alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 725

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 725 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

#### § 725.7 Specific waivers.

The Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security may, upon application of any interested party, grant such waivers from the requirements of this part as he determines are authorized by law and will not constitute an undue risk to the common defense and security.

[41 FR 56778, Dec. 30, 1976, as amended at 71 FR 68732, Nov. 28, 2006; 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023]
#### In the Matter of Thomas W. Cummings, Petitioner, v Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller disapproving petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. The petitioner’s application was denied upon the ground *951that he failed to establish that he was incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a custodian. If the determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be confirmed *(Matter of Chayut v Levitt,*70 AD2d 701). The record discloses that, although challenged on cross examination, the medical evidence offered on behalf of the retirement system to the effect that claimant was not suffering a disability from his employment related to his alleged accidental injury, supplies the needed substantial evidence. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-2 Stem Growth and Sapwood DataThe BOREAS TE-2 team collected several data sets in support of its efforts to characterize and interpret information on the respiration of the foliage, roots, and wood of boreal vegetation. This data set contains measurements of growth and sapwood of the stems conducted in the NSA during the growing season of 1994. The data are available in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004213Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Ryan, Michael G.*(Forest Service Fort Collins, CO United States)*Lavigne, Michael*(Forestry Canada Fredericton, New Brunswick Canada)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberRept-2000-03136-0/VOL133NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL133NAS 1.15:209891/VOL133Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004213.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
H. Res. 657

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

February 8, 2006.

Whereas America’s Catholic schools are internationally acclaimed for their academic excellence, but provide students more than a superior scholastic education; 

Whereas Catholic schools ensure a broad, values-added education emphasizing the lifelong development of moral, intellectual, physical, and social values in America’s young 

people; 

Whereas the total Catholic school student enrollment for the 

2005–2006 academic year is about 2.5 million and the 

student-teacher ratio is 15 to 1; 

Whereas Catholic schools teach a diverse group of students; 

Whereas more than 27 percent of school children enrolled in 

Catholic schools are from minority backgrounds, and 

nearly 14 percent are non-Catholics; 

Whereas Catholic schools produce students strongly dedicated 

to their faith, values, families, and communities by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich in 

spiritual, character, and moral development; 

Whereas in the 1972 pastoral message concerning Catholic 

education, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops 

stated: ‘‘Education is one of the most important ways by 

which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity 
2

•HRES 657 EH 

of the person and building of community. Community is 

central to education ministry, both as a necessary condition and an ardently desired goal. The educational efforts 

of the Church, therefore, must be directed to forming 

persons-in-community; for the education of the individual 

Christian is important not only to his solitary destiny, 

but also the destinies of the many communities in which 

he lives.’’; and 

Whereas January 29 to February 4, 2006, has been designated as Catholic Schools Week by the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the goals of Catholic Schools Week, an 

event co-sponsored by the National Catholic Educational 

Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and established to recognize the vital contributions of America’s thousands of Catholic elementary 

and secondary schools; and 

(2) congratulates Catholic schools, students, parents, and teachers across the Nation for their ongoing 

contributions to education, and for the key role they play 

in promoting and ensuring a brighter, stronger future 

for this Nation. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### LINZEE, Respondent, v. FRANKFORT, GENERAL INS. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Nancy B. Linzee against the Frankfort General Insurance Company, etc.

No opinion. Motions denied, without Costs. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 606.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      11,869,673
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,478,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,302,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,760,903
<PP&E>                                     155,780,045
<DEPRECIATION>                              44,875,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             222,229,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,375,320
<BONDS>                                    168,750,385
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 18,953,233
<COMMON>                                        61,954
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,513,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               222,229,423
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,407,839
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,728,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,107,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,645,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,073,631)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,603,274)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,470,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,470,357)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
PGI 225.7902-4 Procedures.       (1) Since the DTC Treaties apply only to eligible items, a solicitation or contract falls within the scope of the DTC Treaties, and is thus eligible for DTC Treaty coverage (i.e., falls within the scope of the DTC Treaties) if it will acquire at least one defense article that is not otherwise exempt from the DTC Treaties and is required for—          (i) Combined military or counterterrorism operations as described in the Implementing Arrangements;          (ii) Cooperative security and defense research, development, production, and support programs that are identified pursuant to the Implementing Arrangements;          (iii) Cases where the government or Australia or the government of the United Kingdom is the end user in mutually agreed specific security and defense projects, that are identified pursuant to the Implementing Arrangements; or          (iv) U.S. Government end use under a solicitation or contract.          (2) Since the DTC Treaties apply only to eligible items, a solicitation or contract falls within the scope of the DTC Treaties and is thus eligible for DTC Treaty coverage when it will acquire at least one defense article that is DTC Treaty-eligible and the contract falls within the scope of the DTC Treaties. Article 3, section (2) of each DTC Treaty and Section 4 of each Implementing Arrangement require the DTC Treaty Participants to maintain lists of defense articles to be exempted from the scope of the DTC Treaties. These exempted technology lists are incorporated in Supplement No. 1 to part of the ITAR and are accessible at: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/treaties/index.html          (3) The DTC Treaties do not apply to defense articles initially being acquired pursuant to the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, although, once the defense articles are acquired by the Australia or United Kingdom under an FMS case, the DTC Treaty applies as though the defense articles were exported under the DTC Treaty, subject to PGI                 225.7902-2             .          (4) If a company obtains an export license, or other authorization, for the export of defense articles that might otherwise have been eligible for export without a license under a DTC Treaty, the terms of the export license, or other authorization, shall apply unless and until the company obtains approval to transition to DTC Treaty coverage. The process and requirements for transition are described in 22 CFR 126.16(i) and 22 CFR 126.17(i), respectively.    **Parent topic:** PGI 225.7902 Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 594 

