59.69, and 61.61 

+/- 25.11 micrograms per deciliter in the Combined dataset, Study A, and Study B, respectively.

Please confirm whether these units are correct and if incorrect , please provide the correct units.

Thank you for your assistance. Molini

Molini M. Patel, PhD, MPH

Epidemiologist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Assessment

Mail drop: B243-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Telephone: (919) 541-1492

Email: patel.molini@epa.gov
study B for each lead variable measured (see Table 2). In

study A, infant and maternal blood lead levels were

highly correlated (r 1⁄4 0.47, P < 0.0001) whereas infant

and maternal hair lead levels were not. Furthermore,

placental lead level was strongly correlated with both

maternal blood lead (r 1⁄4 0.37, P < 0.0001) and infant

blood lead (r 1⁄4 0.34, P < 0.0001). In study B, infant and

maternal blood lead levels were also strongly correlated

accounted for by the fitted model was almost 10

Furthermore, an association of borderline statisti

significance (P < 0.10) was observed between moth

blood lead and child cord blood Log(IgE) (Table 2).

Taking maternal allergic status into account show

that cord blood IgE level was significantly associated w

infant hair lead overall in children of nonallergic moth

(Fig. 1). When considering the effects of passive smokin

5
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin D. Lett, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of the first three counts of a four-count indictment — assault in the second degree (Penal Law, § 120.05, subd 3) (causing physical injury to a peace officer with intent to prevent him from performing a lawful duty), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law, § 265.01) and resisting arrest (Penal Law, § 205.30) — for conduct arising out of an altercation with police officers when they attempted to arrest him for going through a red light. (Defendant was found not guilty of the fourth count of the indictment — obstructing governmental administration, Penal Law, § 195.05.) The District Attorney concedes that resisting arrest is a lesser included offense of second degree assault under subdivision 3 of the statute (see *People v Discala,*45 NY2d 38, 41-42; *People v Henderson,*41 NY2d 233, 235; *People v Hendy,*64 AD2d 407; CPL 1.20, subd 37) and that the count should therefore have been dismissed pursuant to CPL 300.40 (subd 3, par [b]). (See, generally, *People v Perez,*45 NY2d 204; *1078
      *People v Pyles,*44 AD2d 784.) The court properly refused to submit to the jury assault in the third degree (Penal Law, § 120.00, subd 1) and menacing (Penal Law, § 120.15) as lesser included offenses of assault in the second degree (Penal Law, § 120.05, subd 3). The crime of assault in the second degree (Penal Law, § 120.05, subd 3) requires proof only of an intent to prevent a peace officer from performing a lawful duty and does not require proof of intent to cause physical injury (an essential element of assault in the third degree) or of intent to place a person in fear of imminent serious physical injury (an essential element of menacing). Therefore the lesser offenses each require proof of an element which is not required to establish the greater offense and for that reason cannot constitute lesser included offenses. *(People v Baglieri,*51 AD2d 587; see *People v Acevedo,*40 NY2d 701; *People v Cionek,*43 AD2d 256, affd 35 NY2d 924; *People v Weixel,*28 NY2d 738; *People v Moyer,*27 NY2d 252; *People v Hendy, supra.)*The judgment should be modified to reverse defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest and dismiss that count of the indictment and, as so modified, affirmed. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court — assault, second degree.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
Exhibit
      23(b)




CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on
        Form S-3 (Nos. 333-128219, 333-116477, 333-106200 and 106200-01) of
        PPL
        Energy Supply, LLC of our report dated February 24, 2006 relating to the
        consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
        appears in this Form 10-K.
 
  /s/
          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 Philadelphia,
        Pennsylvania
 March
        3,
        2006
# C_2017203EN.01000201.xml

| 27.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 June 2017

(2017/C 203/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1187 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4364 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87830 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7618 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0881 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4788 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,243 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,48 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2108 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5749 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9244 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4771 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4812 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7254 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5371 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5533 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 271,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4089 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6541 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4126 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 882,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7970 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,151 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 66,0390 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,008 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7259 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,0412 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,0980 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1187

JPY

Japanese yen

124,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4364

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87830

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7618

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0881

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4788

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,243

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,48

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2108

RON

Romanian leu

4,5749

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9244

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4771

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4812

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7254

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5371

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5533

KRW

South Korean won

1 271,44

ZAR

South African rand

14,4089

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6541

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4126

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 882,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7970

PHP

Philippine peso

56,151

RUB

Russian rouble

66,0390

THB

Thai baht

38,008

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7259

MXN

Mexican peso

20,0412

INR

Indian rupee

72,0980

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### 2804.901 Definitions.

*Classified contract,* as used in this subpart, means a contract whose existence or subject matter has been designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of Federal law or an Executive order, as requiring protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

*Confidential contract,* as used in this subpart, means a contract, the reporting of which to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as required under 26 U.S.C. 6050M, would interfere with the effective conduct of a confidential law enforcement activity, such as contracts for sites for undercover operations or contracts with informants, or foreign counterintelligence activity.
#### Swain Pharmacy, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Rexall Drug and Chemical Company et al., Appellants.

