alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 5, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Total Engine Work Determination

FROM: Christopher Laroo, Environmental Protection Specialist, OTAQ/ASD

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-

0827

EPA has proposed a revision in the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to 40 CFR 1036.501(g) that would exclude any work performed by the 

engine during any portion of the duty cycle that has a zero reference value for normalized torque, 

when calculating total engine work.

The intent of this provision is to only include work done by the engine that moves the 

vehicle down the road and puts brake-specific CO2 emissions from engines with and without 

automatic transmissions on a level playing field.

Based on the information available at the time of the proposal, we believe there would be 

no effect on the stringency of the CO2 standard for engine families that are paired with manual or 

automated manual transmissions because Curb Idle Transmission Torque (CITT) is zero for 

these transmissions. Thus, for these engines, CITT is set to zero during emission testing, 

resulting in zero work performed when the engine is idling. We recognize that there could be

some impact on effective stringency of the CO2 standard where the engine is paired only with

automatic transmissions. This impact would occur because these engines are certified with an 

engine manufacturer-specified CITT which results in work being done by the engine at idle. 

This idle work increases the total work done by the engine and as a result, decreases the brakespecific CO2 emissions when compared to an engine certified with CITT set to zero. If engines 

paired with automatic transmissions are required to exclude work performed over the cycle 

where the normalized reference torque is zero, this will cause brake-specific emissions to 

increase, putting them on par with the emission results from engines paired with manual 

transmissions. However, we do not believe this impact would be significant. Because we 
2

believe this change would not significantly impact stringency, we did not separately analyze any

costs or benefits of this revision.

As with all other changes proposed in this rulemaking, we will carefully consider any 

comments we receive on this issue.
###### Editorial Note on Part 211

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 211 appear at 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996.

#### § 211.15 Statements of fact.

The applicant shall include only significant and relevant facts in an application. Each application shall contain adequate information with respect to the evidence required in subpart C of this part. The application may contain other information and data the applicant considers necessary to explain particular circumstances.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0068)

[ER-1386, 49 FR 33439, Aug. 23, 1984, as amended by ER-1397, 49 FR 50027, Dec. 26, 1984]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25482-25483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11011]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION:   

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the special meeting of the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME:
    The special meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the 
Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on May 3, 2000, from 
9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vivian L. Portis, Secretary to the 
Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed 
to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board 
meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in 
advance.
    The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

--April 13, 2000 (Open).

B. Report

--National Charter Application Process.

C. New Business

1. Regulations

[[Page 25483]]

    a. Review of Significant Regulatory Actions Pursuant to E.O. 
12866; and
    b. Stockholder Vote on Like Lending Authority-Draft Proposed 
Regulation.
2. Other--Corporate Approvals
    a. Revision of PS-63, ``Policy Statement on Farm Credit 
Institution Names'' (NV 96-22); and
    b. Consolidation/Subsidiary Structure Proposal from Farm Credit 
of Colorado Springs, PCA/FLCA, Farm Credit Services of Southeast 
Colorado, PCA/FLCA; Farm Credit of Lamar FLCA; and Monte Vista PCA.

Closed Session*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Session closed-exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (8) and 
(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Report

1. OSMO Report.

    Dated: April 27, 2000.
Nan P. Mitchem,
Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 00-11011 Filed 4-28-00; 2:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                          SECTION 906 CEO CERTIFICATION

                Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of
                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

      I, John E. Elliott, II, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Arcadia Resources, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge, (i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Arcadia Resources, Inc.

                                         /s/ John E. Elliott, II
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: February 14, 2006

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Arcadia Resources, Inc. The statement will be retained by
Arcadia Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
§ 27.931 Shafting critical speed. ( a ) The critical speeds of any shafting must be determined by demonstration except that analytical methods may be used if reliable methods of analysis are available for the particular design.
( b ) If any critical speed lies within, or close to, the operating ranges for idling, power on, and autorotative conditions, the stresses occurring at that speed must be within safe limits. This must be shown by tests.
( c ) If analytical methods are used and show that no critical speed lies within the permissible operating ranges, the margins between the calculated critical speeds and the limits of the allowable operating ranges must be adequate to allow for possible variations between the computed and actual values.
#### William C. Burr, *Appellant,*v. George O. Powell, *Appellee.*

1. Amendments may be allowed to affirmative defenses in an answer.

*3802. Upon an appeal from one interlocutory order, cross-assignments of error upon other interlocutory orders will not be conisdered.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Citrus County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Davant*& Davcmt, for Appellant;

U. *G.*Martin, for Appellee.

Cockrell, J.

