alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.200 Assignment records open to public inspection.

(a)

(1) Separate assignment records are maintained in the Office for patents and trademarks. The assignment records relating to trademark applications and registrations (for assignments recorded on or after January 1, 1955) are open to public inspection at the Office, and copies of those assignment records may be obtained upon request and payment of the fee set forth in § 2.6 of this chapter.

(2) All records of trademark assignments recorded before January 1, 1955, are maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The records are open to public inspection. Certified and uncertified copies of those assignment records are provided by NARA upon request and payment of the fees required by NARA.

(b) An order for a copy of an assignment or other document should identify the reel and frame number where the assignment or document is recorded.

[68 FR 48292, Aug. 13, 2003, as amended at 81 FR 72707, Oct. 21, 2016]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
1

Assessing	the	Effect	of	Five	Gasoline	Properties	on	Exhaust	Emissions	from	LightDuty	Vehicles	certified	to	Tier-2	Standards

Analysis	of	Data	from	EPA	Phase	3

(EPAct/V2/E-89)

Appendix		Q.3

Model	Fitting	Information	for

Ethane (Bag	1)

This appendix suFMarizes model fitting for Bag-1 Ethane. Model-fitting techniques and approaches 

suFMarized in Section 8.7. Features of the data and modeling for this compound are listed below.

Fuel-parameter matrix: REDUCED

Media contamination: NO

No. measurements: 62

No. censored values: 0

Modeling approach: MIXED MODEL

Estimated Dependent Variable model: NO
2

Models fit for Bag-1 Ethane

Model Term Notation Model

Linear Effects (Full) FM1 FM2

etOH Ze ● ● ×

Arom Za ● ● ●

T50 Z5 ● ● ●

T90 Z9 ● ×

Fitting history for Bag-1 Ethane – with “FM1” selected as best fit model.

Fit Parameters Test with respect to

Full

Test with respect 

to

Previous Model

Model p -2lnL BIC

1 Dev.1

d Pr>χ

2 Dev. d Pr>χ2

Linear

Effects

5 -

19.51

-8.24

FM1 4 -

19.13

-9.48 0.3730 1 0.54

FM2 3 -

15.29

-7.25 4.2128 2 0.12 3.84 1 0.050

1 A lower value indicates a better fit. 1 The deviation is the difference in

the -2loglik statistics for the 

nested and reference models,

respectively, per Error! Reference source not 

found..

Coefficients and Type-III Tests of Effect for the Full and Best-Fit Models – Ethane (Bag 1).

Effect Full Model Best-Fit Model (FM1)

Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr>t Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr>t

Intercept -4.3412 0.2224 5.00 -19.52 <0.00001 -4.3412 0.2226 5.01 -19.50 <0.00001

Ze

0.05357 0.02621 57.00 2.04 0.046 0.05222 0.02620 57.00 1.99 0.051

Za

-0.1912 0.02298 57.01 -8.32 <0.00001 -0.1925 0.02296 57.01 -8.39 <0.00001

Z5

0.1833 0.02555 57.00 7.17 <0.00001 0.1830 0.02563 57.00 7.14 <0.00001

Z9

0.01363 0.02228 57.01 0.61 0.54

2  veh 0.2448 0.2454

2 

0.02939 0.02958
3
p130338eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0338

Focus Ready Draft 3/25/2013

ENGINEER: Austin \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130338eng

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (03/19/2013):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases:

Migration to groundwater: Hyd Pdt slow

PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN - P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt - P3B1T1

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0338

Use: 

Page 2
p130338eng

Number of Sites/ Location: 1

HB Fuller Company St Paul MN 55164-0683

Days/yr: 40

Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

Landfill

High End: 1.3E+1 kg/site-day over 40 days/yr from 1 site

or 5.1E+2 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL

5.1E+2 kg/yr - all sites

Page 3
----

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, Euratom) No 2273/2004

of 22 December 2004         

amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 203 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament,

Having regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors (1),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 May 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 December 2004.

For the Council

The President

C. VEERMAN            

----

(1)OJ C 19, 23.1.2004, p. 3.

(2)OJ L 293, 12.11.1994, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1149/1999 (OJ L 139, 2.6.1999, p. 1).