Third Department,

November 8, 1963.

*433
      *Deyo, Turnbull, Turner c& Nor mile (C. W. Turner*of counsel), for appellants.

*Twining $ Fischer (Robert F. Fischer*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The facts, for purposes of this motion, are, in essence, that respondent, who has had an exclusive franchise in the Town of Vestal for the retail sale of Bexall Products since July 30, 1941, was induced by one Landis Eby, a district sales manager for Bexall, in April of 1962 to release said franchise for the ostensible purpose of allowing one Paul Sivak, a Bexall dealer in Binghamton, to open a new Bexall franchised store in a Vestal Shopping Plaza. Mr. Eby told Mr. Swain, president of respondent, that the release had to be in blank to permit appellant Liggett, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bexall, to assume the lease of the store premises for Mr. Sivak and to facilitate financing. It developed, however, that Mr. Sivak had never been asked to open a store in the shopping center, though he was desirous of relocating, and that rather than a franchised store at all, a company-owned Liggett store was intended to be located at the shopping center. Bespondent protested this turn of events, but beyond gaining an alleged admission from Mr. Eby that the release had been obtained through misrepresentation, it received little satisfaction. The present action was commenced by service of summonses on December 13, 1962.

*434It is clear in a proper case that after service of a summons but before issue is joined an examination before trial may be held to allow the plaintiff to ascertain facts to enable him adequately to frame his complaint (Bules Civ. Prac., rule 122). Appellants claim that such examination should not be allowed here because respondent has not shown reasonable grounds to indicate it has a meritorious cause of action, respondent has sufficient facts without the necessity of the examination to enable it to frame a complaint and the order will unduly inconvenience the appellants. We find that respondent has sufficiently established the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Clearly there is here more than mere suspicion of an actionable wrong (cf. *Stewart*v. *So cony Vacuum Oil Go.,*3 A D 2d 582). Nor do we feel here that the lack of an allegation of monetary damages as a result of appellants’ conduct is fatal. Surely appellants cannot urge that if respondent establishes the wrong averred that respondent will not have suffered a compensable loss or that rescission of the release or other possible equitable remedies might not lie. Also the apparent interrelationship between the two corporate appellants warrants the exploration of their respective actions and possible interactions concerning the release so that respondent can intelligently frame its complaint and select the desired remedy. Finally, on the facts presently before us we find no merit in appellants’ claim of inconvenience.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Gtbson, J. P., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs.
#### 237.7700 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides policy and guidance for the acquisition of religious-related services to be performed on a U.S. military installation in accordance with section 898 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92).
2415.303 Responsibilities. ( a ) ( 1 ) Except as identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Senior Procurement Executive, designates Assistant Secretaries, or their equivalent, for requiring activities as the Source Selection Authorities for selections made using the tradeoff process. Assistant Secretaries may delegate this function to other departmental officials. This designation also applies to acquisitions not performed under the requirements of FAR part 15, but utilizing tradeoff analysis.
( 2 ) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Senior Procurement Executive, designates HUD's Office of General Counsel (OGC) as the Source Selection Authority, regardless of contract amount, in all Headquarters procurements for legal services, unless (s)he specifically designates another agency official to perform that function. Any Headquarters office desiring to procure outside legal services for the Department shall obtain OGC approval before advertising or soliciting proposals for such services. OGC shall determine whether the services are necessary and the extent of OGC involvement in the procurement.
( b ) ( 1 ) The technical evaluation requirements related to source selection shall be performed by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The TEP may consist of any number of members as appropriate to the acquisition, with one member serving as the chairperson. As needed, the TEP may include advisors and committees to focus on specific technical areas or concerns. The TEP is responsible for fully documenting the evaluation of all proposals as appropriate to the source selection approach in use and for making the source selection recommendation to the source selection authority.
[77 FR 73527, Dec. 10, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 13751, Mar. 15, 2016]
1601.301 Policy. ( a ) Procedures, contract clauses, and other aspects of the acquisition process for contracts in the FEHBP shall be consistent with the principles of the FAR. Changes to the FAR that are otherwise authorized by statute or applicable regulation, dictated by the practical realities associated with the unique nature of health care procurements, or necessary to satisfy specific needs of the Office of Personnel Management shall be implemented as amendments to the FEHBAR and published in the Federal Register, or as deviations to the FAR in accordance with FAR subpart 1.4.
( b ) Internal procedures, instructions, and guides that are necessary to clarify or implement the FEHBAR *within* OPM may be issued by agency officials specifically designated by the Director, OPM. Normally, such designations will be specified in the OPM Administrative Manual, which is routinely available to agency employees and will be made available to interested outside parties upon request. Clarifying or implementing procedures, instructions, and guides issued pursuant to this section of the FEHBAR must— ( 1 ) Be consistent with the policies and procedures contained in this regulation as implemented and supplemented from time to time; and
( 2 ) Follow the format, arrangement, and numbering system of this regulation to the extent practicable.