alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.114 Requirements for performance assessment. ( a ) Any performance assessment used to demonstrate compliance with § 63.113 for 10,000 years after disposal must: ( 1 ) Include data related to the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry (including disruptive processes and events) of the Yucca Mountain site, and the surrounding region to the extent necessary, and information on the design of the engineered barrier system used to define, for 10,000 years after disposal, parameters and conceptual models used in the assessment.
( 2 ) Account for uncertainties and variabilities in parameter values, for 10,000 years after disposal, and provide for the technical basis for parameter ranges, probability distributions, or bounding values used in the performance assessment.
( 3 ) Consider alternative conceptual models of features and processes, for 10,000 years after disposal, that are consistent with available data and current scientific understanding and evaluate the effects that alternative conceptual models have on the performance of the geologic repository.
( 4 ) Consider only features, events, and processes consistent with the limits on performance assessment specified at § 63.342.
( 5 ) Provide the technical basis for either inclusion or exclusion of specific features, events, and processes in the performance assessment. Specific features, events, and processes must be evaluated in detail if the magnitude and time of the resulting radiological exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed individual, or radionuclide releases to the accessible environment, for 10,000 years after disposal, would be significantly changed by their omission.
( 6 ) Provide the technical basis for either inclusion or exclusion of degradation, deterioration, or alteration processes of engineered barriers in the performance assessment, including those processes that would adversely affect the performance of natural barriers. Degradation, deterioration, or alteration processes of engineered barriers must be evaluated in detail if the magnitude and time of the resulting radiological exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed individual, or radionuclide releases to the accessible environment, for 10,000 years after disposal, would be significantly changed by their omission.
( 7 ) Provide the technical basis for models used to represent the 10,000 years after disposal in the performance assessment, such as comparisons made with outputs of detailed process-level models and/or empirical observations (e.g., laboratory testing, field investigations, and natural analogs).
( b ) The performance assessment methods used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are considered sufficient for the performance assessment for the period of time after 10,000 years and through the period of geologic stability.
[74 FR 10828, Mar. 13, 2009]
#### SCHLEY v. ANDREWS.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

October, 1914.)

1. Trial (§ 395*) — Findings-of Fact — Evidentiary Facts.

Findings are not reguired on evidentiary facts leading to the ultimate facts, but should be confined to the ultimate facts in issue under the pleadings.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 927-934, 939; Dec. Dig. § 395.*]

2. Trial (§ 395*) — Conclusions of Law — Contents.

Findings of law should be conclusions of law from the facts found, and should not include argument or comment.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 927-934, 939; Dec. Dig. § 395.*]

Action by James Monfort Schley, Jr., against Morna Cliff Andrews, formerly known as Morna Cliff Schley. Order made on request for findings.

Herman Joseph, of New York City, for plaintiff.

James Spiller, of Snyder, Tex., for defendant.

*

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

GIEGERICH, J.

The plaintiff has submitted only proposed findings of fact. If he does not intend to submit any proposed conclusions of law, then let a copy of such proposed findings-be served on the defendant’s attorney within two days after the publication of this memorandum. On the other hand, if the plaintiff wishes to submit proposed conclusions of law, as well as requests for findings of fact, he may withdraw the proposed findings already submitted' and serve new requests within the time above mentioned.

*430[1] Many of the defendant’s requests for findings of fact are purely evidentiary in character. Findings are not required on evidentiary facts leading to the ultimate ones (2 Nichols, Practice, p, 2380), but should be confined to the ultimate facts in issue under the pleadings (Adler v. M. E. R. Co., 138 N. Y. 173, 178, 33 N. E. 935; Jacobson v. Brooklyn Lumber Co., 184 N. Y. 152, 158, 76 N. E. 1075; Tyndall v. Pinelawn Cemetery, 151 N. Y. Supp. 428).