----
§ 600.105 Basis, scope, and applicability of subpart B. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart implements the following sections of the Act: ( 1 ) Section 1331(a)(1) which defines a Basic Health Program.
( 2 ) Section 1331(a)(2) which requires the Secretary to certify a Basic Health Program before it may become operational.
( 3 ) Section 1331(f) which requires Secretarial oversight through annual reviews.
( b ) *Scope and applicability.* ( 1 ) This subpart sets forth provisions governing the administration of the BHP, the general requirements for development of a BHP Blueprint required for certification, for program operations and for voluntary program termination.
( 2 ) This subpart applies to all States that submit a BHP Blueprint and request certification to operate a BHP.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.156 Airflow resistance test; Type C supplied-air respirator, demand class; minimum requirements. ( a ) Inhalation resistance shall not exceed 50 millimeters (2 inches) of water at an air flow of 115 liters (4 cubic feet) per minute.
( b ) The exhalation resistance to a flow of air at a rate of 85 liters (3 cubic feet) per minute shall not exceed 25 millimeters (1 inch) of water.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### §§ 2.95-2.98 [Reserved]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.144 Hand-operated blower test; minimum requirements. ( a ) Hand-operated blowers shall be tested by attaching them to a mechanical drive and operating them 6 to 8 hours daily for a period of 100 hours at a speed necessary to deliver 50 liters of air per minute through each completely assembled respirator. Each respirator shall be equipped with the maximum length of hose with which the device is to be approved and the hose shall be connected to each blower or manifold outlet designed for hose connections.
( b ) The crank speed of the hand-operated blower shall not exceed 50 revolutions per minute in order to deliver the required 50 liters of air per minute to each facepiece.
( c ) The power required to deliver 50 liters of air per minute to each wearer through the maximum length of hose shall not exceed one-fiftieth horsepower, and the torque shall not exceed a force of 2.3 kg. (5 pounds) on a 20 cm. (8-inch) crank, as defined in § 84.146.
( d ) The blower shall operate throughout the period without failure or indication of excessive wear of bearings or other working parts.
#### Ex Parte Will H. Price.

*No. 1270.*

*Decided March 3rd,*1897.

County Convict Bond—Approval of.

A County Attorney has no authority to accept county convict bonds, and his acceptance of such a bond, and agreeing, at the time, to secure the approval of the County Judge, did not validate the bond. The bond can only be legally accepted by the County Judge, and, until so accepted, it is not a valid obligation which will protect the convict from arrest by the sheriff.

Appeal from the County Court of Erath. Tried below before Hon. Thomas B. King, County Judge.

Appeal from a judgment remanding to custody on a habeas corpus hearing.

The opinion states the case.

No brief for relator.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was arrested upon two capiases pro fine, the aggregate amount of the two being $106.80. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus, thereby seeking his release from imprisonment under said capiases. Upon the trial of said writ he was remanded to custody. The statement of facts found in the record is not signed by the attorney, nor approved by the court; hence it cannot be considered. Looking to the face of the petition for authority for the writ, we find that the applicant alleges that J. G. Bragg, as principal, and Elmer Leach, W. T. Croslin and A. McCampbell, Jr., as sureties, gave or ex-cuted a convict bond for the release of the appellant; that this bond was accepted by' the County Attorney, for the purpose of being approved by the County Judge of said county; that said attorney failed to have the same approved by said County Judge; that Bragg, the principal, at the time he executed the bond, paid the sum of $8.90, and agreed to pay the same amount each month thereafter until the whole amount was paid. Appellant further alleges that by reason of the acceptance of this bond and the first payment thereon, and because the contract was not canceled, he was discharged from further liability under the judgment aforesaid. This bond was not approved by the County Judge of said Erath County until applicant’s “term of service under said bond was about out.” Under the statements made by the applicant as above set forth, it is shown that the bond was not an existing valid obligation, *276and did not protect him from arrest by the sheriff, of which he complains. The action of the County Attorney in accepting the bond, and agreeing at the time to secure the approval of the County Judge thereon, did not validate the bond. The County Attorney has.no authority to accept convict bonds. This must be done by the County Judge. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8406

TOMMY BURGESS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:08-cv-02477-HFF)

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 24, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM OPINION.

