alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Estuarine monitoring programs in the Albemarle Sound study area, North Carolina

By: Michelle MoormanKatharine R. KolbStacy Supak

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141110

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report** 
- Companion Files:                               - **Companion Files**
  - **Companion Files** 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Albemarle Sound was selected in 2012 as one of the two demonstration sites in the Nation to test and improve the design of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council’s National Monitoring Network (NMN) for U.S. Coastal Waters and their tributaries. The goal of the NMN for U.S. coastal waters and tributaries is to provide information about the health of our oceans and coastal ecosystems and inland influences on coastal waters for improved resource management. The NMN is an integrated, multidisciplinary, and multiorganizational program using multiple sources of data and information to augment current monitoring programs.

 

The purpose of this report is to identify major natural resource management issues for the region, provide information on current monitoring activities occurring within the Albemarle Sound study area, determine how the current monitoring network fits into the design of the NMN, and determine what additional monitoring data are needed to address these issues. In order to address these questions, a shapefile and data table were created to document monitoring and research programs in the Albemarle Sound study area with an emphasis on current monitoring programs within the region. This database was queried to determine monitoring gaps that existed in the Albemarle Sound by comparing current monitoring programs with the design indicated by the NMN. The report uses this information to provide recommendations on how monitoring could be improved in the Albemarle Sound study area.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Editorial Note on Part 170
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 170 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001, and 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 170.60 Nitrites and/or nitrates in curing premixes. ( a ) Nitrites and/or nitrates are food additives when combined in curing premixes with spices and/or other flavoring or seasoning ingredients that contain or constitute a source of secondary or tertiary amines, including but not limited to essential oils, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, hydrolysates of animal or plant origin (such as hydrolyzed vegetable protein), oleoresins of spices, soy products, and spice extractives. Such food additives may be used only after the establishment of an authorizing food additive regulation. A food additive petition submitted pursuant to §§ 171.1 and 171.100 of this chapter, supported by data demonstrating that nitrosamines are not formed in curing premixes containing such food additives, is required to establish safety.
( b ) Nitrites and/or nitrates, when packaged separately from flavoring and seasoning in curing premixes, may continue to be used under prior sanctions in the commercial curing of meat and meat products and poultry products and in accordance with the provisions of §§ 172.170 and 172.175 of this chapter that apply to meat curing preparations for the home curing of meat and meat products, including poultry and wild game. To assure safe use of such ingredients the labeling of the premixes shall bear instructions to the user that such separately packaged ingredients are not to be combined until just prior to use. Encapsulating or coating some or all of the ingredients does not constitute separate packaging.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

127667 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver (47) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, COLLETTE BIELAT, and EDWARD Justices BIELAT, Plaintiffs,

and

CALVIN JENNETTE, and WIESLAWA JENNETT, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 127667 COA: 249147 Macomb CC: 1 984-000612-AA SOUTH MACOMB DISPOSAL AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant,

and

MACOMB TOWNSHIP, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of October 14, 2005 is considered, and it is DE NIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

l0221 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.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 130

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 130 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 130.11 Label designations of ingredients for standardized foods.

Some definitions and standards of identity for foods set forth below require that designated optional ingredients such as spices, flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, stabilizers, preservatives, and sweeteners be declared in a specified manner on the label wherever the name of the standardized food appears on the label so conspicuously as to be easily seen under customary conditions of purchase. Such requirements shall apply to a manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a standardized food only if the words or statements on the label of the standardized food significantly differentiate between two or more foods that comply with the same standard by describing the optional forms or varieties, the packing medium, or significant characterizing ingredients present in the food.

