alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 504.8 Prohibitions against excessive use of petroleum or natural gas in mixtures—certifying powerplants. ( a ) In the case of certifying powerplants, OFP may prohibit the use of petroleum or natural gas in such powerplant in amounts exceeding the minimum amount necessary to maintain reliability of operation consistent with maintaining the reasonable fuel efficiency of the mixture. This authority is contained in section 301(c) of the Act, as amended. The owner or operator of the powerplant may certify at any time to OFP that it is technically capable and financially feasible for the unit to use a mixture of petroleum or natural gas and coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. In assessing whether the unit is technically capable of using a mixture of petroleum or natural gas and coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source, for purposes of this section, the extent of any physical modification necessary to convert the unit and any concomitant reduction in rated capacity are not relevant factors. So long as a unit as proposed to be modified would be technically capable of using the mixture as a primary energy source under § 504.6(c), this certification requirement shall be deemed met. The criteria for certification of financial feasibility are found at § 504.6(f). In addition, the powerplant's owner or operator must submit a prohibition compliance schedule, which meets the requirements of § 504.5(d).
( b ) If OFP concurs with the certification, a prohibition order against the unit's excessive use of petroleum or natural gas in the mixture will be issued following the procedure outlined in § 501.52 of these regulations.
( c ) The petitioner may seek to amend its certification in order to take into account changes in relevant facts and circumstances by following the procedure contained in § 501.52(d).
Note:
The authority of OFP implemented under this section should not be confused with the other two fuel mixture provisions of these regulations. One is the general requirement that petitioners for permanent exemptions demonstrate that the use of a mixture of natural gas or petroleum and an alternate fuel is not economically or technically feasible (See § 504.15). The second is the permanent fuel mixtures exemption itself (See § 504.56).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1903-0077) (Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91 (42 U.S.C. 7101 *et seq.*); Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-319, as amended by Pub. L. 94-163, Pub. L. 95-70, and Pub. L. 95-620 (15 U.S.C. 719 *et seq.*); Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-620, as amended by Pub. L. 97-35 (42 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.*); Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97-35)
[47 FR 17045, Apr. 21, 1982]
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 72 ) ll-E-3 2 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/20088:42:05AM Sheet 72 of 264P. 2

OC T 2 4 '9 5 09:24PM EP ADURHA M P . 2/ 6

CONTAC T REPOR T From ; Wanit aDunston , U S Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Dat e o f Contact ! Octobe r10,199 5 Contacts : Pau l Young , Jr. Company/Agency ; LeerEast , Inc . Telephon e Number : (717 ) 742-2647 CONTACT S l (Note s prepared b y Wanit

a Dunston )

• Lee rEast , Inc . wa s contacte d t o clarif y th e respons e t o th e screenin g surve y wit h regar d t o th e facility' s potential us e o f carbo n filters t o reduc e styren e emissions . Pau l Young , J r confirme d tha

tcarbo n filters wer e no tuse d a tLee rEast , Inc . t o reduc e emissions . Informatio n b accurate : 

# [jM-UxJdrti £j~r1~.

Post-l f bran d ta

x transmitta l memo767 1 [««t P aa»« » [ _ Dept . 

### ""EflQ^^OlS& L Phont Fa x 

## t^Pos k hno^-aip P ^rv-vfo-qaso l
1761 East St. Andrew Place

Santa Ana. CA 92705-4934



Tel 714 247 6000

Fax 714 247 6009





ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE







The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation,
as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and
Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the
Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer's activities from March 7, 2013 to December 31,
                                                              2013 (the “reporting period”) and of such Certifying Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision
                                                              and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





DEUTSCHE BANK
TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate
Administrator



BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March
1, 2014
4.2202 Prohibition.       (a) Section 102 of Division R of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), the No TikTok on Government Devices Act, and its implementing guidance under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-23-13, dated February 27, 2023, “No TikTok on Government Devices” Implementation Guidance, collectively prohibit the presence or use of a covered application on information technology, including certain equipment used by Federal contractors.                                          (b) This prohibition applies to the presence or use of a covered application on any information technology owned or managed by the Government, or on any information technology used or provided by the contractor under a contract, including equipment provided by the contractor’s employees, unless an exception is granted in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-23-13.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 4.22 Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application.
PGI 215.407-4 Should-cost review.

