alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1430.409 Dairy margin coverage payments. ( a ) A DMC payment will be made to a participating dairy operation for any month when the average actual dairy production margin for that month falls below the coverage level threshold in effect for the participating dairy operation.
( b ) Payments trigger at the catastrophic level or at the buy-up level; the payments will be calculated according to this paragraph. If the dairy operation only has catastrophic coverage or buy-up coverage at 95 percent, there will be a single calculation. If the dairy operation purchased buy-up coverage at less than 95 percent and the catastrophic level also triggers a payment, then there will be two calculations to determine the payment—first the calculation for the buy-up coverage percentage and then the calculation for the catastrophic level percentage, which is the balance of the established production history up to 95 percent; the result of these two calculations will be added together to determine the payment amount. Each calculation multiplies the payment rate times the coverage percentage times the production history or established adjusted base production history divided by 12 as follows: ( 1 ) *Payment rate.* The amount by which the coverage level exceeds the average actual dairy production margin for a month;
( 2 ) *Coverage percentage.* The coverage percentage; and
( 3 ) *Production history.* The production history or established adjusted base production history or adjusted base production history of the dairy operation, divided by 12.
( c ) If the dairy operation purchased buy-up level coverage at less than 95 percent of production history or adjusted base production history, then the dairy operation will receive a payment calculated at the buy-up level, plus the payment at the catastrophic level, if triggered, for the balance of 95 percent of its established production history or adjusted base production history. For example, if a producer purchased buy-up coverage at the 50 percent level, then that producer will also receive catastrophic level coverage for the next 45 percent for total coverage of 95 percent.
[84 FR 28176, June 18, 2019, as amended at 86 FR 70708, Dec. 13, 2021; 89 FR 14376, Feb. 27, 2024]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

December 20, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Allison Transmission

FROM: Chien Sze and Cleophas Jackson

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on Monday, December 20, 2010 between Allison 

Transmission and EPA and included the following individuals:

Allison Transmission: Dinh Ngo and Stephen F. Spurlin

EPA: Cleophas Jackson, Houshun Zhang, Byungho Lee, Anthony Neam, Carl Ryan, 

James Sanchez, Peter Smith, Jay Smith, William Courtois and Chien Sze

The discussion focused primarily on GEM (Greenhouse gas Emissions Model) features, model 

inputs, and the possibility of evaluation of Allison transmission system at the EPA heavy-duty 

engine site.
120 STAT. 190 PUBLIC LAW 109–175—FEB. 27, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1989:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): Nov. 18, considered and passed Senate.

Vol. 152 (2006): Feb. 14, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 109–175

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 57 Rolfe

Square in Cranston, Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Holly

A. Charette Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HOLLY A. CHARETTE POST OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, Rhode Island,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Holly A. Charette 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 ‘‘Holly A. Charette Post Office’’.

Approved February 27, 2006.

Feb. 27, 2006

[S. 1989]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1942.129 Borrower supervision and servicing.

Loans under this subpart are subject to the provisions of § 1942.17(r) of subpart A of this part 1942 and subpart E of part 1951 of this chapter.
#### § 1902.8 Authority to establish and administer supervised bank accounts.

Servicing Officials are authorized to establish supervised bank accounts, deposit loan checks and other funds, countersign checks, close accounts, and execute all forms in connection with supervised bank account transactions and redelegate this authority to a person under their supervision who is considered capable of exercising such authority. State Directors will make written demand upon the bank for withdrawals outlined in § 1902.16.

[70 FR 59227, Oct. 12, 2005]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1813 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

162 Northeast Avenue in Tallmadge, Ohio, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal 

Daniel Nathan Deyarmin Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mrs. BEATTY, 

Mr. JORDAN, Mr. LATTA, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. GIBBS, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. JOYCE, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. RENACCI, 

and Mr. TURNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 162 Northeast Avenue in Tallmadge, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DANIEL NATHAN DEYARMIN 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

6 States Postal Service located at 162 Northeast Avenue in 

7 Tallmadge, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1813 IH

1 ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Daniel 

7 Nathan Deyarmin Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 1737.30 General.

In support of a loan application, the borrower shall prepare and submit to RUS: (a) A market forecast to determine service requirements (the Area Coverage Survey) and (b) engineering studies to determine the system design that provides service most efficiently (the Loan Design). The RUS field representative confers with the borrower and its engineer to schedule the completion and submission of these studies.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0079)
#### E. M. Substructures, Inc., Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