[2] The findings of law should be conclusions of law from the facts found, and they should not include argument or comment. 2 Nichols, Practice, p. 2381. Many of the defendant’s proposed conclusions of law violate these rules. If the defendant’s counsel desires, he may, within two days after the publication hereof, withdraw the requests heretofore submitted, and substitute, with proof of service, corrected requests for findings. The papers have in the meanwhile been returned to the custody of the clerk.
Editorial Note on Part 61
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 61.81 Tests at land disposal facilities. ( a ) Each licensee shall perform, or permit the Commission to perform, any tests as the Commission deems appropriate or necessary for the administration of the regulations in this part, including tests of: ( 1 ) Radioactive wastes and facilities used for the receipt, storage, treatment, handling and disposal of radioactive wastes.
( 2 ) Radiation detection and monitoring instruments; and
( 3 ) Other equipment and devices used in connection with the receipt, possession, handling, treatment, storage, or disposal of radioactive waste.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10-QSB
March 31, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         116,118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  883,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (35,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    809,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,812,360
<PP&E>                                       1,406,338
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,038,244)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,472,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,574,412
<BONDS>                                        299,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       280,982
<OTHER-SE>                                     317,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,472,865
<SALES>                                      2,146,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,146,306
<CGS>                                        1,028,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,028,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,112,268
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,816)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (13,869)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 26,827
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,774)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 612.3 Definitions.

*Award period* means the period beginning with the first day of the award year for which the owner/operator has been awarded credits up to and including the last day of the fourth award year thereafter.

*Award year* means a 12-month period beginning on the effective date of the award of credits and each anniversary thereof during the award period.

*CNC program* means the civil nuclear credit program established by the Secretary pursuant to section 40323 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) codified at 42 U.S.C. 18753.

*Credits* means the credits awarded to an owner/operator of a nuclear reactor projected to cease operations due to economic factors and certified by the Department as part of the CNC program.

*Department* means the Department of Energy.

*Nuclear reactor* means a nuclear power reactor unit with respect to which an owner/operator has been awarded credits pursuant to the civil nuclear credit program.

*Owner/operator* means the owner or operator of a nuclear reactor that has been awarded credits pursuant to the civil nuclear credit program.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Energy.
OFFiCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**
January8, 1942

Honorable

E. AL.' Shelton OountpAuditor,sohnaonCounty Cleburne,

Texas Dear Slrr Re: @inion Request No. O-4308

We have your letter of reosnt date, requesting the opinionof this Department on the following

question: -"Can **a** Oomu$asloherat

Oourt laaue time warrantsfor maohlnery beyond the term of otfioe of the oommlsaloner?w

Befor;w6:oan auaweryour lnqulrf,it will be neobaaary

that you ftinish ua with additional lniormtion, It is atated lmyour letter =A tax levy la attimpted to be set ap bat it omen out of t&e apeolal road levy an6 does **not** oover..a oounty-wide levy, althoughon Its raoe it may appealto **be** 6 oounty-Fide 1erp.w 'Pldaae give ua detail+ lnfomatlori oon06rnlng this, statement. Also -give ua oomplete

5.niormtlOn

ooaoarnlug ~the

.tolfowlhg

istatement

In Jour letter; *And 'not only .otlt,.or~the

speolslmad levy but out or the portion clef aalde 

## rm the partloular preolnot.a 1. Thanking

you for your attentloxi to this matter, we are Yours veri truly ATTORNEYGEnl!RALOF&XAS~ 

### B; 14y&4a!&

AMel1 Wllllama AssIstant .

.
#### § 709.10 Scope of a counterintelligence evaluation.

