alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 600.133 Federally-owned and exempt property. ( a ) *Federally-owned property.* ( 1 ) Title to federally-owned property remains vested in the Federal Government. Recipients shall submit annually an inventory listing of federally-owned property in their custody to DOE. Upon completion of the award or when the property is no longer needed, the recipient shall report the property to DOE for further Federal agency utilization.
( 2 ) If DOE has no further need for the property, it shall be declared excess and reported to the General Services Administration, unless DOE has statutory authority to dispose of the property by alternative methods (e.g., the authority provided by the Federal Technology Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 3710 (i)) to donate research equipment to educational and non-profit organizations in accordance with E.O. 12821, “Improving Mathematics and Science Education in Support of the National Education Goals.”) Appropriate instructions shall be issued to the recipient by DOE.
( b ) *Exempt property.* When statutory authority exists, DOE may vest title to property acquired with Federal funds in the recipient without further obligation to the Federal Government and under conditions DOE considers appropriate. For example, under 31 U.S.C. 6306, DOE may so vest title to tangible personal property under a grant or cooperative agreement for basic or applied research in a nonprofit institution of higher education or in a nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is conducting scientific research. Such property is “exempt property.” Program regulations or the terms and conditions of award may establish provisions for vesting title to exempt property. Should such conditions not be established and the recipient has no need for the equipment, the recipient shall request disposition instructions from DOE. If DOE does not issue disposition instructions within 120 calendar days of receipt of the request, title to the property shall vest in the recipient without further obligation to the Federal Government. If, at the end of the project, DOE fails to issue disposition instructions within 120 calendar days of the receipt of a final inventory, title to the property shall vest in the recipient without further obligation to the Federal Government.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

MAY 0 6 2011 

Robert D. Fletcher 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

P. 0. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 958 12 

Dear Mr. Fletcher: 

On April 5,201 1, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with 

the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 

5 1, Appendix V. 
This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will 

review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k). 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. 

Allen at (415) 947-4120. 

Sincerely, m\mhD~* Jordan 

Director, Air ~ivisioy (j 

cc: Mr. Thomas J. Christofk, APCO 

Placer County APCD 

Mr. Terry Dressler, APCO 

Santa Barbara County APCD 

Mr. Mat Ehrhardt, APCO 

Yolo-Solano AQMD 

Mr. Douglas G. Gearhart, APCO 

Lake County APCD 

Mr. Larry Greene, APCO 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

Mr. Eldon Heaston 

Executive Officer 

Mojave Desert AQMD 
Mr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO 

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 

Dr. Barry Wallerstein 

Executive Officer 

South Coast AQMD 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluation Section 

Stationary Source Division 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

MAY 3 1 2011 

Mr. Robert D. Fletcher 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

Post Office Box 28 15 

On April 5,201 1, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan. On May 6, 201 1, I wrote to you that EPA had 

found all revisions in the April 5th submittal complete. Unfortunately, our May 6th letter 

incorrectly identified several Placer County submittals. I am providing below a corrected 

list of the submitted revisions that we found complete on May 6th. 
This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the 

complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k). 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

Yolo Solano 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at 

(41 5) 947-4120. 

Sincerely, 

Deborah Jordan @* 

1 144 

1 17 1 

1 175 

2002 

2.43 

Director, Air Division 

Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact 

Lubricants 

Solvent Cleaning Operations 

Control of Emissions from the 

Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular 

(Foam) Products 

Allocations For Oxides of Nitrogen 

(NOx) and Oxides of Sulh (Sox) 

Biomass Boilers 

cc: Mr. Thomas J. Christofk, APCO 

Placer County APCD 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluation Section 

Stationary Source Division
###### Editorial Note on Part 725

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 725.2 Applicability.

The regulations in this part apply to any person within or under the jurisdiction of the United States who desires access to Restricted Data for use in his business, profession or trade.
#### MURRAY v. SIMPSON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1915.)

Action by Charles C. Murray, as receiver, against Robert H. Simpson, individually, etc.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1098.
#### Robert D. Forgey and Robert M. Forgey, *Appellants,*v. Stephen L. Collins, *Appellee.*

No. 47,789

Opinion filed December 13, 1975.

*Otto J. Koemer*and *Randall H. Elam,*of Wichita, argued the cause, and were on the brief for the appellants.

*Robert E. Burchfiel,*of Burchfiel and Banks, of Wichita, argued the cause, and was on the brief for the appellee.

Prager, J.

Affirmed.
#### § 820.66 Appeal.