In a contract action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 2, 1979, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and summary judgment is granted to the defendant with respect to plaintiff’s first and second causes of action. In its first and second causes of action plaintiff contractor sought recovery for extra work it did in connection with its construction contract with the defendánt City of New York. Defendant moved for summary judgment with respect to these two causes of action on the ground that, in exchange for an extension of time to complete the contract, plaintiff had agreed to waive all claims arising out of the contract. Plaintiff does not dispute that it could have preserved its claims by excepting them from the waiver. Indeed, at oral argument, plaintiff conceded that it was aware of the claim for extra work when it signed the waiver and further conceded that on past occasions it had preserved such claims by excepting them from the waiver by written side agreements. Plaintiff could offer no explanation for having failed to do so here. By signing the waiver without exceptions plaintiff has forfeited its claims (see, e.g., *Mars Assoc, v City of New York,*70 AD2d 839; *Zazzarino Constr. Corp. v City of New York,*66 AD2d 717). Having obtained the benefit it sought, reflected in the extension agreement, plaintiff cannot now avoid the consideration it gave in return. In an effort to avoid this result, plaintiff contends that defendant’s conduct was such as to preclude it from asserting the waiver. We disagree. Plaintiff has presented no evidence of the kind of conduct which has been held to preclude the city from asserting a waiver (cf. *New Again Constr. Co. v City of New York,*76 Mise 2d 943). Requiring a contractor to waive its claims for damages in return for an extension of contract time does not, without more, establish duress (see *Joseph F. Egan, Inc. v City of New York,*17 NY2d 90, 98). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted with respect to the first two causes of action. Mollen, P. J., Laser, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
§ 1726.176 Communications and control facilities. This section covers the purchase of microwave, fiber, power line carrier, and other communications technologies or systems, including load control and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, automated meter reading/automated metering infrastructure (AMR/AMI), or other smart grid technologies. Mobile radio systems are covered as general plant materials in § 1726.175. ( a ) *Power line carrier systems.* Power line carrier equipment will frequently be purchased as part of a substation and will be included in the complete substation plans and specifications. When purchased in this manner, the requirements of subpart C of this part, Substation and Transmission Facilities, will apply. If obtained under a contract for only a power line carrier system, the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section apply.
( b ) *Load control systems, communications systems, and SCADA systems* — ( 1 ) *Contract forms.* The borrower must use RUS Form 786, Electric System Communication and Control Equipment Contract. This form may be modified to be a “purchase only” contract form.
( 2 ) *Procurement procedures.* ( i ) It is the responsibility of each borrower to determine the procurement method that best meets its needs to award contracts not requiring RUS approval in amounts of up to a cumulative total of $1,000,000 or four percent of NUP, whichever is greater, per calendar year of communications and control facilities construction (including minor modifications or improvements), exclusive of the cost of owner furnished materials and equipment.
( ii ) The borrower must use multiparty negotiation for all other communications and control facilities contract construction, including all contracts requiring RUS approval. The amount of contracts bid using the multiparty negotiation procedure do not apply to the cumulative total stipulated in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
( iii ) An amendment which increases the scope by adding a project is not considered competitively bid, therefore, the amount of that amendment does apply to the cumulative total stipulated in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
( 3 ) *Contract approval.* Individual contracts in amounts of $1,000,000 or more or four percent of NUP, whichever is greater, exclusive of the cost of owner furnished materials and equipment, are subject to RUS approval.
[60 FR 10155, Feb. 23, 1995, as amended at 77 FR 3072, Jan. 23, 2012; 86 FR 36198, July 9, 2021; 89 FR 17275, Mar. 11, 2024]
1

Mears, Gilbert

From: Dwaltersrn@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 5:19 PM

To: Mears, Gilbert

Subject: Importance of reporting toxins

Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281 

 

Dear Mr mears

 

How am I to test my water before fracking if I don't know what to test for? How can I 

monitor my cistern water from air pollutants if I don't know what to test for? 

 

It is stupid to allow them to dump carcinogens and who know what into the ground water..If it is

ok why can't they say what it is...or why can't you seize it and test it..loopholes to make me pay 

the consequence and clean up while they reap the profits..

 

Please make them prove and disclose what they are doing to my water and air.

 

Dianne Walters

Irwin, Penna.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12

- 827 V

Filed: November 14, 2014

Not for P ublication

*************************************

DANIEL BOYLE

, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * influenza (flu) v accine; brachial plexus

* neuritis

SECRETARY OF HEA LTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Edward M. Kraus

, Chicago, IL

, for petitioner

. Heather L. Pearlman

, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On November 14 , 2014 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to

settle this case and described t he settlement terms. Petitioner allege s that he suffered from

brachial plexus neuritis that was caused by his receipt of seasonal influenza (“flu”) vaccine on

December 8, 2009

. H e further alleges that he experien c ed the residual effects of this injury for

more than six months. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer brachial

plexus neuritis or any other injury

. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter

informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned exp lanation for the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public u nless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, peti tioner has 14 days to identify and

move to delete such information prior to the document ’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

delete such material from public access.2

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby

adopts the parties ’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and

o n the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$1 50

, 000

. 00 , representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 15(a) (2006 ) . The award shall be in the form of a check for $ 1 50

, 000

. 00 made payable to

petitioner

.