(b) Program should-cost review.

(2) DoD contracting activities should consider performing a program should-cost review before

award of a definitive contract for a major system as defined by DoDI 5000.2. See DoDI 5000.2

regarding industry participation.

(c) Overhead should-cost review.

(1) Contact the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) (http://www.dcma.mil/) for questions

on overhead should-cost analysis.

(2)(A) DCMA or the military department responsible for performing contract administration

functions (e.g., Navy SUPSHIP) should consider, based on risk assessment, performing an overhead

should-cost review of a contractor business unit (as defined in FAR 2.101) when all of the following

conditions exist:

(1) Projected annual sales to DoD exceed $1 billion;

(2) Projected DoD versus total business exceeds 30 percent;

(3) Level of sole-source DoD contracts is high;

(4) Significant volume of proposal activity is anticipated;

(5) Production or development of a major weapon system or program is anticipated; and

(6) Contractor cost control/reduction initiatives appear inadequate.

(B) The head of the contracting activity may request an overhead should-cost review for a business

unit that does not meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(A) of this subsection.

(C) Overhead should-cost reviews are labor intensive. These reviews generally involve participation

by the contracting, contract administration, and contract audit elements. The extent of availability of

military department, contract administration, and contract audit resources to support DCMA-led

teams should be considered when determining whether a review will be conducted. Overhead

should-cost reviews generally should not be conducted at a contractor business segment more

frequently than every 3 years.

Parent topic: PGI 215.407 RESERVED
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Luegussie Robinson, Respondent, v. Hamilton Avenue Hospital et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance *1060carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the grounds that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that claimant sustained a compensable accidental injury and that section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law did not bar her claim. The board found that section 28 was not a bar in the instant controversy since there had been an advance payment of compensation made by the employer through Dr. Heins, the owner of a one-half interest in the employer-hospital, who, with knowledge of claimant’s accident shortly after it occurred, treated her for injuries resulting from said accident. Concededly, Dr. Heins treated claimant for her injuries and we must accept the board’s conclusion that claimant told Dr. Heins as to the work connected source of her difficulties. However, to lift the bar of section 28 the medical services must have been performed in a manner to imply an acknowledgement or recognition of liability *(Matter of Schmitt*v. *Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity House,*33 A D 2d 1082), and such is not established to be the case on the instant record. Rather, the only possible conclusion from the evidence is that Dr. Heins, whatever his interest in the employer, had been treating claimant regularly as a private patient for chronic back trouble since 1956 and that the services rendered in connection with the incident herein involved were performed solely as a medical practitioner treating a private patient from whom he expected compensation directly for his services' (in fact subsequently he brought an action to recover payment for those services) and not as a representative of the employer. Accordingly, we find section 28 applicable and the claim must, therefore, be dismissed. We pass on no other issues raised. Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
846.702-70 Guarantee period services and

specifications.

(a) Guarantee period of services are associated with preserving and protecting a specified piece of

contractor-installed equipment that is guaranteed under a construction contract. Specifications for

certain high-dollar or traditionally troublesome equipment are designed to allow for the original

installer of the equipment to service the equipment throughout the guaranty period.

(b) Guarantee period services are not the same as the 1-year general construction guaranty clause

found at FAR clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction.

(c) The contracting officer may determine, when in the best interest of VA that guarantee period

services, not to exceed a period of 5 years, are appropriate to protect the integrity of the installed

equipment and ensure that the equipment performs as guaranteed.

