alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart 704.4—Safeguarding Classified

Information Within Industry

Parent topic: PART 704—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

704.404 Contract clauses.

(a) When the contract includes a requirement for the contractor to access classified (“Confidential”,

“Secret”, or “Top Secret”), or administratively controlled (“Sensitive But Unclassified”) information,

the contracting officer must insert (48 CFR) FAR clause 52.204–2, Security Requirements and (48

CFR) AIDAR clause 752.204–2, Security Requirements, in the solicitation and award.

(b) If the contract requires the contractor (or contractor employees) to have routine physical access

to USAID-controlled facilities in the U.S. (i.e., will need an ID for regular entry to USAID space), or

have logical access to USAID's information systems (i.e., access to AIDNet, Phoenix, the Global

Acquisition and Assistance System (GLAAS,) etc.,) and the solicitation and contract contains (48

CFR) FAR 52.204–9(a), the contracting officer must also insert (48 CFR) AIDAR 752.204–72, Access

to USAID Facilities and USAID's Information Systems. Only U.S citizen employees or consultants of

a U.S.-based company may request routine physical access to USAID-controlled facilities or logical

access to USAID's information systems.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.82 [Reserved]
An extension of the deadline to May 5, in effect, would constitute an extension 1

until May 7, as May 5 is a Saturday.

 To ensure that the parties have adequate time to thoroughly prepare for trial on 2

the relevant claims, it is the court’s practice to rule on all dispositive motions prior to the

pretrial hearing.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELRICK HARRIS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv630-ID

v. )

 )

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP., )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is a joint motion to extend dispositive motion deadline (Doc. No.

20), filed on February 12, 2007. For the reasons to follow, the court finds that the motion is

due to be granted, but only to the extent that the court will grant an extension of the

dispositive motion deadline to and including March 15, 2007. 

Plaintiff and Defendants request a three-month extension of the March 5, 2007,

dispositive motion deadline imposed by the court. The court recognizes the difficulties

which can arise during the discovery period; however, an extension of the dispositive

motion deadline to May 5, 2007, simply would not afford the court sufficient time to 1

consider and rule on a summary judgment motion prior to the pretrial hearing which is set

on June 15, 2007. Regarding the parties’ contention that the discovery deadline does not 2

Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 21 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

expire until May 31, 2007, the court directs the parties to the “Frequently Asked Questions”

section of the Middle District of Alabama web site at www.almd.uscourts.gov, which

explains why the Uniform Scheduling Order establishes a dispositive motion deadline prior

to the end of the period allowed for discovery. 

Accordingly, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to

extend dispositive motion deadline be and the same is hereby GRANTED to and including

March 15, 2007, but is otherwise DENIED. 

DONE this 14 day of February, 2007. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00630-ID-TFM Document 21 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 5223.3 - HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

IDENTIFICATION AND MATERIAL SAFETY

DATA

Parent topic: Part 5223 - ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

5223.370 Safety precautions for ammunitions and

explosives.

5223.370-3 Policy.

(a) DON policy is to ensure the safe handling of all ammunition and explosives (A&E). To that end,

particular care should be paid to A&E provided to contractors as Government Furnished Material

(GFM) when the A&E contain nitrocellulose-based propellants and/or nitrate ester-based materials

(such as nitroglycerin,) or any other materials that have a tendency to become chemically unstable

over time.

5223.370-5 Contract clauses.

(a) Use the clause at 5252.223-9000, DON ADDITIONAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO

SPECIFIED GOVERNMENT FURNISHED AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES, in solicitations and

contracts that:

(1) contain the clause at DFARS 252.223-7002; and

(2) provide as GFM any A&E containing nitrocellulose-based propellants and/or nitrate ester-based

materials (such as nitroglycerin,) or other similar A&E with a tendency to become chemically

unstable over time;

(b) The HCA may make administrative adjustments to the additional requirements (e.g. specify

activity points of contact, adjust specified lead times) or add further measures which increase safety

requirements as appropriate.
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 3
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3365 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Pinoxaden Technical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2006 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Pinoxaden Technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PINOXADEN TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) CALENDAR YEARS 2007 AND 2008.—Subchapter 

5 II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

6 the United States is amended by inserting in numerical 

7 sequence the following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.12.60 8-(2,6-Diethyl-4- 

methylphenyl)–1,2,4,5- 

tetrahydro-7-oxo-7Hpyrazolo[1,2- 

d][1,4,5]oxadiazepin-9-yl 

2,2-dimethylpropanoate 

(Pinoxaden) (CAS No. 

243973–20–8) (provided for 

in subheading 2934.99.15) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3365 IS 

1 (b) CALENDAR YEAR 2009.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.60, as 

3 added by subsection (a), is amended— 

4 (A) by striking ‘‘Free’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘1.8%’’; and 

6 (B) by striking ‘‘On or before 12/31/2008’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘On or before 12/31/2009’’. 

