alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23671]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket No.: 0909181309-91314-01]


Privacy Act Altered System of Records

AGENCY: Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST).

ACTION: Notice; COMMERCE/NIST-6, Participants in Experiments, Studies, 
and Surveys.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this notice to 
announce the effective date of a Privacy Act System of Records notice 
entitled COMMERCE/NIST-6, Participants in Experiments, Studies, and 
Surveys.

DATES: The system of records becomes effective on October 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to 
Catherine S. Fletcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
100 Bureau Drive--Stop 1710, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine S. Fletcher, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive--Stop 1710, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 1, 2007, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology published and requested comments on a proposed 
Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled COMMERCE/NIST-6, 
Participants in Experiments, Studies, and Surveys. No comments were 
received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology is adopting the proposed 
system as final without changes effective October 1, 2009.

    Dated: September 25, 2009.
Brenda Dolan,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act 
Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-23671 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
§ 80.6 Additional factors for selecting applications. ( a ) *Applicant's performance on prior award.* VA may consider the applicant's noncompliance with requirements applicable to prior VA or other agency awards as reflected in past written evaluation reports and memoranda on performance and the completeness of required prior submissions.
( b ) *Applicant's fiscal integrity.* Applicants must meet and maintain standards of fiscal integrity for participation in Federal grant programs as reflected in 2 CFR 200.205.
( c ) *Priority preference.* Priority preference will be given to organizations that either provide multiple forms of services or are located in a State with: ( 1 ) A high rate of unemployment among Veterans;
( 2 ) A high rate of usage of unemployment benefits for recently separated members of the Armed Forces; or
( 3 ) A labor force or economy that has been significantly impacted by a covered public health emergency.
( d ) *Risk assessment evaluation.* VA will conduct a formal assessment, prior to award, of the applicant's financial capability, adequacy of accounting system, and internal controls to assess the risk posed by each applicant.
(Authority: Pub. L. 116-315, sec. 4304; 2 CFR 200.203)
#### § 4.2 Interpretation of examination reports.

Different examiners, at different times, will not describe the same disability in the same language. Features of the disability which must have persisted unchanged may be overlooked or a change for the better or worse may not be accurately appreciated or described. It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. Each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. If a diagnosis is not supported by the findings on the examination report or if the report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes.

[41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2614

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 

from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and 

to provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2003

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, and Mr. FERGUSON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize 

the exclusion from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to provide for a common costof-living adjustment.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commuter Benefit Eq5 uity Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 2614 IH 

1 SEC. 2. UNIFORM DOLLAR LIMITATION FOR ALL TYPES OF 

2 TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 132(f)(2) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on exclusion) 

5 is amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘$100’’ in subparagraph (A) 

7 and inserting ‘‘$190’’, and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘$175’’ in subparagraph (B) 

9 and inserting ‘‘$190’’. 

10 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT CONFORMING AMEND11 MENTS.—Subparagraph (A) of section 132(f)(6) of the In12 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to inflation adjust13 ment) is amended—

14 (1) by striking the last sentence, 

15 (2) by striking ‘‘1999’’ and inserting ‘‘2003’’, 

16 and 

17 (3) by striking ‘‘1998’’ and inserting ‘‘2002’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 December 31, 2003.

Æ
# C_2022053EN.01000101.xml

| 1.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 January 2022

(2022/C 53/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1156 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4419 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83153 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4890 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0404 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 143,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,372 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 357,19 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5892 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 14,9310 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5820 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4233 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6994 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6983 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5110 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 349,08 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,3734 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0963 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5293 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 036,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6693 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,985 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,7251 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,144 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,0030 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,1856 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,3655 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1156

JPY

Japanese yen

128,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4419

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83153

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4890

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0404

ISK

Iceland króna

143,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,372

HUF

Hungarian forint

357,19

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5892

RON

Romanian leu

4,9475

TRY

Turkish lira

14,9310

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5820

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4233

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6994

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6983

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5110

KRW

South Korean won

1 349,08

ZAR

South African rand

17,3734

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0963

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5293

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 036,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6693

PHP

Philippine peso

56,985

RUB

Russian rouble

86,7251

THB

Thai baht

37,144

BRL

Brazilian real

6,0030

MXN

Mexican peso

23,1856

INR

Indian rupee

83,3655

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
<PAGE>

                           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                     (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)