Honoring the 50th anniversary of the Honorable John D. Dingell’s service 

in the House of Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2005 

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Ms. PELOSI) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 50th anniversary of the Honorable John D. 

Dingell’s service in the House of Representatives. 

Whereas John D. Dingell learned firsthand about the institution of Capitol Hill at an early age, serving as a House 

of Representatives Page from 1938 to 1943; 

Whereas John D. Dingell served his country during the 

World War II as a member of the United States Army; 

Whereas John D. Dingell has served 50 years in the House 

of Representatives, since succeeding his late father, the 

Honorable John David Dingell, Sr., a 12-term incumbent, in a special election to the 84th Congress on December 13, 1955; 
2 

•HRES 594 IH 

Whereas a member of the Dingell family has represented the 

Detroit metropolitan area in the House of Representatives since 1933; 

Whereas John D. Dingell, the Dean of the House of Representatives since the 104th Congress, is the longest serving current Member of the House of Representatives, 

having been re-elected on 25 subsequent occasions; 

Whereas John D. Dingell’s term of service is the third-longest term of service in the history of the House of Representatives and the fifth-longest in Congressional history; and 

Whereas John D. Dingell has served on the Energy and Commerce Committee (and its predecessors) since the 85th 

Congress in 1957, and chaired that panel from the 97th 

through the 103rd Congresses (1981–1995): Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF JOHN 

3 D. DINGELL’S SERVICE IN THE HOUSE. 

4 The House of Representatives— 

5 (1) honors the lifelong commitment of the Hon6 orable John D. Dingell to the ideals of our Nation; 

7 (2) recognizes the Honorable John D. Dingell’s 

8 half-century of exceptional dedication to his constitu9 ents, to the State of Michigan, and to the United 

10 States; and 
3 

•HRES 594 IH 

1 (3) congratulates the Honorable John D. Din2 gell on 50 years of superior service in the United 

3 States Congress. 

4 SEC. 2. TRANSMISSION OF ENROLLED RESOLUTION. 

5 The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 

6 transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Honor7 able John D. Dingell. 

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 31984D0371 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31984D0371

**84/371/EEC: Commission Decision of 3 July 1984 establishing the characteristics of the special mark for fresh meat referred to in Article 5 (a) of Directive 64/433/EEC **

*
Official Journal L 196 , 26/07/1984 P. 0046 - 0046 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 17 P. 0231 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 31 P. 0192 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 17 P. 0231 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 31 P. 0192 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 3 July 1984

establishing the characteristics of the special mark for fresh meat referred to in Article 5 (a) of Directive 64/433/EEC

(84/371/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (1), as last amended by Directive 83/90/EEC (2), and in particular Article 5 (a) thereof,

Whereas Article 5 (a) of Directive 64/433/EEC provides that some categories of meat may be sent from the territory of one Member State to that of another Member State only where the meat is meant to undergo one of the treatments provided for in Council Directive 77/99/EEC (3), and bears a special mark;

Whereas it is necessary to adopt a mark which is easily recognizable and which gives the guarantees necessary for the differentiation of the meat;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The mark referred to in Article 5 (a) of Directive 64/433/EEC shall be as defined in the Annex.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 July 1984.

For the Commission

Poul DALSAGER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No 121, 29. 7. 1964, p. 2012/64.

(2) OJ No L 59, 5. 3. 1983, p. 10.

(3) OJ No L 26, 31. 1. 1977, p. 85.

