alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBidirectional Brush SealsPresented is a study of the use of a set of I.D./O.D. bidirectional press seals to reduce the leakage losses in a wave rotor. Relative to the baseline configuration, data indicate the use of brush seals enhanced wave rotor efficiency from 36 to 45 percent at low leakages (small rotor endwall gap spacings) and from 15 to 33 percent at high leakages (larger endwall gap spacings). These brush seals are capable of sealing positive or negative pressure drops with respect to the axial direction. Surface tribology for these tests suggested little evidence of grooving although the bristles appeared polished.Document ID19970019097Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsHendricks, Robert C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Wilson, Jack*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Wu, Tom*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Flower, Ralph*(Cross Mfg. Ltd., Devizes Wiltshire,  United Kingdom)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1997Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-10519NAS 1.15:107351NASA-TM-107351Meeting InformationMeeting: Turbo ExpoLocation: Orlando, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: June 2, 1997End Date: June 5, 1997Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N20967Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 233-1B-1BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970019097.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.451 Moratorium on new local preferred provider organization plans.

CMS will not approve the offering of a local preferred provider organization plan during 2006 or 2007 in a service area unless the MA organization seeking to offer the plan was offering a local preferred provider organization plan in the service area before December 31, 2005.
#### § 423.2116 Effect of dismissal of request for Council review or request for hearing.

The dismissal of a request for Council review or denial of a request for review of a dismissal issued by an ALJ or attorney adjudicator is binding and not subject to further review unless reopened and vacated by the Council. The Council's dismissal of a request for hearing is also binding and not subject to judicial review.

[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5138, Jan. 17, 2017]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluation of Boundary-Enhancement Additives for PerfluoropolyethersSix additives were synthesized and evaluated as boundary lubrication enhancers for perfluoropolyethers. These additives included a phosphonate, a thiophosphonate, a beta-diketone, a benzothiazole, an amide and a sulfite. These additives were evaluated in a vacuum four-ball apparatus, at a one weight percent concentration in a perfluoropolyether based on hexafluoropropene oxide. Tests were performed in vacuum (less than 5.0 x 10(exp 6) Torr), at room temperature (approx. 23 C), at an initial Hertzian stress of 3.5 GPa (200N load), and a sliding velocity of 28.8 mm/sec (100 rpm). Infrared (IR) and Raman spectroscopies were used to analyze the 440 C specimens after testing. Wear rates for each formulation were determined from the slope of wear volume as a function of sliding distance. All additives yielded reductions in mean wear rates of at least 55 percent, with the exception of the benzothiazole which had no effect. Two of the additives, an amide and a sulfite, reduced the mean wear rate by at least 80 percent. IR and Raman analysis indicated the severity of wear can be correlated to the amount of surface fluorinated polymeric acid species (R(sub f)COOH) and amorphous carbon, in and around the wear scar.Document ID19970010386Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsShogrin, Bradley A.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Jones, William R. , Jr.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Herrera-Fierro, Pilar*(Ohio Aerospace Inst. Brook Park, OH United States)*Lin, Tzuhn-Yuan*(Exfluor Research Corp. Austin, TX United States)*Kawa, Hajimu*(Exfluor Research Corp. Austin, TX United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1996Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107393NAS 1.15:107393E-10594Meeting InformationMeeting: 1997 Tribology ConferenceLocation: LondonCountry: United KingdomStart Date: September 8, 1997End Date: September 12, 1997Sponsors:Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers,American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N15607Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 225-00-00CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-27285Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970010386.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 423.2276 Employer group retiree marketing.

