alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4

Ms. Debby Tucker Environmental Administrator Mail Station 47 3900 Commonwealth Blvd Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Dear Ms. Tucker: ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

# OCT 0 6 '1

## ~I Lu/q

Please find enclosed for your and the Florida State Clearinghouse review five copies ofthe Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for designation ofan Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) offshore ofJacksonville, Florida which includes as Appendix B, a Florida Coastal Zone Consistency Determination. The FEIS wasjointlyprepared bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) Jacksonville District to fulfill the reporting requirements ofthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The EPA is the lead Federal agency and the USACE is a cooperating agency. The FEIS provides the information necessary to evaluate need and alternatives with respect to the designation ofa new ODMDS pursuant to Section 1 02 ofthe Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended. The FEIS identifies Alternative 1 a as the preferred alternative. In response to public and agency comment to the Draft EIS, the boundaries ofAlternative 1 were modified in the FEIS and subsequently referred to as Alternative 1 a. Alternative 1 a consists ofexpansion ofthe existing ODMDS to the south and east. Thepurpose ofthe ODMDS is to accommodate disposal ofdredged material generated over the next 50 years from the Jacksonville Harbor Navigation Project, Naval Station Mayport and the proposed Jacksonville Harbor Deepening Project. All dredged material must meet the environmental criteria established in the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations. The FEIS contains a draft Site Management and Monitoring Plan for both preferred alternative (Appendix F). The MPRSA requires that these plans be developed prior to designation with an opportunity for public comment.

The EPA is submitting the enclosed Coastal Zone Consistency Determination in accordance with 15 C.F.R. §930.34. The EPA has determined that the proposed action as described in the enclosed FEIS is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforcement policies ofthe 24 Florida Statues that constitute Florida's Coastal Management Program. Anyrecommendations provided bythe State of

Internet Address (UAL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed**w~h** Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper(Minimum 30% Postconsum!lf)Florida will be reviewed and considered

. We would appreciate receiving any comments, within 30 days ofreceipt ofthis letter orNovember 17, 2014, whichever is later. Ifyou have any questions regarding this determination orthe designation ofthe ODMDS, please contact Mr

. Chris McArthur at (404) 562- 9391 or mcarthur.christopher@cpa.gov. Sincerely,

# cGill**~~** Wetlands, Coastal and Ocean Br anch

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Patrick Griffin, USACE-SAJ (w/o enclosures)
#### § 1471.445 What action may I take if a primary tier participant knowingly does business with an excluded or disqualified person?

If a participant knowingly does business with an excluded or disqualified person, you as an agency official may refer the matter for suspension and debarment consideration. You may also disallow costs, annul or terminate the transaction, issue a stop work order, or take any other appropriate remedy.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7101
STEPHEN CAMPBELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; CHAIRMAN OF MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-2259-PJM) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Campbell v. Beshears , No. CA-97-2259- PJM (D. Md. July 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-81,530-01
EX P ARTE DARIUS SMITH, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1388262-A IN THE 209 DISTRICT COURT th F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Ap p l i cant was convicted of possession of
coca ine in a

n amount of one to four g rams and sentenc ed to two year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant conte nds that newly discovere d evidenc e in this case only supports a convic tion for the le sser include d offe nse of possession of c ocaine in an amount of less than one gram. Applicant’s claim is supported by the habea s rec ord. Applicant is entitled to relief
. State v.2

W ilson , 324 S.W .3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 1388262-A in the 209 District Court of Har ris t h County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County to
answe r the charg es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece s sary bench
war rant within 10 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Co p ie s o f this o p in io n shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre cti o n a l Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. Deliver ed: September

17, 2014 Do not publish
§ 15.204 Are there limits on claims under the MPCECA? ( a ) The maximum amount that can be paid for any claim under the MPCECA is $40,000, or, if the claim arises from emergency evacuation or extraordinary circumstances, up to $100,000, and property may be replaced in kind at the option of the Government. 31 U.S.C. 3721(b)(1).
( b ) The Department is not an insurer and does not underwrite all personal property losses that an employee may sustain. Employees are encouraged to carry private insurance to the maximum extent practicable to avoid losses, which may not be recoverable from the Department.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4695 

To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 

any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-oftime arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations relating to overtime pay. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. CARPER) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide that any hours worked by Federal firefighters 

under a qualified trade-of-time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations relating to overtime pay. 

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 ‘‘Federal Firefighter 

5 Flexibility and Fairness Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4695 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF HOURS WORKED UNDER A QUALI2 FIED TRADE-OF-TIME ARRANGEMENT. 

3 Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

6 section, any hours worked by a firefighter under a quali7 fied trade-of-time arrangement shall be disregarded for 

8 purposes of any determination relating to eligibility for, 

9 or the amount of, any overtime pay under this section. 