Within fifteen (15) days of the filing of an exemption decision by a Secretarial Officer, the person requesting the exemption may file a Request to Review with the Secretary, or the Secretary may file, *sua sponte,* a Notice of Review. The Request to Review shall state specifically the respects in which the exemption determination is claimed to be erroneous, the grounds of the request, and the relief requested.
#### § 820.4 Conflict of interest.

A DOE Official may not perform functions provided for in this part regarding any matter in which he has a financial interest or has any relationship that would make it inappropriate for him to act. A DOE Official shall withdraw at any time from any action in which he deems himself disqualified or unable to act for any reason. Any interested person may at any time request the General Counsel to disqualify a DOE Official or request that the General Counsel disqualify himself. In the case of an enforcement adjudication, a motion to disqualify shall be made to the Presiding Officer. The request shall be supported by affidavits setting forth the grounds for disqualification of the DOE Official. A decision shall be made as soon as practicable and information may be requested from any person concerning the matter. If a DOE Official is disqualified or withdraws from the proceeding, a qualified individual who has none of the infirmities listed in this section shall replace him.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 726 Laid on Table in House (LTH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 726

           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2018

   Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico submitted the following 
                resolution; which was laid on the table

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
           Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas, on January 30, 2018, Representative Paul Gosar tweeted a series of 
        statements that included ``Today, Congressman Paul Gosar contacted the 
        U.S. Capitol Police, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions, asking 
        that they consider checking identification of all attending the State of 
        the Union address and arresting any illegal aliens in attendance.'';
Whereas Representative Gosar went on to tweet ``Any illegal aliens attempting to 
        go through security, under any pretext of invitation or otherwise, 
        should be arrested and deported,'' said Congressman Gosar;
Whereas Representative Gosar's comments explicitly targeted the DACA recipients 
        that Members of Congress brought as their guests to the State of the 
        Union;
Whereas DACA recipients have been granted deferred action, are contributing to 
        this country, and have been thoroughly vetted by the U.S. Citizenship 
        and Immigration Services;
Whereas Representative Gosar's actions to inappropriately pressure the U.S. 
        Capitol Police to detain and deport Dreamers, who are staying in the 
        country according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security regulations, 
        intimidated these young people who are already facing fear and 
        uncertainty;
Whereas Representative Gosar abused the power in an attempt to interfere with 
        and politicize the United States Capitol Police's efforts to provide for 
        a safe, secure, and open environment during the State of the Union;
Whereas Representative Gosar has violated clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Code of 
        Official Conduct which states that ``A Member, Delegate, Resident 
        Commissioner, officer or employee of the House shall behave at all times 
        in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives strongly condemns 
Representative Paul Gosar for his inappropriate actions that 
intimidated State of the Union guests and discredited the House of 
Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 89 

To amend subtitle IV of title 40, United States Code, regarding county 

additions to the Appalachian region. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mrs. BLACKBURN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend subtitle IV of title 40, United States Code, 

regarding county additions to the Appalachian region. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONS TO APPALACHIAN REGION. 

4 Section 14102(a)(1)(K) of title 40, United States 

5 Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘Hickman,’’ after ‘‘Hawkins,’’; 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘Perry,’’ after ‘‘Overton,’’; and 

8 (3) by inserting ‘‘Wayne,’’ after ‘‘Washington,’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 31981L0464 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31981L0464

**Council Directive 81/464/EEC of 24 June 1981 amending Council Directive 78/25/EEC on the approximation of the rules of the Member States relating to the colouring matters which may be added to medicinal products **

*
Official Journal L 183 , 04/07/1981 P. 0033 - 0033 Finnish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0146 Spanish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0209 Swedish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0146 Portuguese special edition Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0209 *

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 24 June 1981 amending Council Directive 78/25/EEC on the approximation of the rules of the Member States relating to the colouring matters which may be added to medicinal products (81/464/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),

Whereas Article 1 of Directive 78/25/EEC (3) stipulates that Member States shall not authorize, for the colouring of medicinal products for human and veterinary use, any colouring matters other than those covered by Annex I, Sections I and II, of the Council Directive of 23 October 1962 on the approximation of the rules of the Member States concerning the colouring matters authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (4);

Whereas Section I of the abovementioned Annex covers colouring matter for both mass and surface colouring, and Section II covers colouring matter for surface colouring only;

Whereas there is no justification on public health grounds for maintaining, in the case of medicinal products, the distinction made in the case of foodstuffs intended for human consumption between colouring matter for both mass and surface colouring and colouring matter for surface colouring only;

Whereas Directive 78/25/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

The following paragraph shall be added to Article 1 of Directive 78/25/EEC:

"However, in the case of medicinal products, no distinction shall be made between colouring matter for both mass and surface colouring and colouring matter for surface colouring only."