                                                                 Exhibit 12.1





<TABLE>

                                                              For the year ended December 31,
                                                 1999        1998         1997       1996         1995
                                               --------    --------     -------     -------      --------

<S>                                            <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>

Income before transaction costs,
  gain/loss on sales of real estate,
  extraordinary charges and cumulative effect  $ 78,420    $ 70,941     $53,249     $24,835      $20,234
Add:
Interest expense                                 45,646      40,535      25,845      23,623       20,924
Interest expense from joint ventures             10,113       4,955           -           -            -
                                               --------    --------     -------     -------      -------
     Earnings as adjusted                      $134,179    $116,431     $79,094     $48,458      $41,158
                                               ========    ========     =======     =======      =======

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                               $ 45,646    $ 40,535     $25,845     $23,623      $20,924
Interest expense from joint ventures             10,113       4,955           -           -            -
Capitalized interest                              1,820       3,292           -           -            -
Capitalized interest from joint ventures          2,839       2,850           -           -            -
                                               --------    --------     -------     -------      --------
     Total fixed charges                       $ 60,418    $ 51,632     $25,845     $23,623      $20,924
                                               ========    ========     =======     =======      =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 2.22        2.26        3.06        2.05         1.97
                                               ========    ========     =======     =======      =======



</TABLE>
<PAGE> 1

                                   EXHIBIT 23
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                              DATED MARCH 20, 1998

<PAGE> 2



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement of
CDW Computer Centers, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-XXXXX) of our reports dated
January 22, 1998, on our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
financial  statement  schedule of CDW Computer Centers,  Inc. as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997,  1996, and 1995, which
reports are included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.





Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2527 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2527

To provide for enhanced protection of the Internal Revenue Service and 
               employees of the Internal Revenue Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2007

 Mrs. Maloney of New York (for herself and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for enhanced protection of the Internal Revenue Service and 
               employees of the Internal Revenue Service.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Protection of the Internal 
Revenue Service and Its Employees Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PROTECTION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND ITS 
              EMPLOYEES.

    Section 8D(k)(1)(C) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 is amended 
by striking ``and the providing of physical security''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1215.6 Factors FHFA may consider. The Director may grant an employee permission to testify regarding agency matters, and to produce records and information, in response to a demand or request. Among the relevant factors that the Director may consider in making this determination are whether: ( a ) This part's purposes are met;
( b ) FHFA has an interest in the decision that may be rendered in the legal proceeding;
( c ) Approving the demand or request would assist or hinder FHFA in performing statutory duties or use FHFA resources;
( d ) Production might assist or hinder employees in doing their work;
( e ) The records, information, or testimony can be obtained from other sources. (Concerning testimony, “other sources” means a non-agency employee, or an agency employee other than the employee named).
( f ) The demand or request is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the rules of discovery or procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand or request arose;
( g ) Production of the records, information, or testimony might violate or be inconsistent with a statute, Executive Order, regulation, or other legal authority;
( h ) Production of the records, information, or testimony might reveal confidential or privileged information, trade secrets, or confidential commercial or financial information;
( i ) Production of the records, information, or testimony might impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceedings, or compromise constitutional rights;
( j ) Production of the records, information, or testimony might result in FHFA appearing to favor one litigant over another;
( k ) The demand or request pertains to documents that were produced by another agency;
( l ) The demand or request complies with all other applicable rules;
( m ) The demand or request is sufficiently specific to be answered;
( n ) The relevance of the records, information, or testimony to the purposes for which they are sought, and for which they may be used for substantive evidence;
( o ) Production of the records, information, or employee testimony may implicate a substantial government interest; and
( p ) Any other good cause.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

September 23, 2016

153311

PAULETTE HELD,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153311

COA: 321786

Ingham CC: 13-000241-NO

NORTH SHORE CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

PURE GREEN LAWN AND TREE

PROFESSIONALS, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).