(d) When the determination is made under paragraph (c) of this section, the contracting officer shall

include the guarantee period of services as a separately priced contract line item number (CLIN) in

solicitations and contracts.

(e) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 852.246-75, Warranty of Construction -

Guarantee Period Services, in solicitations and contracts for construction that include the FAR

clause 52.246-21, Warranty of Construction, and that also include guarantee period services.

(f) In accordance with the approved VA specifications, the following types of equipment contain the

guarantee period services specifications. The following represents a sampling of these

specifications.

(1) Division 14 - Conveying Equipment.

(i) Electric Dumbwaiters Geared Traction and Winding Drum (VA 14 12 11).

(ii) Electric Traction Elevators (VA 14 21 00).

(iii) Traction Cartlift (VA 14 21 11).

(iv) Hydraulic Elevators (VA 14 24 00).

(v) Hydraulic Cartlift (VA 14 24 11).

(2) Division 27 - Communications.

(i) Public Address and Mass Notification Systems (VA 27 51 16).

(ii) Intercommunication and Program Systems (VA 27 51 23).

(g) The construction contractor shall require the original installer of the equipment, which is

normally a subcontractor, to provide the guarantee period services.

Parent topic: Subpart 846.7 - Warranties
#### § 431.266 Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

(a) Commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 1, 2006 and before January 28, 2019, shall have a flow rate of not more than 1.6 gallons per minute. For the purposes of this standard, a *commercial prerinse spray valve* is a handheld device designed and marketed for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water on dishes, flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of removing food residue before cleaning the items.

(b) Commercial prerinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 28, 2019 shall have a flow rate that does not exceed the following:

| Product class (spray force in ounce-force, ozf) | Flow rate (gallons per minute, gpm) |
| --- | --- |
| Product Class 1 (≤5.0 ozf) | 1.00 |
| Product Class 2 (>5.0 ozf and ≤8.0 ozf) | 1.20 |
| Product Class 3 (>8.0 ozf) | 1.28 |

(1) For the purposes of this standard, the definition of *commercial prerinse spray valve* in [§ 431.262](/on/2024-09-17/title-10/section-431.262) applies.

(2) [Reserved]

[[81 FR 4801](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-4801), Jan. 27, 2016]
938 A.2d 839

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner v. Mikre-Michael AYELE, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG No. 11

Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 4, 2008.

James P. Botluk, Asst. Bar Counsel (Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland), for petitioner.

Argued Before BELL, C.J., RAKER, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, JJ., and LAWRENCE F. RODOWSKY and DALE R. CATHELL (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

*ORDER*

The Court having considered the Petition for Disciplinary Action or Remedial Action filed in the above entitled case, the Findings of Fact filed by the Honorable Paul A. Hackner and at oral argument, Bar Counsel having submitted to the Court a suggestion of death setting forth that the Respondent died on May 13, 2007, it is this 4th day of January, 2008

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition for disciplinary action be, and it is hereby, dismissed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, etc., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv766-MHT

) 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, etc., )

and CD&O, L.L.C., etc., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss

(doc. no. 5) is set for submission, without oral

argument, on October 13, 2006, with all briefs due by

said date.

DONE, this the 20th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Judgment Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although it was erroneous for the trial court to have permitted testimony as to the criminal history of defendant’s family into evidence, in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt in this record, the error was harmless *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court— robbery, first degree.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
227 So.2d 591

#### Jules D. BROWN v. Wilson P. ABRAHAM.

No. 50103.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: Wilson P. Abraham applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 225 So.2d 20.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
PGI 222.7404 Waiver.

(c) Requests for waivers to the policy at DFARS 222.7402 must be submitted to the Secretary of

Defense through the Office of the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (Contract

Policy). Requests for waivers may be submitted via email at osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asda-dp-ccontractpolicy@mail.mil. Include “Waiver-Mandatory Arbitration” in the subject line of the message.

