alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 760.1905 Payment calculation. ( a ) ERP Phase 2 payments will be calculated separately for each disaster year. If a producer indicates that they have expected revenue for both specialty and high value crops and other crops for a disaster year, a payment will be calculated separately for: ( 1 ) Specialty and high value crops; and
( 2 ) Other crops.
( b ) To determine a producer's ERP Phase 2 payment amount, FSA will calculate: ( 1 ) The producer's benchmark year allowable gross revenue, adjusted according to 7 CFR 760.1903, if applicable, multiplied by the ERP factor of 70 percent; minus
( 2 ) The producer's disaster year allowable gross revenue; minus
( 3 ) The sum of the producer's gross ERP Phase 1 payments for the 2020 program year, if the calculation is for the 2020 disaster year, or for the 2021 and 2022 program years, if the calculation is for the 2021 disaster year; minus
( 4 ) The sum of the producer's net CFAP payments (excluding payments for contract producer revenue), net 2020 WHIP+ payments, and net 2020 Quality Loss Adjustment (QLA) Program payments, if the calculation is for the 2020 disaster year; and
( 5 ) Multiplied by the percentage of the expected disaster year revenue for specialty and high value crops or other crops, as applicable, to determine the separate payments for specialty and high value crops or other crops.
( c ) FSA will issue an initial payment equal to the lesser of the amount calculated according to this section or the maximum initial payment amount of $2,000. If a producer has also received a payment under ERP Phase 1, FSA will reduce the producer's initial ERP Phase 2 payment amount by subtracting the producer's ERP Phase 1 gross payment amount.
( d ) After the close of the ERP Phase 2 application period, FSA will issue a final payment equal to the amount calculated according to this section minus the amount of the producer's initial payment. If total calculated payments exceed the total funding available for ERP Phase 2, the ERP factor may be adjusted and the final payment amounts will be prorated to stay within the amount of available funding. If there are insufficient funds, a differential of 15 percent will be used for underserved producers similar to ERP Phase 1, but with a cap at the statutory maximum of 70 percent. For example, if the ERP Factor is set at 50 percent, the factor used for underserved producers will be 65 percent, but if the factor is set at 55 percent or higher, the factor for underserved producers will be capped at 70 percent.
( e ) If a producer receives assistance through CFAP or ERP Phase 1 after their ERP Phase 2 payment is calculated, the producer's ERP Phase 2 payment will be recalculated and the producer must refund any resulting overpayment.
[88 FR 1883, Jan. 11, 2023, as amended at 88 FR 62292, Sept. 11, 2023]
#### § 4280.13 Applicant eligibility.

Applicants that are not delinquent on any Federal debt or otherwise disqualified from participation in these Programs are eligible to apply. An applicant must be eligible under 7 U.S.C. 940c.
Subpart 230.2 - CAS PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS    **Parent topic:** Part 230 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS230.201           Contract requirements.    230.201-5 Waiver.       (a)(1)(A) The military departments and the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment)—          *(1)*  May grant CAS waivers that meet the conditions in FAR 30.201-5(b)(1); and          *(2)*  May grant CAS waivers that meet the conditions in FAR 30.201-5(b)(2), provided the cognizant Federal agency official granting the waiver determines that—          *(i)*  The property or services cannot reasonably be obtained under the contract, subcontract, or modification, as applicable, without granting the waiver;          *(ii)*  The price can be determined to be fair and reasonable without the application of the Cost Accounting Standards; and          *(iii)*  There are demonstrated benefits to granting the waiver.          (B) Follow the procedures at PGI 230.201-5 (a)(1) for submitting waiver requests to the Principal Director, DPC.          (2)  The military departments shall not delegate CAS waiver authority below the individual responsible for issuing contracting policy for the department.          (e) By November 30th of each year, the military departments shall provide a report to the Office of the Principal Director, DPC (Contract Policy) of all waivers granted under FAR 30.201-5(a), during the previous fiscal year, for any contract, subcontract, or modification expected to have a value of $15 million or more. See PGI 230.201-5 (e) for format and guidance for the report. The Principal Director, DPC, will submit a consolidated report to the CAS Board and the congressional defense committees.
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 5 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 6 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 7 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 8 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 9 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 10 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 11 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 12 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 13 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 14 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 15 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 16 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 17 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 18 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 19 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 20 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 21 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 22 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 23 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 24 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 25 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 26 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 27 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 28 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 29 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 30 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 31 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 32 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 33 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 34 of 35
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 74-7 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 35 of 35
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13927

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 0:16-cv-61325-RNS,

0:12-cr-60294-RNS-1

GREGORY RICHARDSON, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 8, 2019)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Gregory Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion to 

vacate his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Richardson sought to vacate his conviction 

Case: 17-13927 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

for brandishing a firearm during a bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), on 

the grounds that the residual clause in the definition of “crime of violence” in 

section 924(c), see id. § 924(c)(3)(B), is void for vagueness after Johnson v. United 

States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and that bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), does

not satisfy the elements clause of section 924(c), id. § 924(c)(3)(A). The district 

court ruled that bank robbery qualified as a predicate offense under the elements 

clause regardless of any effect that Johnson had on section 924(c). We affirm.

