alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.510 Who maintains SAM Exclusions?

The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains SAM Exclusions. When a Federal agency takes an action to exclude a person under the nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the agency enters the information about the excluded person into SAM Exclusions.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2013-0627; Dir ID 2012-NM-021-AD
§ 76.115 Special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance—Category II. ( a ) The requirements for material control and accounting for special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance (Category II) are contained in §§ 74.11. 74.13, 74.15, 74.17, 74.19, 74.41, 74.43, 74.45, 74.81, and 74.82 of this chapter.
( b ) The requirements for physical security for special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance (Category II) are contained in §§ 73.67, and 73.1200 of this chapter.
( c ) The Corporation may neither transport Category II material offsite nor deliver Category II material to a carrier for transport offsite.
( d ) The requirements for the protection of Safeguards Information pertaining to special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance—Category II are contained in §§ 73.21 and 73.22 of this chapter. Information designated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information must be protected in accordance with DOE requirements.
[59 FR 48960, Sept. 23, 1994, as amended at 67 FR 78149, Dec. 23, 2002; 73 FR 63581, Oct. 24, 2008; 88 FR 15899, Mar. 14, 2023]
#### PEOPLE ex rel. DAVIS v. BAKER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Martin Davis, against William F. Baker, as Commissioner. M. G. Kenney, of New York City, for relator. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceeding affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
§ 71.105 Quality assurance program. ( a ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish, at the earliest practicable time consistent with the schedule for accomplishing the activities, a quality assurance program that complies with the requirements of §§ 71.101 through 71.137. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall document the quality assurance program by written procedures or instructions and shall carry out the program in accordance with those procedures throughout the period during which the packaging is used. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall identify the material and components to be covered by the quality assurance program, the major organizations participating in the program, and the designated functions of these organizations.
( b ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC, through its quality assurance program, shall provide control over activities affecting the quality of the identified materials and components to an extent consistent with their importance to safety, and as necessary to assure conformance to the approved design of each individual package used for the shipment of radioactive material. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall assure that activities affecting quality are accomplished under suitably controlled conditions. Controlled conditions include the use of appropriate equipment; suitable environmental conditions for accomplishing the activity, such as adequate cleanliness; and assurance that all prerequisites for the given activity have been satisfied. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall take into account the need for special controls, processes, test equipment, tools, and skills to attain the required quality, and the need for verification of quality by inspection and test.
( c ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall base the requirements and procedures of its quality assurance program on the following considerations concerning the complexity and proposed use of the package and its components: ( 1 ) The impact of malfunction or failure of the item to safety;
( 2 ) The design and fabrication complexity or uniqueness of the item;
( 3 ) The need for special controls and surveillance over processes and equipment;
( 4 ) The degree to which functional compliance can be demonstrated by inspection or test; and
( 5 ) The quality history and degree of standardization of the item.
( d ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality, as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall review the status and adequacy of the quality assurance program at established intervals. Management of other organizations participating in the quality assurance program shall review regularly the status and adequacy of that part of the quality assurance program they are executing.
Exhibit 23.2











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED


PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:





|    |                                                                                                                    
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 File No. 333-198158) of Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc.;

|    |                                                                                                                                                                  
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 File No. 333-212913) pertaining to the 2013 Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan; and

|    |                                                                                                                       
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-3ASR File No. 333-215229) of Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc.,

of our report dated March 20, 2018, relating to the consolidated financial statements of MM Solar Parent, LLC, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.