A counterintelligence evaluation consists of a counterintelligence-based review of the covered person's personnel security file and review of other relevant information available to DOE in accordance with applicable guidelines and authorities. As provided in § 709.3(b), DOE also may require a CI-scope polygraph examination. As provided for in § 709.3(c), a CI evaluation, if conducted on a random basis, will include a CI-scope polygraph examination. As set forth in § 709.15(b) and (c) of this part, a counterintelligence evaluation may also include other pertinent measures to address and resolve counterintelligence issues in accordance with Executive Order 12333, the DOE “Procedures for Intelligence Activities,” and other relevant laws, guidelines and authorities, as applicable.
#### § 81.51 Appeals.

An applicant for a license, a licensee, or a third party who has participated under § 81.30(a)(3) shall have the right to appeal in accordance with the appeal procedures of this subpart any decision of the Commission concerning the grant, denial, interpretation, modification, or revocation of a license under this subpart, by filing a notice of appeal with the Commission within thirty (30) days from the date of the mailing of a notice by the Commission of the decision or, if no such notice to the person desiring to appeal, then thirty (30) days from publication in the Federal Register of the facts which show such a decision. The notice of appeal shall specify the portion of the decision from which the appeal is taken, and the reasons why the decision is erroneous. A statement of fact and argument in the form of a brief in support of the appeal may be submitted with the notice of appeal or, if the appellant prefers, may be filed with the Commission within fifteen (15) days after the filing of the notice of appeal. If a statement of fact and argument in the form of a brief in support of the appeal is not submitted with the notice, the appellant shall state in the notice whether such a statement of fact and argument in the form of a brief in support of the appeal will be filed.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 626 

Congratulating Albert Pujols on being named the Most Valuable Player for 

the National League for the 2005 Major League Baseball season. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Mr. CARNAHAN (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. CLAY, Mr. AKIN, Mr. 

COSTELLO, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. GRAVES, 

Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Ms. WATERS, 

Mr. TANNER, and Mr. MCINTYRE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Albert Pujols on being named the Most Valuable Player for the National League for the 2005 Major 

League Baseball season. 

Whereas Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals was named 

the Most Valuable Player for the National League for the 

2005 Major League Baseball season; 

Whereas in 2005 Albert Pujols led the Cardinals with a batting average of .330, 41 home runs, 117 runs batted in, 

and 16 stolen bases; 

Whereas Albert Pujols is the only player in the history of 

Major League Baseball to have a batting average higher 

than .300, hit 30 or more home runs, drive in 100 or 
2 

•HRES 626 IH 

more runs, and score 100 or more runs in each of his 

first five seasons in the major leagues; 

Whereas Albert Pujols has already won the 2001 Rookie of 

the Year Award for the National League, the 2003 National League batting championship, and the Most Valuable Player Award for the 2004 National League Championship Series; 

Whereas Albert Pujols exemplifies true sportsmanship and 

class; and 

Whereas Albert Pujols is active in numerous St. Louis area 

charities and causes, most notably through his establishment of, and involvement in, the Pujols Family Foundation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates Albert Pujols on being named the Most Valu3 able Player for the National League for the 2005 Major 

4 League Baseball season. 

Æ
#### § 727.4 Is there any expectation of privacy applicable to a DOE computer?

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any provision of law enacted by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986), no user of a DOE computer shall have any expectation of privacy in the use of that DOE computer.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 853 

Calling upon the people of the United States to recognize International 

Chart Day on April 26, 2018, in celebration of charts and infographics 

of all types. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Mr. TAKANO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Calling upon the people of the United States to recognize 

International Chart Day on April 26, 2018, in celebration of charts and infographics of all types. 