I would peremptorily reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand 

this case to the Ingham Circuit Court for entry of a judgment in favor of defendant North 

Shore Condominium Association because the plastic landscape edging over which 

plaintiff fell was open and obvious. As Judge METER opined in his dissenting opinion, “a 

picture is worth a thousand words.”1

 The photographs of the area where plaintiff fell 

indicate that the edging can very clearly be seen curving around the sidewalk, as there

 

1 Held v North Shore Condo Ass’n, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of 

Appeals, issued February 4, 2016 (Docket No. 321786) (METER, J., dissenting), p 1.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 23, 2016

s0920

2

Clerk

is a distinct color difference between the edging and the mulch. Thus, “an average 

person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered [the edging] upon casual 

inspection.”2

 Sometimes error in an unpublished opinion is so blatant, open, and obvious 

that it must be corrected to maintain clarity of the law for the bench and bar. This is such 

a case. I would reverse.

MARKMAN, J., joins the statement of ZAHRA, J.

 

2 Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 461 (2012).
§ 62.25 What does the Loan Repayment Program provide? ( a ) *Loan repayment.* For each year of service the individual agrees to serve, with a minimum of 2 years of obligated service, the Secretary may pay: ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, up to $20,000 per year of a Program participant's qualifying loans or
( 2 ) Up to $25,000 per year for a Program participant's qualifying loans if the Program participant agrees to provide obligated service in the Indian Health Service or a health facility or program operated by a tribe or tribal organization under the Indian Self-Determination Act. The Secretary may establish different levels of annual loan repayment to encourage Program participants to serve in a manner which is in the best interest of the Loan Repayment Program. No loan repayments will be made for any professional practice performed prior to the effective date of the Loan Repayment Program Contract. Once a loan repayment contract has been signed by both parties, the Secretary will obligate such funds as will be necessary to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to make loan repayments for the duration of the period of obligated service.
( b ) *Site visit.* The Secretary may reimburse an individual for the actual and reasonable travel expenses associated with one trip from the individual's residence to a site for the purpose of evaluating such site for service under the Loan Repayment Program.
( c ) *Tax liability payments.* The Secretary may, upon a Program participant's written request, make payments in a reasonable amount, as determined by the Secretary, to reimburse the Program participant for all or part of the increased Federal, State and local tax liability resulting from loan repayments received under the Loan Repayment Program. To maximize the Federal resources available for placing participants in HMSAs, supplementary payments for increased tax liability will only be made under unusual circumstances, and in no cases will these tax liability payments exceed 20% of the annual amounts of the loans being repaid. Program participants wishing to receive tax liability payments must submit their requests for such payments in a manner prescribed by the Secretary and must provide the Secretary with any documentation the Secretary determines is necessary to establish a Program participant's increased tax liability. The Secretary will determine, based on the availability of funds and such other factors as the Secretary determines, the amounts of any such payments that may be made.
(Information collection requirements contained in paragraph (c) were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0915-0131) [54 FR 13462, Apr. 3, 1989, as amended at 57 FR 56996, Dec. 2, 1992]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 28, 2009

0921

Order 

September 28, 2009

138378

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138378

COA: 280523

Kalamazoo CC: 06-001743-FC

MARVIN TAWON ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[House Report 107-381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-381

======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3924, FREEDOM TO TELECOMMUTE ACT OF 
                                  2002

                                _______
                                

  March  20 (legislative day, March 19), 2002.--Referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 373]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 373, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3924, to 
authorize telecommuting for Federal contractors, under an open 
rule.
    The rule provides one hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule allows 
the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority 
in recognition to those members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                                  

```
§ 21.6503 Definitions. ( a ) *Program period.* The term *program period* means the period beginning on February 1, 1985, and ending December 31, 1992. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1163(a)(2)(B); Pub. L. 102-291)
( b ) *Qualified veteran.* The term *qualified veteran* means a veteran who has a service-connected disability, or service-connected disabilities, not rated as total, but who has been awarded a rating of total disability by reason of inability to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of such disability or disabilities. Such a rating is referred to as an IU (individual unemployability) rating. See §§ 3.340, 3.341, and 4.16 of this title.
( c ) *Receives an IU rating.* The phrase *receives an IU rating* refers to the date of the rating decision authorizing total disability compensation based upon individual unemployability.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1163(a)(2)(A))
[51 FR 19333, May 29, 1986. Redesignated at 53 FR 4397, Feb. 16, 1988, as amended at 55 FR 17272, Apr. 24, 1990; 58 FR 41637, Aug. 5, 1993]