[58 FR 2876, Jan. 6, 1993]
P. 1



### •" Y 

# /*l(lo)f*?>K-£~%

UNIO N CARBID E UNIO N CARBID E CORPORATIO N 3 9 OL D RIDGEBUR Y ROAD , DANBURY
. C T 06817-000 1 Corporat e Health , Safet y an d Environmenta l Affair s Departmen t

Jul y 10 , 198 6

Ms . Barbar a Hostag e EmergencyRespons e Divisio n WH-548/ B Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 40 2 M Stree t SW Washington , D C 2046 0

Re : Meeting t o Discus s Continuou s Emission s Dea r Barbara : Thi s lette r confirm s our telephon e conversatio n o f Jul y7 wherei n w e agree d t o mee t a t 10:0 0 a.m . Jul y1 8 a t the EPAWashingto n office s t o discus s "continuou s emissions. " I enclose d the lis t o f industr yrepresentative s an d thei r affiliation s a s wel l a s thos e individual s fro mEPAtha t yo u hav e identifie d hav e an interes t in thi s issue . I sugges t tha t w e notif yeac h other , i f ther e ar e an ychange s in the abov e lis t o f attendees . A s discusse d o n the telephone , w e woul d lik e t o addres s the followin g matters :
° Definitio n o f continuou s releases ; 0 Annua l notificatio n mechanis mfor continuou s releases ; 0 EPArulemaking ; ° Suggestion s o

n interi mapproaches . W e look forwar

d t o meeting wit h yo u an d other s o n Jul y18 . Sincerely ,

R . F . Kelle y 0767 F Enclosur eP. 2



## • v .

Lis t o f Attendee s Discussio n o f Continuou s Emission s Issu e

Industr y Rober t F . Kelley- Unio n Carbid e Corporatio n To mLingafelte r - Dow Chemica l M . Mullin s - Monsant o Compan y B . L . Tarant o - Exxo n Chemica l America s W . H . Wals h - E . I . duPon t d e Nemour s & Co .

EP A B . Hostag e - Emergenc yRespons e Divisio n N . Parkinso n - EmergencyRespons e Divisio n E . La Point e - Offic e o f Assistan t Administrator , Soli d Wast e an d EmergencyRespons e C . Whelin g - Offic e o f Genera l Counse l J . Rile y- EmergencyRespons e Divisio n T . Fiel d - Emergenc yRespons e Divisio n

07 6 7 F
§ 910.503 Relation to other audit requirements. ( a ) An audit conducted in accordance with this Part must be in lieu of any financial audit of DOE awards which a for-profit entity is required to undergo under any other Federal statute or regulation. To the extent that such audit provides DOE with the information it requires to carry out its responsibilities under Federal statute or regulation, DOE must rely upon and use that information.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, DOE, Inspectors General, or GAO may conduct or arrange for additional audits which are necessary to carry out its responsibilities under Federal statute or regulation. The provisions of this Part do not authorize any for-profit entity to constrain, in any manner, DOE from carrying out or arranging for such additional audits, except that DOE must plan such audits to not be duplicative of other audits of DOE. Any additional audits must be planned and performed in such a way as to build upon work performed, including the audit documentation, sampling, and testing already performed, by other auditors.
( c ) The provisions of this Part do not limit the authority of DOE to conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, audits and evaluations of DOE awards, nor limit the authority of any Federal agency Inspector General or other Federal official.
( d ) DOE to pay for additional audits. If DOE conducts or arranges for additional audits it must, consistent with other applicable Federal statutes and regulations, arrange for funding the full cost of such additional audits.
( e ) Not applicable.
EX-10.2






AGREEMENT

TO

EXTEND THE TERM OF THE

MANAGEMENT CONTINUITY AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, Patrick E. Lamb (the “Executive”) entered into a management continuity agreement with
Fremont General Corporation (the “Company”) effective August 7, 2003 (herein, the “Agreement”);



WHEREAS, the Agreement will terminate on August 7, 2006 unless extended by mutual written
agreement between the Company and the Executive;



NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree that the term of the Agreement is extended to
August 7, 2009.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company hereby agree that the Agreement is amended
to reflect the foregoing.




Patrick E. Lamb


Date:



Fremont General Corporation



By:



Date:
§ 1312.42 Purpose of hearing. ( a ) If requested by a person applying for an import, export, or transshipment permit, the Administrator shall hold a hearing for the purpose of receiving factual evidence regarding the issues involved in the issuance or denial of such permit to such person.
( b ) Extensive argument should not be offered into evidence but rather presented in opening or closing statements of counsel or in memoranda or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[36 FR 23625, Dec. 11, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 15923, Aug. 8, 1972. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973]
#### § 3001.500 Who in DHS determines that a recipient other than an individual violated the requirements of this part?