8 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

9 by paragraph (1) shall take effect on January 1, 

10 2009. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 04/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 335 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 335 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL 

2 AWARD ACT. 

3 (a) EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FI4 NANCIAL OPERATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL AWARD PRO5 GRAM; NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS.—Section 

6 104(c)(2)(A) of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 

7 804(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘and 2004’’ and in8 serting ‘‘2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009’’. 

9 (b) TERMINATION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 108 of the Congres11 sional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 808) is amended by 

12 striking ‘‘October 1, 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘October 

13 1, 2009’’. 

14 (2) SAVINGS PROVISION.—During the period of 

15 October 1, 2004, through the date of the enactment 

16 of this section, all actions and functions of the Con17 gressional Award Board under the Congressional 

18 Award Act (2 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) shall have the 

19 same effect as though no lapse or termination of the 

20 Board ever occurred. 

21 (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—The Congressional 

22 Award Act is amended— 

23 (1) in section 103 (2 U.S.C. 803)— 

24 (A) in subsection (a)(1) (B) and (C), by 

25 striking ‘‘a a local’’ and inserting ‘‘a local’’; and 
3 

S 335 RFH 

1 (B) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking 

2 ‘‘section’’ each place it appears and inserting 

3 ‘‘subsection’’; and 

4 (2) in section 104(c)(2)(A) (2 U.S.C. 

5 804(c)(2)(A)), by inserting a comma after ‘‘1993’’. 

Passed the Senate July 14, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000759641
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND 85-A LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         166,785
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,785
<PP&E>                                       5,126,348
<DEPRECIATION>                               (922,111)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,371,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,638
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,252,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,371,022
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,823
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,457
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,457
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.38
        

</TABLE>
5201.9003 Applicability

(a) Business clearance requirements apply to the contract actions identified below. HCAs may

expand this list, as appropriate.

(1) Contracts (including task and delivery orders issued against indefinite-delivery contracts and

basic ordering agreements; however, see the exceptions at (b)(3) and (b)(4) for task and delivery

orders).

(2) Contract modifications not within the scope or under the terms of an existing contract with the

exception of modifications to actions listed in paragraph (b).

(3) Undefinitized contract actions (see DFARS Subpart 217.74).

(4) Modifications that set or change a contract price, including definitization of any undefinitized or

unpriced contract actions, change orders, engineering change proposals, value engineering change

proposals, over and above work, settlement of claims, or requests for equitable adjustment.

(5) Retroactive pricing after completion, including final price determination.

(6) Advance agreements on special or unusual cost items (see 5231.109.)

(7) Actions that result in the establishment, modification, or rescission of a guarantee of

performance on a government contract by a third party.

(b) The following contract actions do not require a business clearance, but the file must include the

rationale for award, sufficiently documented, as prescribed by HCA procedures:

(1) Contract actions awarded under FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures;

(2) Contract actions awarded under FAR Part 14, Sealed Bidding;

(3) Task orders or delivery orders issued under FAR Subpart 8.4, Federal Supply Schedules; or

(4) Task orders or delivery orders issued on a firm-fixed price basis against indefinite-delivery type

contracts for:

(i) Supplies for which unit prices are established in the contract; or

(ii) Services for which unit prices are established in the contract for specific tasks to be performed

and where a statement of work/statement of objectives/performance work statement is not required.

Parent topic: Subpart 5201.90 - BUSINESS CLEARANCE
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 53 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 53 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40043 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CARLOS ALBERTO AREVALO-DE LEON, also k nown as Carlos Arevalo-De Leon, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1452-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Alberto Arevalo-De Leon (Arevalo) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), a nd United States

v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arevalo has not filed a response. We h a ve reviewed c ounsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment th a t t h e appeal presents no U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40043 Document: 00512347817 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013No. 13-40043

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s m otion for leave to withdraw is G RANTED, counsel is excused f rom further re s p o n sibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40043 Document: 00512347817 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCNAIR, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:06-cv-695-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

____________________________________

)

JAMES CALLAHAN, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:06-cv-919-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

ORDER

Before the court is the defendants’ Objection (Doc. # 88) to the Magistrate Judge’s

August 23, 2007order (Doc. # 86) denying the defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. # 78). The issue

before the Magistrate Judge was whether the defendants can compel the plaintiffs to identify how

they contend the lethal injection procedures must be fixed. The Magistrate Judge ruled that the

requested information is irrelevant and that “[u]nless and until liability has been established, the

issue of an appropriate remedy is not before the court.” (Doc. # 86, at 2-3.) The Magistrate Judge

further determined that “it is the State of Alabama’s responsibility in the first instance to develop and

propose a remedy for deficiencies which the court may find.” (Id. at 4.) 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 102 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

The defendants filed the instant objection asserting that the discovery is reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The defendants have reiterated the same arguments

they made to the Magistrate Judge. Having considered the Magistrate Judge’s order and the parties’

briefing on the issue, the court concludes that the Objection (Doc. # 88) is OVERRULED because

the order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A). 