Tommy Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tommy Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burgess has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Field Report 10/19 & 10/20, Central Georgia Erosion & Sediment and Stormwater Quality Workshop By Matt Burns

The 2 day event in Griffin Georgia on 10/19 & 10/20 produced the following results. The background water was pumped from the pond, (Photo 1). Th e pond was approximately 60 to 80 ft wide and the same long (square pond). The water was prepared by the City of Griffin Stormwater Division. In coming water measured 2189 NTU, using a LaMotte 2020e Turbidity Metter, calibrated 9

- 17

- 2010 to 1.0 NTU. Backg round water was very heavy with clay, very orange. (Photo 1)The Stormklear Semi

- Active Treatment System was set up (Photo 2) Water was pumped at approximately 300 GPM into 3” pump line, into PVC manifold, past Stormklear Dual Bio Polymer at the average dose rate of 2.5 PPM. The water measured 433 NTU at the bag after the system ran for an estimated 8 to 10 minutes. A second set of socks was added, the average dose rate moved to 5 PPM, because of the heavy clay content and time to p rocess water through the manifold and present results and action to attendees.The system was restarted and ran for 15 minutes. The dewatering bag filled very quickly, as the picture a show, the dewatering bag was placed on gravel to prevent bli nding off on the bottom of the bag per manufacturers recommendations. The system produced a heavy filter cake on the inside of the bag. (Photo 3, 4, 5) Turbidity measurements were taken at far end of the bag, 73.1 NTU, and at the center of the bag, the hi ghest point, 50.2 NTU, and at the inlet neck of the bag, 2 readings 29.1 and 25.1 NTU. I feel the reading at the top of the bag is most accurate 50.2 NTU.In review, the system dosed 5.0 PPM, produced NTU reduction from 2189 NTU to 50.2 NTU

in a 15 minute time frame.

Background 2189 NTU

8

- 10 minutes 2.5 PPM, 433 NTU 15 minutes 5.0 PPM, 73.1 NTU, far end of bag 15 minutes 5.0 PPM, 50.2 NTU center of bag 15 minutes 5.0 PPM, 29.1 & 25.1, neck of bag

In summary, due to the high turbidity levels and the particle size; I would expect the dewatering bag efficiency to be very low without the Stormklear Dual Polymer System. Due to time constraints, the full dewatering of the bag and additional pumping of water to the point of preclus ion did not occur. However, in similar set up from MD to FL, the StormKlear Dual Polymer System has shown turbidity reduction consistently less than 100 NTUs and as low as 1 NTU. Full preclusion experiments are being researched at North Carolina State Un iversity. The

Semi

- Active Treatment System gives an advantage in footprint, efficiency, and turbidity reduction. This is an easy to setup system and can be deployed by a contractor, municipality, or

erosion

- sediment control installer and give consistently good results meeting discharge limits.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.21 Warnings.

A warning is neither public nor a disciplinary sanction. The OED Director may conclude an investigation with the issuance of a warning. The warning shall contain a statement of facts and identify the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct relevant to the facts.

[86 FR 28458, May 26, 2021]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Minerals Security Partnership Convening Supports Robust Supply Chains for Clean Energy Technologies

# 									Minerals Security Partnership Convening Supports Robust Supply Chains for Clean Energy Technologies							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

September 22, 2022

The United States convened Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) partners and key minerals-rich countries to discuss priorities, challenges, and opportunities in responsible mining, processing, and recycling of critical minerals. Secretary Antony Blinken opened the meeting, held in New York City on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Week.

First announced in June 2022, the MSP is a new multilateral initiative to bolster critical mineral supply chains essential for the clean energy transition.  The MSP aims to ensure that critical minerals are produced, processed, and recycled in a manner that supports countries in realizing the full economic development potential of their mineral resources.  The MSP will attract public and private investment, increase transparency, and promote high Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards throughout critical minerals supply chains.

MSP partners participating in the meeting included:  Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.  Additional minerals-rich countries in attendance included Argentina, Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zambia.

The MSP is currently considering promising critical minerals projects that could be of interest to one or more MSP partners, promoting innovation, developing a joint approach on ESG standards, and engaging both project operators and minerals-producing countries.

Demand for critical minerals, which are essential for clean energy and other technologies, is projected to expand significantly in the coming decades.  Transparent, open, predictable, secure, and sustainable supply chains for critical minerals are vital to deploying these technologies at the speed and scale necessary to combat climate change effectively.

For further media information, please contact ENR-PD-Clearances@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsEconomic AffairsEnergyEnvironmentOffice of the SpokespersonTechnologyUNGA 77

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.913 Persons eligible to file, and time for filing, a request for *inter partes* reexamination.

(a) Except as provided for in § 1.907 and in paragraph (b) of this section, any person other than the patent owner or its privies may, at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent which issued from an original application filed in the United States on or after November 29, 1999, file a request for *inter partes* reexamination by the Office of any claim of the patent on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications cited under § 1.501.

(b) Any request for an *inter partes* reexamination submitted on or after September 16, 2012, will not be accorded a filing date, and any such request will not be granted.

[76 FR 59057, Sept. 23, 2011]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.