Part D sponsors may develop marketing materials designed for members of an employer group who are eligible for employer-sponsored benefits through the Part D sponsor, and furnish these materials only to the group members. These materials are not subject to CMS prior review and approval.
§ 412.89 Payment adjustment for certain replaced devices. ( a ) *General rule.* For discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2007, the amount of payment for a discharge described in paragraph (b) of this section is reduced when— ( 1 ) A device is replaced without cost to the hospital;
( 2 ) The provider received full credit for the cost of a device; or
( 3 ) The provider receives a credit equal to 50 percent or more of the cost of the device.
( b ) *Discharges subject to payment adjustment.* ( 1 ) Payment is reduced in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section only if the implantation of the device determines the DRG assignment.
( 2 ) CMS lists the DRGs that qualify under paragraph (b)(1) of this section in the annual final rule for the hospital inpatient prospective payment system.
( c ) *Amount of reduction.* ( 1 ) For a device provided to the hospital without cost, the cost of the device is subtracted from the DRG payment.
[72 FR 47411, Aug. 22, 2007]
# C_2005229EN.01000202.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam in A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (1)

1

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope - Invalidity benefit - Continued entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State)

(2005/C 229/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-227/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 May 2003, received at the Court on 26 May 2003, in the proceedings between A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën and Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 39 EC precludes legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a person who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory remains compulsorily insured in respect of some branches of social security only if he continues to reside there, whilst that person remains compulsorily insured under the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain other branches of social security even if his residence is in another Member State, in circumstances where the conditions relating to voluntary insurance, in respect of the branches for which compulsory insurance has ceased, are less favourable than those relating to compulsory insurance.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.

1

---
# C_2005266EN.01000401.xml

| 27.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3720 — Baes/AMS)

(2005/C 266/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 March 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3720. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3720. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
EXHIBIT
16





SUMMARY
OF OFFICER AND DIRECTOR COMPENSATION








Except
for the Employment Agreement in Exhibit 6 of this report, the Company does not
have any written contractual compensation arrangements with any of its employees
or directors, including Executive Officers.





During
2008, the Company’s Chief Executive and Principal Financial Officers (the
Company’s “Named Executive Officers”) are scheduled to receive the following
compensation from the Company:





Compensation
      Arrangement
            
            2008 Scheduled
    AmountBase
      salary
            
            $256,100
      (CEO); $95,200 (PFO)401(k)
      matching contributions
            
            5,520
      (maximum)Section
      125 plan matching contributions (1)
            
            450
      (maximum)Management
      bonus
            
            will
      be determined at year-endPet
      health benefits (1)
            
            500
      (maximum)Family
      medical benefits (1)
            
            will
      depend on future eventsTravel
      expense reimbursement (2)
            
            8,000
      (CEO); 2,000 (PFO)








During
2008, the Company’s Directors are scheduled to receive the following
compensation from the Company:





Compensation Arrangement
            
            
            Ernst Hoyer
            
            
            Barbara Payne
            
            
            James BeesonBase
            
            
            $
            21,000
            
            
            $
            21,000
            
            
            $
            21,000Executive
      Committee
            
            
            
            4,000
            
            
            
            -
            
            
            
            -Audit
      Committee Chairman
            
            
            
            2,000
            
            
            
            -
            
            
            
            -Travel
      Expense Reimbursement (2)
            
            
            
            500
            
            
            
            700
            
            
            
            500





(1)   CEO
and PFO participate on the same basis as other eligible employees.


(2)   Estimated
2008 travel expenses on behalf of UTMD business.  The Company
reimburses its employees and directors for authorized business
expenses.
#### McCAY ENGINEERING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[Not reported in C. Cls. R.; 252 U. S., 571.]

Decided March 22, 1920.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*by an equally divided court.
# C_2006060EN.01001301.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/13

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 1 December 2005

in Case C-512/04 P Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Krafft SA (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT - Opposition from the proprietor of national marks containing the word element ‘krafft’ - Similarity between marks - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 60/27)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-512/04 P: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bremen (Germany) (represented by U. Sander, Rechtsanwalt), the other parties to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (Agent: G. Schneider), Krafft SA, established in Andoain (Spain) (represented by P. Koch Moreno, abogada) — an appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 14 December 2004, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Krafft SA

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 45 of 19.02.2005

1

---
Government RegulatoryImpact Model8/29/2006CAC_GRIM_v3.xlsPRICE PER YEAR02004006008001,0001,2002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2031

$ / unitBaseStandard____________I...-------.,/_-----+--------+-----....,-+----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,688,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,688,830
<PP&E>                                     189,875,741
<DEPRECIATION>                             189,875,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,688,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,688,830
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,688,830
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,364
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (16,752)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 99-391.