Richardson’s challenge to his sentence is foreclosed by our precedents. We 

held in In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016), “that a bank robbery 

conviction under § 2113(a) by force and violence or by intimidation qualifies as a 

crime of violence under the § 924(c)(3)(A) use-of-force clause.” Richardson argues 

that Sams adjudicated an application for leave to file a successive motion to vacate 

and is not precedential in his collateral proceeding. But we held in United States v. 

St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335 (11th Cir. 2018), “that law established in published threejudge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) in the context of applications 

for leave to file second or successive § 2255 motions is binding precedent on all

subsequent panels of this Court, including those reviewing direct appeals and 

collateral attacks, unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of 

abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” Id. at 346 

(alteration adopted and internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Case: 17-13927 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Richardson’s predicate offense of bank robbery is categorically a crime of violence 

under the elements clause of section 924(c).

We AFFIRM Richardson’s conviction and sentence.

Case: 17-13927 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

July 24, 2007

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

From: Clerk’s Office

Case Style: McNabb v. Sanders Lead Company, Inc.

Case Number: 2:06cv00664-MHT

This Notice of Correction was filed in the referenced case this date to attach the PDF

documents of supplemental exhibit 1 and supplemental exhibit 2 which were previously

omitted. 

The previously omitted PDF documents are attached to this notice for your review. Reference

is made to document # 33 filed on July 23, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-2 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 10 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 34-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 8 of 8
# 5105.502 Authority.

(a) The head of the contracting activity shall approve the publication of paid advertisements in newspapers.  See Appendix GG for further delegation.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 5105.5 - Paid Advertisments
Subpart 442.1 - Interagency Contract Administration and Audit Services    **Parent topic:** PART 442 - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION442.102 Procedures.       (a) The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Audit Division, has established a cross-servicing arrangement with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to provide contract audit services required by the FAR.          (b) All contract audit services required by contracting officers, except those which can be accomplished in-house, shall be coordinated through the cognizant OIG Regional Inspector General - Auditing (RIG-A). Cognizance is determined on the basis of the contractor's location. There is no charge for DCAA audit services coordinated through OIG.          (c) In order to ensure compliance with this requirement and to evaluate the results of audits, contracting officers shall forward to the RIG-A copies of all price negotiation memoranda prepared for contracts and contract modifications in excess of $500,000.
(June 23, 1970)

#### National Bank of North America, Respondent, v. Tengard Realty Corp. et al., Defendants, Sam Kanofsky et al., Appellants, and Stephen Davis, as Receiver, Intervenor-Respondent.

Order entered February 4, 1970, unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law, motion by defendant fee owners to resettle the order entered December 3, 1969 granted, and cross motion by receiver to expand the receivership order and for other relief denied, all without costs and without disbursements. Appeal from ex parte order appointing receiver, entered December 3, 1969, dismissed without .costs and without disbursements. The provision in the consolidation and extension agreement is for the assignment of “the rents, issues and profits of the premises as further security for the payment of said [mortgage] indebtedness” with a covenant that the party of the second part *“*agrees to use such rents, issues and profits in payment of principal and interest becoming due on said mortgage and in payment of taxes, assessments, sewer rents, water rates and carrying charges becoming due on said premises.” It is noted that a mortgage “ as it relates to the real property therein described is not an absolute conveyance, but a pledge of property as security for the debt ” *(Sullivan*v. *Rosson,*223 N. Y. 217, 224); where, as here, it is expressly provided that the assignment of rent is as “ further security ”, the assignment “is of the like character as the conveyance of real property and not intended as an absolute transfer thereof.” *(Sullivan*v. *Rosson, supra.)*As one commentator has said: “ The courts regard rents assigne'd under such circumstances as part of the security pledged by the mortgage and subject to the same immunity as the mortgaged property itself until appropriate legal *935proceedings have been initiated.” (2 Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosure, [5th ed.], § 563, pp. 919, 920.) Therefore, the assignment of rents is not properly construed as an absolute assignment of all rents past and present, rather recovery .is limited to a collection of those rents accrued and unpaid at the time of the receiver’s appointment or thereafter becoming due. (38 N. Y. Jur., Mortgages and Deeds of Trust, § 128; *Womans Hosp.*v. *67th St. Realty Co.,*265 N. Y. 226; *Manufacturers Trust Co.*v. *Sadenet Realty,*234 App. Div. 893; *Kane Assoc,*v. *Blumenson,*30 A D 2d 127,128, affd. 23 N Y 2d 942.) Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern and Markewich, JJ.
- 

### GILA 

# RIVER INDIAN~COMMUNITY Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Program 3

# & rt; 

# /, /QL~ P.O. Box 

### 97 

## -/& Sacaton, 

## AZ. 85247 L*.>/--- 

# G\< IQL G fl Office: (5201 562-2234 Fax: (520) 562-2245 Date: 

# .-Tu< ~l.

# I To: District 

## 6 We would like to the agenda for the upcoming Community meeting on The air quality program will make a presentationon thefollowing subject:

The presentation

### will be given by 

### LC) 

## ;1b-d L%I~
Please call Janet Travis at (520) 562-2234 ext. 286 to confirm placement on theagenda.TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 06/01/2006 08: 59 NAME : DEPT DEQ FAX : 5205622245 TEL : 5205622234
DATE, TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE (S) RESULT. MODE OK STANDARD ECM

Department of Environmental 

### Quality Air 

### Quality Program Sacaton, 

### AZ. 

### 85247

To: District

# 5 Community 

### meeting 

### on The air 

### quality program

### will make a presentation 

### on 

### *he following 

### subject: ~~oLM~G@&

# Gflda MLZ 

## peviod &v- 

## drv-quuL+-~ 

## i r?~u 

### -3

-1- - ---d---A-A:A.. .a. :I1 L- -; .*.".m L,, \ A 1

### ;\ 

### lc, 

## ,PA A, A ,h%lA (7

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         502,745
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               517,910
<PP&E>                                       7,104,610
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,492,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,130,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,056,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,130,220
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,664
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,975
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.42
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 800.217 Equipment that shall be tested. ( a ) *General.* Testing of equipment and prototype equipment described in this section shall be performed in accordance with the instructions.
( b ) *Inspection equipment.* Each unit of equipment used in the official sampling, testing, or grading of grain, or in monitoring the official inspection of grain, shall be examined to determine whether the equipment is functioning in an approved manner. In addition, each unit of equipment for which official performance requirements have been established shall be tested for accuracy. For the purpose of this paragraph, diverter-type mechanical samplers used in obtaining warehouseman's samples shall be considered to be official inspection equipment used under the Act.
( c ) *Weighing equipment.* Each unit of equipment used in the Class X or Class Y weighing of grain or in monitoring the Class X or Class Y weighing of grain, each related grain handling system, and each related computer system shall be examined to determine whether it is functioning in an approved manner. In addition, each unit of equipment for which official performance requirements have been established shall be tested for accuracy.
( d ) *Prototype equipment* — ( 1 ) *At request of interested party.* Upon request of a financially interested party and with the concurrence of the Administrator, prototype grain inspection or weighing equipment may be tested by the Service for official use.
( 2 ) *Determination by Service.* Upon a determination of need, the Service may develop, contract for, or purchase and test prototype grain inspection or weighing equipment for official use.
#### Benjamin M. Stilwell, Appellant, *v.*The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Respondent.

(Argued June 6, 1884 ;

decided June 17, 1884.)

*Charles P. Miller*for appellant.

*JD. J. Dean*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 59 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 59 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 59 Filed 05/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 927.9 Fiscal period.

*Fiscal period* means the period beginning July 1 of any year and ending June 30 of the following year or such may be approved by the Secretary pursuant to a joint recommendation by the Fresh Pear Committee and the Processed Pear Committee.
RobertDReid

60BerwickLane,DoverDE19904

PaulRJeffers

1210LibertyGroveRd.ConowingoMD21918

GregoryETalley

3kembleCt.WilmingtonDE19808
# 5115.608 Prohibitions.

Government personnel shall not disclose proprietary data included in an unsolicited proposal for any purpose or use except for evaluation purposes (see FAR 15.608).  In the event a contract award is made as a result of an unsolicited proposal, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose proprietary data to the extent provided in the contract.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 5115.6 - Unsolicited Proposals
§ 915.140 Avocados not subject to regulation. ( a ) *Minimum quantity.* During any one day any handler may handle not to exceed 55 pounds total of avocados exempt from the provisions of §§ 915.41, 915.51, and 915.54, and the regulations issued thereunder: *Provided,* That such exempted quantity shall not be included as part of a shipment exceeding 55 pounds.
( b ) *Gift shipments.* Any handler may, exempt from the provisions of §§ 915.41, 915.51, and 915.54, and the regulations issued thereunder, handle avocados in individually addressed gift containers not exceeding 20 pounds net weight for use by the addressee other than for resale.
( c ) *Commercial processing into products.* The term *commercial processing into products,* as used in § 915.55(c), means the manufacture of any avocado product which is preserved by any recognized commercial process, including canning, freezing, dehydrating, drying, the addition of chemical substances, or by fermentation.
( d ) *Avocados for seed.* Any handler may ship avocados to be used for seed purposes exempt from the provisions of §§ 915.41, 915.51, and 915.54, and the regulations issued thereunder: *Provided,* That such handler shall make application to the committee for an exemption prior to the loading of each shipment and that the receiver of each such shipment shall certify, on a form provided by the committee, that such fruit was used for the intended purpose, and that the residue from the seed separation process will not be allowed to enter fresh channels of trade.
[23 FR 9126, Nov. 26, 1958. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 30 FR 10880, Aug. 21, 1965; 36 FR 1191, Jan. 26, 1971; 43 FR 23557, May 31, 1978]