It is so ORDERED.

DONE this 17th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 102 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3441 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 

(chloromethyl)oxirane, formaldehyde, 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-[[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]methyl]-1,3-propanediyl di-2-propenoate, 5-isocyanato-1- 

(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexane and 2-methylphenol (9Cl). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2006 

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with (chloromethyl)oxirane, formaldehyde, 2- 

(hydroxymethyl)-2-[[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]methyl]-1,3- 

propanediyl di-2-propenoate, 5-isocyanato-1- 

(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexane and 2- 

methylphenol (9Cl). 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3441 IS 

1 SECTION 1. 2-PROPENOIC ACID, POLYMER WITH 

2 (CHLOROMETHYL)OXIRANE, FORMALDE3 HYDE, 2-(HYDROXYMETHYL)-2-[[(1-OXO-2-PRO4 PENYL)OXY]METHYL]-1,3-PROPANEDIYL DI-2- 

5 PROPENOATE, 5-ISOCYANATO-1- 

6 (ISOCYANATOMETHYL)-1,3,3- 

7 TRIMETHYLCYCLOHEXANE AND 2-METHYL8 PHENOL (9CL). 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

10 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

11 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

12 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.12 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 

(chloromethyl)oxirane, formaldehyde, 2- 

(hydroxymethyl)-2-[[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]methyl]-1,3-propanediyl di-2- 

propenoate, 5-isocyanato-1- 

(isocyanatomethyl)-1,3,3- 

trimethylcyclohexane and 2-methylphenol 

(9Cl) (provided for in subheading 

3907.30.00) (CAS No. 212907–64–7) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

15 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### § 981.22 Board.

*Board* means the Almond Board of California which is the administrative agency established by this subpart.

[41 FR 26852, June 30, 1976]
#### § 920.70 Separability.

If any provision of this part is declared invalid or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or thing is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this part or the applicability thereof to any other person, circumstance, or thing shall not be affected thereby.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4549 PAMELA S. KNOWLTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-97-19) Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 23, 1998 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELS. Mason Preston, PRESTON & WEESE, L.C., Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, SusanM. Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Pamela S. Knowlton appeals from the four-month sentence imposed by the district court upon her guilty plea to one count of bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (1994). Knowlton's only claim on appeal is that the sentence was unduly harsh in light of the nature of her offense and history. We affirm.In an effort to avoid an outstanding medical bill, Knowlton submitted a fraudulent bankruptcy court order to the collection agency handling the debt showing that she had been granted a discharge in bankruptcy. When contacted by the FBI, Knowlton admitted that she had changed the date, debtors' names and case number in order to avoid her debt. Knowlton pled guilty to bankruptcy fraud in February 1997. At her sentencing hearing, Knowlton stated no objections to the presentence report. The guideline range for Knowlton's offense, after taking into account a two-level reduction for acceptance of res ponsibility,* was zero to six months imprisonment. The district court imposed a term of four months. Knowlton appeals, claiming that the district court acted arbitrarily in imposing a term of imprisonment rather than home confinement or probation. Because Knowlton's sentence fell within a properly calculated guideline range, her challenge to the sentence is not cognizable on appeal. See United States v. Porter , 909 F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir.1990) (holding that criminal defendant is precluded from seeking "review of a sentencing court's discretion in setting a sentence anywhere within a proplery calculated sentencing range"); see also United States v. Jones , 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994) (challenge to sentence at top of guideline range not authorized by statute). Accordingly, we affirm Knowlton's sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________ *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995).
2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Community Financial Corporation, (the 
Company) for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |     |  |                                            
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard R. Leitzel                     
|                   |  |     |  | Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
§ 799.43 Tiering. ( a ) As specified in 40 CFR 1508.28, tiering is a process of covering general environmental review in a broad PEA, followed by subsequent narrower scope analysis to address specific proposed actions, action stages, or sites. FSA will use tiering when FSA prepares a broad PEA and subsequently prepares a site-specific ESW, EA, or PEA for a proposed action included within the program addressed in the original, broad PEA.
( b ) When FSA uses tiering in a broad PEA, the subsequent ESW, EA, or PEA will: ( 1 ) Summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement;
( 2 ) Incorporate by reference the discussions from the broader statement and the conclusions carried forward into the subsequent tiered analysis and documentation; and
( 3 ) State where the PEA document is available.