The Secretary of Homeland Security, or his or her official designee, will make the determination that a recipient other than an individual violated the requirements of this part.
§ 1.1445 Under what circumstances may FDA modify or revoke a waiver? FDA may modify or revoke a waiver if we determine that: ( a ) Compliance with the waived requirements would no longer impose a unique economic hardship on the individual entity or type of entity to which the waiver applies;
( b ) The waiver could significantly impair our ability to rapidly and effectively identify recipients of a food to prevent or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak or to address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals as a result of such food being adulterated under section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or misbranded under section 403(w) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or
( c ) The waiver is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
38400.

#### McHUGH v. TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA.

Decided September 22, 1960.

*Robert M. Sparks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers & McClatchey, George B. Haley, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Although it has not been made clear to us just what a “cement separator” is, we think that it must fall within one of the following classifications: a divider or *413curb commonly used in separating lanes of traffic or in setting apart parking spaces. Also, it could be a divider or property boundary or the perimeter of various landscaping located upon the parking lot. Any one of these can be anticipated by persons traversing a parking lot and we think that the maintenance of these structures does not constitute negligence.

It is argued by counsel for the defendant that neither the construction of a six-inch curb in its paved parking lot, nor its failure to warn the plaintiff of the presence of the curb, constitutes negligence. This position is well taken, we think, for the allegations contained in the pleadings are quite similar to several previous petitions before this court.

This court in *McMullen v. Kroger Co.,*84 Ga. App. 195 (65 S. E. 2d 420) (1951) held that mere allegations describing a concrete bar to be dangerous were subject to general demurrer. In that case, as in the instant case, the petition failed to allege that there were any defects rendering it dangerous and that it was not the type structure which would cause a prudent person reasonably to anticipate danger.

In *Ely v. Barbizon Towers, Inc.,*101 Ga. App. 872 (115 S. E. 2d 616) this court held that the condition of the landlord’s premises did not show the risk of unreasonable danger to invitees under the circumstances alleged in the petition which could have been reasonably foreseen by the landlord.

Under the principle of law established by these cases we think that the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the amended petition and in dismissing the action.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*
# L_2019009EN.01019801.xml

| 11.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 9/198 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 9/198

---

Corrigendum to First Commission Directive 79/796/EEC of 26 July 1979 Laying down Community methods of analysis for testing certain sugars intended for human consumption

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 239 of 22 September 1979
  )

On page 24 and on the cover page, the title of the Directive:

for:

‘
  FIRST COMMISSION DIRECTIVE

of 26 July 1979

Laying down Community methods of analysis for testing certain sugars intended for human consumption

(79/786/EEC)’

read:

‘
  FIRST COMMISSION DIRECTIVE

of 26 July 1979

laying down Community methods of analysis for testing certain sugars intended for human consumption

(79/796/EEC)’

---
38402.

#### SHORE v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY *et al.*

Decided September 7, 1960

Rehearing denied September 27, 1960.

*433*Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Stewart, Sartain & Carey, Joe B. Sartain, Jr.,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

The General Assembly in an act approved January 31, 1946 (Ga. L. 1949, pp. 102, 106; *Code Ann.*§ 114-803), listed various “agents” for which an employee covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act would be compensated as having occasioned an “occupational disease” if poisoned by any of such “agents.” A comparison of the “agents” used by the claimant in the performance of his duties, as shown by the record, and the list shown in the above act demands a finding that the claimant did not suffer a compensable “occupational disease” as defined by such act.

While it is well settled that where an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation is supported by competent evidence neither the superior court nor this court, on appeal, may disturb such award, it is equally as well settled that an award of such board based on an erroneous conclusion of law must be reversed. See *Cook v. Department of Revenue,*100 Ga. App. 172 (110 S. E. 2d 552); *Crawford W. Long Hospital v. Mitchell,*100 Ga. App. 276 (111 S. E. 2d 120); *Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Simpson,*101 Ga. App. 480 (1) (114 S. E. 2d 141).