Whereas charts have been around for hundreds of years as 

a tool to translate complex information; 

Whereas charts and infographics give users the ability to provide information through a variety of means, such as line 

graphs, bar graphs, data maps, Venn diagrams, scatterplots, pie charts, and histograms; 

Whereas charts, when properly employed, appeal to the 

brain’s ability to process perceptual features and unearth 

patterns and trends that large amounts of data often 

hide; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 853 IH 

Whereas celebrated Western innovators have embraced the 

power of charts and statistics to advance and improve social and cultural conditions, including nurse and statistician Florence Nightingale, economist and pie chart inventor William Playfair, epidemiologist Dr. John Snow, who 

used maps to solve the riddle of the 1854 Broad Street 

cholera outbreak, and American scholar Edward Tufte; 

Whereas a chart with a complete set of data is an effective 

tool for dispelling common misconceptions; 

Whereas a public that is able to effectively assess quantitative 

information will be less susceptible to misinformation 

campaigns; 

Whereas a properly sourced and labeled chart allows consumers to validate the data for themselves, and potentially extrapolate more information as they adjust the 

data boundaries; 

Whereas in almost every profession, from teaching to engineering to plumbing to healing, charts are used to share 

information quickly and efficiently; 

Whereas roughly 6,500 languages are spoken in the world, 

and visual forms of information can interpret knowledge 

with minimal use of a common language; and 

Whereas Congress has effectively used charts on the floor of 

the House of Representatives and Senate to support positions on policy: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the efforts to celebrate charts and 

3 infographics; 

4 (2) encourages the public to use charts to be5 come smarter consumers of information; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 853 IH 

1 (3) recognizes the hard work of the infographic2 creating community to provide the public with alter3 native means of absorbing knowledge, news, and in4 formation; and 

5 (4) calls upon the people of the United States 

6 to recognize ‘‘International Chart Day’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
PGI 219.705-4 Reviewing the subcontracting plan.       When reviewing the subcontracting plan, contracting officers may use the document entitled “DoD Checklist for Reviewing Subcontracting Plans.” The document is available at http://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/.    **Parent topic:** PGI 219.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting assistance program.
OSWER/OSRTI 

Washington, DC 20460 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) 

***Proposed Site*** May 2014 

DELTA SHIPYARD Houma, Louisiana

Terrebonne Parish

 Site Location:

The former Delta Shipyard is located at 200 Dean Court in southeastern Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The 

facility is located in a mixed industrial and residential area south of the city of Houma, Louisiana. 

 Site History:

Delta Shipyard was a cleaning and repair facility for small cargo boats, fishing boats, and oil barges. Oily waste from 

the cleaning process was stored in several unlined earthen pits used as evaporation ponds. These pits were reportedly 

also used to dispose of oil field drilling material. Delta Shipyard was owned by Delta Ironworks, Inc. The entire 

property consisted of 165 acres and was home to seven divisions of Delta Ironworks, including Delta Shipyard. During 

the 1970s and 1980s, the property changed hands through several mergers and sales. In January 2012, the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality asked the EPA for assistance in evaluating this site.

 Site Contamination/Contaminants:

Wetlands are contaminated with arsenic, antimony, anthracene, barium, benzene, cadmium, chromium, ethylbenzene, 

fluorene, lead, manganese, mercury, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, o-xylene and m,pxylene to the surface water pathway. In addition, three evaporation pits containing greater than 30,000 cubic yards of 

hazardous material are located in a wetland and may potentially release waste to nearby waterways. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment:

Large volumes of waste remain on site, and hazardous substances have been found in ground water, surface water and 

soil. The closest residential property is located approximately 400 feet west of the open pits. Without remediation of 

the site, additional releases to ground water, surface water and soil will continue to occur. 

 Response Activities (to date):

No response actions have taken place. 

 Need for NPL Listing:

The site was referred to the EPA in 2012 from the state of Louisiana. Without listing the site, contamination will 

continue to pose a risk to human health and the environment. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evaluated, 

but are not viable at this time. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the state. 

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may 

change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent 

FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to 

these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on 

the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80509-80510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32124]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant

[[Page 80510]]

applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access 
Committee.
    Date: January 7, 2011.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Camilla E. Day, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
CIDR, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes 
of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4075, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
402-8837, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0261636f6b6e6e632c66637b426c6b6a2c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c7c5c9cdc8c8c58ac0c5dde4cacdcc8ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 16, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-32124 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>