/s/ EKS&H LLLP





March 20, 2018


Boulder, Colorado
#### Margarita Reyes, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and Morton Tabak et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 873]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated May 28, 2004, as granted the motion of the defendants Pro Concrete Contractors Corp. and Atlas Transit Mix Corporation, and the separate motion of the defendants Morton Tabak, Bernard Tabak, Myra Tabak, and 221 E. 10th Street, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants Pro Concrete Contractors Corp. (hereinafter Pro Concrete) and Atlas Transit Mix Corporation (hereinafter Atlas) established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not create the alleged dangerous condition or have a contractual duty to maintain and repair the subject sidewalk *(see Paladino v Time Warner Cable of N.Y. City,*16 AD3d 646 [2005]). Moreover, inasmuch as Pro Concrete and Atlas, the independent contractors hired by the owners, defendants Morton Tabak, Bernard Tabak, Myra Tabak, and 221 E. 10th Street (hereinafter collectively the owners), established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the owners alleged to be vicariously liable for the contractors’ negligence likewise established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court properly rejected the affidavit of the *668plaintiffs expert on the grounds that it was speculative and conclusory *(see Gralnik v Brighton Beach Assoc.,*3 AD3d 518 [2004]). An expert’s affidavit proffered as the sole evidence to defeat summary judgment must contain sufficient allegations to demonstrate that the conclusions it contains are more than mere speculation and would, if offered alone at trial, support a verdict in the proponent’s favor *(see Romano v Stanley,*90 NY2d 444 [1997]). Here, the expert affidavit provided no data to indicate the scientific basis for the expert engineer’s conclusion as to the age of the various portions of the sidewalk *(see Paladino v Time Warner Cable of N.Y. City, supra; Shea v Sky Bounce Ball Co.,*294 AD2d 486 [2002]). Adams, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
§ 200.401 Application. ( a ) *General.* These principles must be used in determining the allowable costs of work performed by the non-Federal entity under Federal awards. These principles also must be used by the non-Federal entity as a guide in the pricing of fixed-price contracts and subcontracts where costs are used in determining the appropriate price. The principles do not apply to: ( 1 ) Arrangements under which Federal financing is in the form of loans, scholarships, fellowships, traineeships, or other fixed amounts based on such items as education allowance or published tuition rates and fees.
( 2 ) For IHEs, capitation awards, which are awards based on case counts or number of beneficiaries according to the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
( 3 ) Fixed amount awards. See also § 200.1 Definitions and 200.201.
( 4 ) Federal awards to hospitals (see appendix IX to this part).
( 5 ) Other awards under which the non-Federal entity is not required to account to the Federal Government for actual costs incurred.
( b ) *Federal contract.* Where a Federal contract awarded to a non-Federal entity is subject to the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), it incorporates the applicable CAS clauses, Standards, and CAS administration requirements per the 48 CFR Chapter 99 and 48 CFR part 30 (FAR Part 30). CAS applies directly to the CAS-covered contract and the Cost Accounting Standards at 48 CFR parts 9904 or 9905 takes precedence over the cost principles in this subpart E with respect to the allocation of costs. When a contract with a non-Federal entity is subject to full CAS coverage, the allowability of certain costs under the cost principles will be affected by the allocation provisions of the Cost Accounting Standards (*e.g.,* CAS 414—48 CFR 9904.414, Cost of Money as an Element of the Cost of Facilities Capital, and CAS 417—48 CFR 9904.417, Cost of Money as an Element of the Cost of Capital Assets Under Construction), apply rather the allowability provisions of § 200.449. In complying with those requirements, the non-Federal entity's application of cost accounting practices for estimating, accumulating, and reporting costs for other Federal awards and other cost objectives under the CAS-covered contract still must be consistent with its cost accounting practices for the CAS-covered contracts. In all cases, only one set of accounting records needs to be maintained for the allocation of costs by the non-Federal entity.
( c ) *Exemptions.* Some nonprofit organizations, because of their size and nature of operations, can be considered to be similar to for-profit entities for purpose of applicability of cost principles. Such nonprofit organizations must operate under Federal cost principles applicable to for-profit entities located at 48 CFR 31.2. A listing of these organizations is contained in appendix VIII to this part. Other organizations, as approved by the cognizant agency for indirect costs, may be added from time to time.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 85 FR 49562, Aug. 13, 2020]
§ 415.6 Secretary's general responsibilities. ( a ) The Secretary provides opportunities for consultation by elected officials of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that would be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance from, or direct Federal development by, the Department.
( b ) If a State adopts a process under the Order to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, the Secretary, to the extent permitted by law: ( 1 ) Uses the State process to determine official views of State and local elected officials;
( 2 ) Communicates with State and local elected officials as early in a program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions;
( 3 ) Makes efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns with proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development that are communicated through the State process;
( 4 ) Allows the States to simplify and consolidate existing Federally required State plan submissions;
( 5 ) Where State planning and budgeting systems are sufficient and where permitted by law, encourages the substitution of State plans for Federally required State plans;
( 6 ) Seeks the coordination of views of affected State and local elected officials in one State with those of another State when proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development has an impact on interstate metropolitan urban centers or other interstate areas; and
( 7 ) Supports State and local governments by discouraging the reauthorization or creation of any planning organization which is Federally-funded, which has a limited purpose, and which is not adequately representative of, or accountable to, State or local elected officials.
Petition for Exemption from HR 658-62; Subtitle B; Section 333