In the absence of a motion fo r review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 13
                                                                     ----------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

       In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Head N.V. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

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
        Company.




Date:    April 2, 2007                     By: /s/ Johan Eliasch
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                Johan Eliasch
                                                Chief Executive Officer,
                                                Chairman of the Management Board


Date:    April 2, 2007                     By: /s/ Ralf Bernhart
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                Ralf Bernhart
                                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                                Member of the Management Board
Editorial Note on Part 1924
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1924.104 Definitions. As used in this subpart: *Applicant.* Any person, partnership, limited partnership, trust, consumer cooperative, corporation, public body, or association that has filed a preapplication, or in the case of RHS programs that do not require a preapplication, an official application, with RHS in anticipation of receiving or utilizing RHS financial assistance.
*Community.* A community includes cities, towns, boroughs, villages, and unincorporated places which have the characteristics of incorporated areas with support services such as shopping, post office, schools, central sewer and water facilities, police and fire protection, hospitals, medical and pharmaceutical facilities, etc., and are easily identifiable as established concentrations of inhabited dwellings and private and public buildings.
*Developer.* Any person, partnership, public body, or corporation who is involved with the development of a site which will be financed by RHS.
*Development.* The act of building structures and installing site improvements on an individual dwelling site, a subdivision, or a multiple family tract.
*Multiple Family Housing.* RHS RRH loans, RCH loans, LH loans and grants, and RHS loans.
*Single Family Housing.* RHS Rural Housing loans for individuals for construction of, repair of, or purchase of a dwelling to be occupied by one household.
*Site.* A parcel of land proposed as a dwelling site, with or without development.
*Site approval official.* The RHS making the determination that a site meets the requirements in this subpart to be acceptable for site loans. (See § 1924.120.)
*Street surfaces.* Streets may be hard or all-weather surfaced. ( 1 ) *Hard surface* —a street with a portland cement concrete, asphaltic concrete, or bituminous wearing surface or other hard surfaces which are acceptable and suitable to the local public body for use with local climate, soil, gradient, and volume and character of traffic.
( 2 ) *All-weather* —a street that can be used year-round with a minimum of maintenance, such as the use of a grader and minor application of surface material, and is acceptable and suitable to the local public body for use with local climate, soil, gradient, and volume and character of traffic.
*Subdivision.* Five or more contiguous (developed or undeveloped) lots or building sites. Subdivisions may be new or existing.
#### § 1775.24 Delegation of authority.

The authority under this part is re-delegated to the Assistant Administrator, Water and Environmental Programs, except for the discretionary authority contained in §§ 1775.34 and 1775.68. The Assistant Administrator, Water and Environmental Programs may re-delegate the authority in this part.
RENEWAL NOTICE


 



November 5, 2012


 


 


Empowered Products, Inc.


3367 W OQUENDO RD


LAS VEGAS, NV 89118


 


RE: Renewal of: $500,000.00 Revolving Line of Credit


Reference #:


Customer #:


 


Dear Empowered Products, Inc.


 


Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is pleased to
inform you that your Business Revolving Line of Credit, in the amount of $500,000.00, ahs been approved for renewal. The new maturity
date will be November 1, 2013.


 


Your Revolving Line of Credit remains subject to all terms and
conditions of existing loan documentation, as modified by this Renewal Notice. The credit limit/maximum principal amount is now
$500,00000. The interest rate to be applied to the unpaid principal balance of the Credit/Note will be a rate equal to the sum
of the applicable index plus 1.000% subject, however, to any maximum or minimum rates as set forth in the existing loan documentation.


 


A non-refundable renewal fee of $2,500.00, will be charged to
your account number . If you do not desire the renewal of the Credit/Note on these terms, you must (i) deliver to Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association at BBSG San Antonis Loan Ops, 4101 Wiseman Blvd., Bldg 307, MAC T7422-012, San Antonio, TX 78251 a written
rejection of the renewal within 10 days from the date of this letter, (ii) not draw additional funds under the Credit/Note, and
(iii) promptly make other arrangements with your loan officer to pay the matured balance of the Credit/Note.


 


This renewal will be effective upon processing of the renewal
fee.


 


If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me
at (702) 952-7610. We appreciate your business and look forward to continuing to serve as your business bank.


 


Sincerely,


 


Wells Fargo Bank, National Association


 


By: /s/ Darrin S. Hansen


Name: Darrin S. Hansen


Title: Vice President
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SCHWARTZ, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Charles Schwartz.

No opinion. Motion denied, on defendant’s stipulating as stated in memorandum. Settle order on notice.