— This appeal is from an interlocutory order, refusing to strike an amended answer to a bill to enforce a mortgage lien. The original answer is full, in so far as it makes an issue upon the allegations of the bill, but exceptions were sustained to portions of the answer wherein a defense founded upon the statute of limitations was set up, and also a plea along the same line was overruled, leave being given to amend the answer.

In what is termed an “amended and separate answer’’ in the introductory part and concluding this defendant having herein and heretofore fully answered defenses on various statutes of limitations are urged. The motion to strike this pleading is based upon the conception that the defenses are in fact three separate pleas, without verification or certificate, and that successive pleas in equity are inhibited. The motion was properly denied.

The rules invoked apply when the defendant seeks to avoid an, answer by pléa, but not to affirmative defenses in an answer, as to which the court may allow amend ments as in other pleadings.

*381We are unable to consider tbe cross-assignments, as they all relate to orders of the Circuit Court, which have not been brought here for review. We have frequently held that an appeal from an interlocutory order, unlike an appeal from a final decree, brings up for review the order or orders named in the appeal and nothing more; that this must be so by force of the language of the statute, and our rule permitting cross-assignments without the necessity of a separate appeal must be read in the light of that higher law. The ruling must be properly before the appellate court, else it may not consider whether the ruling be correct.

The order is affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Hockbr, J. J., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.17 Administrative law judges. ( a ) *Powers and delegation of authority.* ( 1 ) An administrative law judge shall have the following powers, in addition to any others specified in this part: ( i ) To give notice concerning and to hold hearings;
( ii ) To administer oaths and affirmations;
( iii ) To examine witnesses;
( iv ) To issue subpoenas and to take or cause depositions to be taken;
( v ) To rule upon offers of proof and to receive relevant evidence;
( vi ) To regulate the course and conduct of the hearing;
( vii ) To hold conferences before or during the hearing for the settlement or simplification of issues;
( viii ) To rule on motions and to dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;
( ix ) To make initial or recommended decisions as provided in § 302.31;
( x ) To take any other action authorized by this part or by the Statute.
( 2 ) The administrative law judge shall have the power to take any other action authorized by part 385 of this chapter or by the Administrative Procedure Act.
( 3 ) The administrative law judge assigned to a particular case is delegated the DOT decisionmaker's function of making the agency decision on the substantive and procedural issues remaining for disposition at the close of the hearing in such case, except that this delegation does not apply in cases where the record is certified to the DOT decisionmaker, with or without an initial or recommended decision by the administrative law judge, or in cases requiring Presidential approval under section 41307 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII. This delegation does not apply to the review of rulings by the administrative law judge on interlocutory matters that have been appealed to the DOT decisionmaker in accordance with the requirements of § 302.11.
( 4 ) The administrative law judge's authority in each case will terminate either upon the certification of the record in the proceeding to the DOT decisionmaker, or upon the issuance of an initial or recommended decision, or when he or she shall have withdrawn from the case upon considering himself or herself disqualified.
( b ) *Disqualification.* An administrative law judge shall withdraw from the case if at any time he or she deems himself or herself disqualified. If, prior to the initial or recommended decision in the case, there is filed with the administrative law judge, in good faith, an affidavit of personal bias or disqualification with substantiating facts and the administrative law judge does not withdraw, the DOT decisionmaker shall determine the matter, if properly presented by exception or brief, as a part of the record and decision in the case. The DOT decisionmaker shall not otherwise consider any claim of bias or disqualification. The DOT decisionmaker, in his or her discretion, may order a hearing on a charge of bias or disqualification.
EXHIBIT 99.3



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of ITXC Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Edward B. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and
the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:    March 31, 2003



/s/    EDWARD B.
JORDANEdward B. JordanChief Financial Officer of ITXC Corp.




This certification
has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ITXC Corp. and will be retained by ITXC Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4091 

To amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide authority 

for fiscal year 2020 for increased payments for temporary assistance 

to United States citizens returned from foreign countries, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2020 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To amend section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide 

authority for fiscal year 2020 for increased payments 

for temporary assistance to United States citizens returned from foreign countries, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Aid for 

5 Returning Americans Affected by Coronavirus Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4091 CPS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE PAYMENTS FOR FISCAL 

2 YEAR 2020. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1113(d) of the Social Se4 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘fiscal years 2017 and 2018’’ and all that follows through 

6 the period and inserting ‘‘fiscal year 2020, the total 

7 amount of such assistance provided during such fiscal year 

8 shall not exceed $10,000,000.’’. 