From the transcript of the record it is apparent that the claimant was not relying, as a basis for recovery, on an “occupational disease” but was relying on an accidental injury which was aggravated by the “agent” (a cleaning compound), used by him in the course of his employment. The deputy director hearing the *434case found that “about March 9, 1959, the claimant skinned his hands while working and this developed further into a breaking out or rash on his hands, and he was treated by Dr. Ariail.”

In *Williamson v. Aetna Casualty*&c. *Co.,*101 Ga. App. 220 (113 S. E. 2d 208), it was held that where an employee received “acid” burns to his legs which resulted, after the burns had healed, in *dermatitis*of the area of the legs burned, compensation for “loss of use” of the legs was allowable although there was no monetary loss to the claimant at the time of the hearing.

The deputy director found that there had been an accidental injury to the claimant while on the job, and presumably he intended to find that such injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, but then he found that since the aggravation, which he also found to have occurred, did not occur as a result of an “occupational disease” as defined by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, no recovery could be had for the resulting *dermatitis.*Under the decision in the case of *Williamson v. Aetna Casualty &c. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 220, supra, this finding was based on an erroneous conclusion of'law, and the judgment of the superior court affirming such award must be reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation for further determination in accordance with this opinion.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
#### § 111.370 What requirements apply to rejected dietary supplements?

You must clearly identify, hold, and control under a quarantine system for appropriate disposition any dietary supplement that is rejected and unsuitable for use in manufacturing, packaging, or labeling operations.
### Are walleye from Lake Roosevelt contaminated with mercury?

By: Martha L. ErwinMark D. Munn**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs10297

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (2.01 MB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

To find out, scientists from the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested walleye and other sport fish from the upper Columbia River and Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (Lake Roosevelt), the largest reservoir in Washington and a popular fishing spot.Findings:
              - Walleye had higher concentrations of mercury than other sport fish. 
              - Larger walleye had higher mercury concentrations than smaller walleye. 
              - Mercury concentrations in walleye fillets ranged from 0.11 to 0.44 parts per million (ppm). These concentrations do not exceed the current Federal standard (1.0 ppm of mercury) designed to protect the health of people who eat small amounts of fish.

After reviewing these findings, the Washington State Department of Health concluded that people who regularly consume large amounts of Lake Roosevelt walleye may be at risk of adverse health effects from mercury and should limit their consumption of these fish.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.131 What must I do to control and dispose of sewage? All of the following requirements apply for the control and disposal of sewage: ( a ) You must dispose of sewage into an adequate sewage or septic system or through other adequate means.
( b ) You must maintain sewage and septic systems in a manner that prevents contamination of covered produce, food contact surfaces, areas used for a covered activity, agricultural water sources, and agricultural water distribution systems with known or reasonably foreseeable hazards.
( c ) You must manage and dispose of leakages or spills of human waste in a manner that prevents contamination of covered produce, and prevents or minimizes contamination of food contact surfaces, areas used for a covered activity, agricultural water sources, or agricultural water distribution systems.
( d ) After a significant event (such as flooding or an earthquake) that could negatively impact a sewage or septic system, you must take appropriate steps to ensure that sewage and septic systems continue to operate in a manner that does not contaminate covered produce, food contact surfaces, areas used for a covered activity, agricultural water sources, or agricultural water distribution systems.
Order filed March 1, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00375-CV

____________

PRIEUR LEARY, III AND MINTVEST CAPITAL, LTD., Appellants

V.

COINMINT, LLC AND COINMINT LIVING TRUST, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-86203

ORDER

Appellants Mintvest Capital, Ltd. and Prieur Leary, III, appeal an order

signed May 7, 2020 that denied their motion for special appearance. On August 21, 

2020, counsel for appellant Prieur Leary, III filed a brief on his behalf, but no brief 

has been filed on behalf of Mintvest Capital, Ltd. On October 11, 2021, this court 

issued notice that appellant Mintvest Capital, Ltd.’s appeal would be dismissed for 

want of prosecution if it did not file a brief within 15 days. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). A request to extend time to file the brief until December 27, 2021 was 

granted. 

As of today, no brief has been filed. We dismiss Mintvest Capital, Ltd.’s 

appeal for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.