ANNEX

The special mark must be the oval mark, as defined in point 49 in chapter X of Annex I to Directive 64/433/EEC, covered by two parallel straight lines, with a distance of 1 cm at least, crossing the oval stamp along the main diameter and the information thereon remaining legible, and the two parallel lines being as evident as the external edge of the mark.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09564]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, April 24, 2013; 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting 
telephonically at the time and location listed above. The meeting will 
be a continuation of the April 11, 2013 meeting, which was adjourned 
due to lack of a quorum. The BBG will receive and consider a report 
from the Governance Committee regarding the compliance progress with 
the recommendations in the Office of Inspector General's inspection 
report of the BBG, as well as a BBG Board staffing plan. The BBG will 
receive and consider a progress report from the Strategy and Budget 
Committee, including the 2013 language service review process and the 
BBG strategic plan update. A complete audio recording and a verbatim 
transcript of the meeting will promptly be made available for public 
observation on the BBG's public Web site at www.bbg.gov.
    Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or 
adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the Agency's 
public Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-09564 Filed 4-18-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

136382 Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. TIMOTHY ZAHN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, J ustices

v SC: 136382 COA: 274994 Genesee CC: 04-079555-NO KROGER COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee, and

F.H. MARTIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant, Cross-Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and

CIMARRON SERVICES, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 27, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1 ) whether a contractual indemnification clause limiting the indemnitor’s liability to the i ndemnitor’s own neglig ence, but including delegation of the indemnitee’s du ties, can support an award of indemnification arising out of the settlement of a negligence claim made against the contractual indemnitee; (2) whether MCL 600.2956 an d the abolition of jo int and several liability has had any effect on the potential contractual indemnifi cation liability of employers for injuries sustained by their employees; (3) whether a settlement of a suit br ought by an injured employee against alleged tortfeasors may legally be viewed as encompassing the damages attributable to the negligence of the employee’s employer, where the employer has no tort liability exposure to the injured employee by virtue of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act exclusive re medy, MCL 418.131( 1), but has contractually assumed a duty of care owed by an indemnitee; (4) wh ether, despite the WDCA’s exclusive remedy provision, the third-party defendant employer in this case voluntarily subjected itself to_______________________________________ __ 2

liability for the payment to its employee of damages attri butable to its own negligence by entering into the indemnification agr eement; and (5) whethe r the holding in Gerling Konzern Allegemeine Versich erungs AG v Regents of the Univ of Michigan, 472 Mich 44 (2005), has any effect on the appropr iate resolution of this case.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to pl ace this case on the January 2009 session calendar for argument and submission. Appella nt’s brief and appendix must be filed no later than November 10, 2008, and appellees’ brief and appendix, if appellees choose to submit an appendix, must be filed no later than December 12, 2008.

The Michigan Association for Justice and Michigan De fense Trial Counsel, Inc. are invited to file briefs amicus curiae, to be filed no later th an December 26, 2008. Other persons or groups intere sted in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for perm ission to file briefs amicus curiae, with such briefs to

be filed no later than December 26, 2008.

0923 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2008

Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 725

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 725 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

#### § 725.5 Communications.

All communications concerning this part should be addressed to the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, EHSS-1, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20585.

[71 FR 68732, Nov. 28, 2006, as amended at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023]
#### LUND, Respondent, v. SMITH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Alma V. Lund, as administratrix, etc., against Grant Smith and others, copartners, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
44 Canal Center Plaza ▪ Suite 310 ▪ Alexandria, Virginia 22314 ▪ Tel: (703) 684-0084 ▪ Fax: (703) 684-0427

VIA E-MAIL

May 9, 2011

Ms. Madeline Barch

Office of Policy

Regulatory Management Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code: 1806A

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

RE: Request for Extension of Time – SBAR Panel: Risk and Technology Review

Dear Ms. Barch:

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”) appreciated the opportunity to 

meet with Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Small Business Administration (“SBA”), and 

Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) representatives on April 27, 2011 to discuss the SBAR 

Panel Briefing: Risk and Technology Review for Mineral Wool Production. At that meeting, a response 

from NAIMA was targeted for May 11, 2011.

In the interim, EPA has contacted NAIMA and requested additional information on formaldehyde binders

and has also requested two plant visits. NAIMA has become directly involved in both requests, including 

participating in the plant visits in Huntington and Wabash, Indiana.

Given the commitment of NAIMA to provide thorough and comprehensive information, NAIMA is 

requesting an additional ten days beyond the scheduled plants visits in Indiana on May 12, 2011 to 

provide NAIMA’s preliminary response to the questions raised during the SBAR presentation.

This extension of time would facilitate the ongoing dialogue that has been both productive and 

cooperative. 

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

cc: Susan Fairchild

David Rostker