Article 2

Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with this Directive before 1 October 1981 and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 1981.

For the Council

The President

G.M.V. van AARDENNE

(1) OJ No C 4, 7.1.1980, p. 46. (2) OJ No C 113, 7.5.1980, p. 36. (3) OJ No L 11, 14.1.1978, p. 18. (4) OJ No 115, 11.11.1962, p. 2645/62.
§ 603.305 Use of a fixed-support TIA. The contracting officer may use a fixed-support TIA if: ( a ) The agreement is to support or stimulate RD&D with outcomes that are well defined, observable, and verifiable;
( b ) The resources required to achieve the outcomes can be estimated well enough to ensure the desired level of cost sharing (see example in § 603.560(b)); and
( c ) The agreement does not require a specific amount or percentage of recipient cost sharing. In cases where the agreement does require a specific amount or percentage of cost sharing, a fixed-support TIA is not practicable because the agreement has to specify cost principles or standards for costs that may be charged to the project; require the recipient to track the costs of the project; and provide access for audit to allow verification of the recipient's compliance with the mandatory cost sharing. A fixed-support TIA may not be used if there is: ( 1 ) A requirement (e.g., in statute or policy determination) for a specific amount or percentage of recipient cost sharing; or
( 2 ) The contracting officer, in consultation with the program official, otherwise elects to include in the TIA a requirement for a specific amount or percentage of cost sharing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and income statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             682
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,999
<PP&E>                                             907
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,795
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           679
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,272
<SALES>                                         15,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,636
<CGS>                                           14,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (79)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectra of

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra were collected using a Bruker Avance 500MHz (11.7T)

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer with a 5mm Bruker Pabbo probe. was diluted
approximately 1:10 w/w with CDCL 3 containing TMS as the internal standard. Both H and 13 C spectra

were recorded.

For the proton spectrum, 256 transients, comprised of 65536 time domain points, were summed. A P90 of

9.00 μ s, a dwell time of 48.4 μs and a recycle delay of 2.0 s ec were used for the measurement.

**Figure 1 -**  **Proton Spectrum of**

For the carbon spectrum, 8192 transients, comprised of 65536 time domain points, were summed. A P90

of 7.00 μs , a dwell time of 16.65 μs and a recycle delay of 6.0 s ec were used in the measurement.

Waltz16 was employed for the inverse

- gated, proton broadband decoupling to suppress 1 H- 13 C J

- coupling

during the acquisition period.

**Figure 2 -**  **Carbon Spectrum of**
ERRATA SHEET for SIR 2004-5019 

We apologize for any inconvenience the following corrections and omission may cause in your use of this report. 

Corrections:

p. vi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT

Basin Characteristics

WBT Average mean winter basin temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit 

 should read

WBT Average minimum winter basin temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

p. 20 Table 14 headnote:

The definition for WBT should read average minimum winter basin temperature (degrees Fahrenheit)

Omission:

p. 16 Table 8 headnote:

All values for drainage-basin centroid precipitation and normalized drainage-basin recharge are measured in inches.
AFS-13-555-E

October 29, 2013

 Exemption No. 10881

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0824

Mr. Derek McGivern

Parent of Kiara McGivern

37 Walnut Drive

Wallaceburg, Ontario Canada N8A 3L3

Dear Mr. McGivern:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received September 16, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Kiara McGivern for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Kiara to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system 

(CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system

(CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Kiara.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Kiara McGivern an exemption from § 121.311(b). In 

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Kiara is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary 

to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Kiara’s parents or 

a caregiver accompanying her. Kiara McGivern may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind her. In addition, Kiara’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this 

exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on October 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
**Florida**

**Florida 15 Lafayette**
2006-1032.

#### State v. Campbell.

Warren App. No. CA2005-06-069. Reported at 114 Ohio St.3d 430, 2007-Ohio-4552, 872 N.E.2d 1212. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Cdpp, J., not participating.
#### § 820.26 Enforcement adjudication.

If a respondent files a request for an on-the-record adjudication, an enforcement adjudication is initiated and the Docketing Clerk shall notify the Secretary who shall appoint an Administrative Law Judge to be the Presiding Officer.