1. Charles D. Boldin

917 Golfview Ct.

Rochester Hills, MI 48307

248-330-5107

Email: chuck@chumel.com

2. This petition is for Exemption from HR 658-62; Subtitle B; Section 333; 

Flying a drone for commercial purposes

3. I am a Home Inspector in Michigan. I am seeking authorization to operate a 

small drone weighing less than 3 pounds for the purpose of photographing 

house & building Roof Tops while performing a home or building 

inspection. The particular drone I have at the moment is a 1.5 pound 

Parrott AR. The drone would operate approximately 20 feet above the roof 

top. 

4. A Home owner or prospective buyer would benefit from close up 

photographs of the roof, inaccessible without special equipment & trained 

personnel, revealing its condition.

5. Granting this exemption would not affect safety. Flying a small drone 20 

feet above a roof top whether in or outside of a control zone would not 

interfere with local aviation traffic. I hold a Commercial Pilot’s License 

(1829468) and I am Instrument Rated. I have an in depth understanding 

and appreciation of the Federal Aviation Regulations and would not 

operate a drone in any unauthorized nor hazardous areas.

6. Summary: A petition for Exemption from HR 658-62; Subtitle B; Section 

333 has been filed by Charles D. Boldin, a licensed Commercial pilot, for 

the purpose of photographing roof tops while performing home Inspections. 

The drone will operate approximately 20 feet above a roof top.
§ 1132.210 Procurement of recovered materials. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must address requirements for procurement of recovered materials if State agencies or agencies of a political subdivision of a State may receive awards using those terms and conditions or be subrecipients under those awards.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must either: ( 1 ) Use the wording that appendix B provides for Section G of PROC Article II, to specify requirements for a local government or other political subdivision of a State to comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements; or
( 2 ) Reserve Section G if the DoD Component determines that it is not possible that a political subdivision of a State will receive either: ( i ) An award using those terms and conditions; or
( ii ) A subaward under an award using those terms and conditions.
Exhibit
32.2
 CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION
1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SigmaBroadband Co., (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2016 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy D. Valley, President and
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)  The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
 SIGMABROADBAND
CO.May 5,
2017
By:
/s/ 
Timothy D.
ValleyTimothy
D. ValleyChief Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 1315 Lower Tribunal No. 2021

- CA

- 008420

- O

_____________________________ M AYLIN M ASO , Appellant,

v. S ECURITY F IRST I NSURANCE C OMPANY d / b / a S ECURITY F IRST F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

. Kevin B. Weiss , Judge. December 15, 2023
PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s final order dismissing Appellant's complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Hughes v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. , No. 6D23

- 296, 2023 WL 8108671 (Fla. 6th DCA Nov. 22, 2023)

. 1 Also consistent with Hughes , we certify conflict with Cole

1 This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023

.2 v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. , 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
REVERSED and REMANDED. STARGEL, NARDELLA and GANNAM , JJ., concur.

Kenneth R. Duboff , of Duboff Law Firm , North Miami, for Appellant

. C. DeWitt Revels, III , and Celeste Murphy

- Gerling , of Walker, Revels, Greninger, PLLC , Orlando , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
## Proposed Rule: Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under

the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule Meeting Documentation : Phone Communication with 3M , March 2 8 , 2012 Date Staff Contact Information

(Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date s ent to

EPA - CCD

3/2 8 /12 Lisa Grogan-McCulloch

Groganmcculloch.lisa@epa.gov 202 - 343 - 9743 3M On the phone: Jeff Muffat - Environmental Regulatory Affairs Dana Schnobrich - Senior Environmental Engineering Specialist, Materials Resources Division Kurt Werner - Business Manager, Electronics Markets Materials Division Among the issues: CBI determinations and trade secret concerns for subpart L Submitted comments to the docket
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 910 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 910

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 13, 2006.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 9) to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 
bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
Minority Leader or their designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```