Parent topic: PGI 222.74 -RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MANDATORY ARBITRATION

AGREEMENTS
#### ROSCOE CO. v. LINDNER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Payment (§ 19*)—Sufficiency—Order on Third Person.

Where a building contractor gave his creditor an order on the owner, which the owner accepted, payable when the house was finished, and the house was not built, there was no fund upon which the order could operate, and it did not discharge the debt.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig. §§ 22, 23; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]

Appeal from Queens County Court.

Action by the Roscoe Company against Bertha Helena Lindner and John Lindner. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and RICH, JJ.

Winifred Sullivan, of New York City, for appellants.

Theo. T. Baylor, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

THOMAS, J.

An order was given by a building contractor on the owner for material furnished by plaintiff therefor. It was accepted by the owner, payable when the house was finished and delivered at a date mentioned. The order was given for a precedent debt, and the presumption is that it was not given in payment of the contractor’s in*1024debtedness to the materialman. Noel v. Murray, 13 N. Y. 167. There are no extrinsic facts tending to show that it was so received. The contract was not performed, as defendants would show, because the specifications required construction violative of the building code, although Lindner indicates some pecuniary embarrassment on his part. The owner ascribes the contractor’s failure to pecuniary inability. In reality there could be no fund, but only a debt from the owner to the contractor, on which the order could and would operate, if it existed, as if it were a fund. But its existence could always be a subject of controversy, and when, as here, there was no performance, and the debt is merely one for breach of contract, it cannot be inferred that the parties to the order intended it, unless paid, to discharge the original indebtedness.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except CARR, J., not voting.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 361 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 361

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 18, 2005.
Whereas in the history of the United States, more than 48,000,000 citizen-
        soldiers have served the Nation in uniform, of whom more than 1,000,000 
        gave their lives as a consequence of their duties;
Whereas as of July 21, 2005, there are more than 25,000,000 living veterans;
Whereas the Nation's obligation to its veterans is encapsulated in the following 
        words of President Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, delivered 
        on March 4, 1865, ``. . . to care for him who shall have borne the 
        battle and for his widow and his orphan'';
Whereas on July 21, 1930, President Herbert Hoover issued an executive order 
        creating a new agency, the Veterans' Administration, to ``consolidate 
        and coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans'';
Whereas on October 25, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs Act (Public Law 100-527) under which, 
        effective as of March 15, 1989, the Veterans' Administration was 
        established as an executive department and redesignated as the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs, with the mission of providing Federal 
        benefits to veterans and their families; and
Whereas in 2005, the 230,000 employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
        continue the tradition of their predecessors, caring for the Nation's 
        veterans with dedication and compassion and upholding the high standards 
        required of them as stewards of the public's gratitude to those 
        veterans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the 
        Veterans' Administration; and
            (2) acknowledges the achievements of the employees of the Veterans' 
        Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs and commends them 
        for their contributions to the Nation's veterans.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 513 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 513

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 26, 2005.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Energy and Commerce: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Frank J. Stastny, Appellee, v. Francis Karel, Appellant. Francis Karel, Appellant, v. Frank J. Stastny, Appellee.

Gen. Nos. 40,897 and 40,961.

opinion filed June 24, 1940.

Brenner & McBride and Ode L. Rankin, for appellant; Ode L. Rankin and Thomas G. McBride, of counsel; Fred I. Simon, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice McSurely.

“Not to be published in full.’’
#### Potter Real Estate Co., Inc., Appellant, v. O & S Bearing & Mfg. Co., Respondent.

No. 1.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The court should not have considered the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff was permitted disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [d]). The plaintiff was entitled to the opportunity to show that defendant was transacting business in Hew York State and, therefore, subject to jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1). *(Agrashell, Inc.*v. *Sirotta Co.,*344 F. 2d 583; *Crossley Glove Co.*v. *Wakefield Leathers,*30 A D 2d 598; *Lohne*v. *City of New York,*25 A D 2d *884440.) (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing complaint in action for commission.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.