#### Free et al. *v.*Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.
H. R. 3034

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to extend

for two months the authority for promulgating regulations under the Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS.

Section 107(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450k(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘18 months’’ and inserting ‘‘20 months’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
1 MEMORANDUM

From: Office of Air Qual ity Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044)

Date: March, 2011

Subject: Incorporation by Reference of Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 – “National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Polluta nts from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units”

This docket contains information that is re levant to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044 entitled,

“Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired El ectric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional,

and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional SteamGenerating Units.” Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0234 is incorporated by reference into Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044.
II

Calendar No. 573

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3068

[Report No. 104–361]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 23, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

SEPTEMBER 3, 1996

Reported by Mr. MCCAIN, with an amendment

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

AN ACT

To accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke their charter of incorporation issued under

the Indian Reorganization Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3068 RS

1 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORA2 TION OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND INDIAN COM3 MUNITY UNDER THE INDIAN REORGANIZA4 TION ACT.

5 The request of the Prairie Island Indian Community

6 to surrender the charter of incorporation issued to that

7 Community on July 23, 1937, pursuant to section 17 of

8 the Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as the ‘‘Indian

9 Reorganization Act’’ (25 U.S.C. 477) is hereby accepted

10 and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.

11 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION

12 OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND INDIAN COMMUNITY

13 UNDER THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT.

14 (a) ACCEPTANCE OF REQUEST TO REVOKE CHAR15 TER.—The request of the Prairie Island Indian Community

16 to surrender the charter of incorporation issued to that com17 munity on July 23, 1937, pursuant to section 17 of the

18 Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as the ‘‘Indian Re19 organization Act’’ (48 Stat. 988, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C.

20 477) is hereby accepted.

21 (b) REVOCATION OF CHARTER.—The charter of incor22 poration referred to in subsection (a) is hereby revoked.

23 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE

24 WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT.

25 Section 8(e)(3) The Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water

26 Rights Settlement Act (106 Stat. 2241) is amended by strik-
3

•HR 3068 RS

1 ing ‘‘December 31, 1996’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31,

2 1998’’.

3 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE

4 WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1992.

5 Section 3711(b)(1) of the San Carlos Apache Tribe

6 Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4752) is

7 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 1996’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘June 30, 1997’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
Calendar No. 573

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3068

[Report No. 104–361]

AN ACT

To accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian

tion issued under the Indian Reorganization Act.Community to revoke their charter of incorporaSEPTEMBER 3, 1996

Reported with an amendment
#### Sullivan *v.*Weaver.

A writ of erre® does not lie to a judgment on an award under the compulsory arbitration act.

In error from the Common Pleas of Armstrong.

The plaintiff in this case entered a rule to choose arbitrators, who, having been chosen, filed their report. The defendant then sued out this writ of error, and assigned errors in the *narr.*and the award.

*Phelps,*for plaintiff in error.

*McOlure,*contó.

*Oct.*18.

Burnside, J.

From proceedings under the compulsory arbitration act, there is no remedy by writ of error. The act of Assembly gives a remedy by appeal, and appeal only. Such has been the uniform course of decision in this court. The cases *224on this subject are collected and reviewed by Mr. Justice Huston in Le Barren *v.*Harriott et al. 3 Penn. Rep. 154. In Brinter *v.*Ridenhour, not reported, it was held, after award for the plaintiff,- and no cause of action stated in the declaration, this court would not interfere. We can do nothing for the plaintiff in error. .

Judgment affirmed.