9 (b) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amounts provided by 

11 the amendment made by this section are designated 

12 as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 

13 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 

14 U.S.C. 933(g)). 

15 (2) DESIGNATION IN SENATE.—In the Senate, 

16 this section and the amendment made by this section 

17 are designated as an emergency requirement pursu18 ant to section 4112(a) of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th 

19 Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 

20 for fiscal year 2018. 

21 SEC. 3. LIMIT ON DIRECT CONTACT WITH REPATRIATED IN22 DIVIDUALS DURING COVID–19 EMERGENCY 

23 PERIOD. 

24 During the emergency period described in section 

25 1135(g)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

26 1320b–5(g)(1)(B)), in providing temporary assistance 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4091 CPS

1 under section 1113 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1313), no em2 ployee of the Administration for Children and Families of 

3 the Department of Health and Human Services shall have 

4 direct, in-person contact with an individual specified in 

5 section 1113(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1313(a)(1)), 

6 except in the case of a uniformed member of the Regular 

7 Corps or the Ready Reserve Corps of the Commissioned 

8 Corps of the Public Health Service (as described in section 

9 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204)) 

10 in an active duty status who, as determined by the Sec11 retary of Health and Human Services, has— 

12 (1) received appropriate training on infection 

13 prevention and control; and 

14 (2) access to appropriate personal protective 

15 equipment. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 25.721 General. ( a ) The landing gear system must be designed so that when it fails due to overloads during takeoff and landing, the failure mode is not likely to cause spillage of enough fuel to constitute a fire hazard. The overloads must be assumed to act in the upward and aft directions in combination with side loads acting inboard and outboard. In the absence of a more rational analysis, the side loads must be assumed to be up to 20 percent of the vertical load or 20 percent of the drag load, whichever is greater.
( b ) The airplane must be designed to avoid any rupture leading to the spillage of enough fuel to constitute a fire hazard as a result of a wheels-up landing on a paved runway, under the following minor crash landing conditions: ( 1 ) Impact at 5 feet-per-second vertical velocity, with the airplane under control, at Maximum Design Landing Weight— ( i ) With the landing gear fully retracted; and
( ii ) With any one or more landing gear legs not extended.
( 2 ) Sliding on the ground, with— ( i ) The landing gear fully retracted and with up to a 20° yaw angle; and
( ii ) Any one or more landing gear legs not extended and with 0° yaw angle.
( c ) For configurations where the engine nacelle is likely to come into contact with the ground, the engine pylon or engine mounting must be designed so that when it fails due to overloads (assuming the overloads to act predominantly in the upward direction and separately, predominantly in the aft direction), the failure mode is not likely to cause the spillage of enough fuel to constitute a fire hazard.
[Amdt. 25-139, 79 FR 59430, Oct. 2, 2014]
g

v

July 21, 2009

To: All Weights and Measures Stakeholders

Re: Stage II Enforcement Discretion for E85 Dispensers:

TheWeights

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, (“ADEQ”), and the Arizona Department of and Measures, (“ADWM”) will be asking the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to take action on a revision to the State Implementation Plan, (“SIP”) relating to Stage II Vapor Recovery in Area A.

This revision also includes a change in the definition of gasoline that would exclude E85, (a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). If EPA acts upon this request, retailers would no longer be required to install Stage II vapor recovery controls on E85 dispensers.

This enforcement discretion letter will take effect as of the date of this letter. It will remain in effect until EPA takes action on the SIP revision for E85 dispensing facilities in area A, (the vapor control area).

This enforcement discretion is limited to Stage Il requirements affecting E85 dispensers in area A. Additionally, please be advised that any discretion exercised is not necessarily representative of any action the EPA may initiate. If you have questions related to this enforcement discretion please contact Duane Yantomo at (602) 771-4933.

Sincerely

Gene alma

Interim Director

Arizona Department of Weights and Measures

Cc: D. Ehrhart

D. Yantomo
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2146/2005

of 23 December 2005         

fixing the production refund on white sugar used in the chemical industry for the period from 1 to 31 January 2006         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the fifth indent of Article 7(5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The production refund on white sugar referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 shall be equal to 31,180 EUR/100 kg net for the period from 1 to 31 January 2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(2)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 63.

----