10 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection— 

11 ‘‘(A) the term ‘qualified trade-of-time arrange12 ment’ means an arrangement under which 2 fire13 fighters who are employed by the same agency 

14 agree, solely at their option and with the approval 

15 of their employing agency, to substitute for one an16 other during scheduled work hours in the perform17 ance of work in the same capacity; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the term ‘firefighter’ means a firefighter 

19 as defined by section 8331(21) or 8401(14).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 1615

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

#### §§ 1615.104-1615.110 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with this annual report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the
     "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
     certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:

     (3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

     This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
     1350, and not for any other purpose.

Date: May 1, 2004


/s/ Alberto G. Deyros
--------------------------------
Alberto G. Deyros

Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1912.32 Presence of OSHA officer or employee.

The meetings of all advisory committees shall be in the presence of an OSHA officer or employee designated for this purpose. Such officer or employee shall be empowered to adjourn any meeting whenever he determines adjournment to be in the public interest.
Order entered May 17, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00509-CV

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL., Appellants

V.

PEDRO GARCIA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-00329

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ May 16, 2019 first motion to extend time to file their brief 

on the merits. Because this is an accelerated appeal, we GRANT the motion to the extent we 

ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 1, 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2017

No. 04-16-00652-CV

John HARWOOD,

Appellant

v.

Brian GILROY,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI11327

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This court issued its opinion on June 28, 2017, and any motion for rehearing was due on 

July 13, 2017. On July 13, 2017, appellee filed a motion requesting an extension of time until 

September 1, 2017 in which to file a motion for rehearing.

We grant the motion in part and deny in part. If appellee wishes to file a motion for 

rehearing and/or a motion for en banc reconsideration, appellee must file the motion(s) no later 

than August 14, 2017. Further requests for extensions of time are disfavored.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
Ruth (JaJ11bl"l!.'er 

Ltc{ i tJ vJJ k' 

COMMENTS N NEW CARBON RULES 

I support the new carbon rules, though modest, reducing carbon emissi~by ?~ 

only 30% by 2030, based on high emission 200Sievels. The European Uniol)jha~ 

adopted a much stronger red· ·etien policy of 40% reduction by 2030 based on 

lower emission 1990 pollution levels. 

That said, I dismiss the harsh rhetoric and claims made by numerous politicians 

and energy industry leaders that the new carbon rules are unattainable. As 

reported in the New York Times (6/8/14), the EPA gives Kentucky wide flexibility 

in reducing its carbon output by only 18% by 2030. Moreover, the state has many 

options under the rules to reduce carbon pollution, including efficiency 

improvements at power plants, energy conservation programs, and renewable 

energy standards for public utilities-a policy already in effect in half the states in 

the U.S. 

Kentucky lawmakers can readily work towards the new EPA standards if they 

will support the Clean Energy Opportunity Act (HB195) which has been before the 

General Assembly the last four years. This bill sets a renewable energy goal of 

12.5% from clean energy sources by 2024, sets energy efficiency standards for 

utilities, and establishes feed-in-tariff rates that utilities pay in-state energy 

producers. Moreover, a study by Synapses Energy Economics, Inc. estimated that 

28,000 net new jobs could be created if this legislation passes. 

Coal generates 93% of the electricity in KY. We rank #1 in the nation in carbon 

emissions per unit of electricity produced from all sources. Indeed, coal is a 

culture here. But even natives of coal country recognize the inevitable changes 

afoot. When I recently worked the crowds at the Cincinnati Coney Island 

Appalachian Fest soliciting signatures on a petition to stop mountaintop strip 

mining in Eastern KY, I was amazed by the number of those signing on who were 

natives of the area or who had family members who were or are miners. 

Last year, the state kicked off project SOAR-Shaping Our Appalachian Regionto initiate new job opportunities in the region. Non- profits such as the Mountain 

A~' for Community Economic Development and Kentuckians for the 

Commonwealth are working to enable a transition from a coal economy to jobs in 

energy efficiency industries and agriculture. Citizens like myself ask our leaders to 

stop the foot dragging and face the reality of a post fossil fuel era. I thank the EPA 

for nudging us forward.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1615

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

#### §§ 1615.152-1615.159 [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37, 511]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on March 27, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Avent Inc., a Division of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, located in Tucson, Arizona.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 28th day of April, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-11827  Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
# L_2010119DE.01002701.xml

| 13.5.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 119/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 119/27

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 71/97 des Rates vom 10. Januar 1997 zur Ausweitung des mit der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2474/93 auf Fahrräder mit Ursprung in der Volksrepublik China eingeführten endgültigen Antidumpingzolls auf die Einfuhren bestimmter Fahrradteile aus der Volksrepublik China und zur Erhebung des ausgeweiteten Zolls auf derartige gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 703/96 zollamtlich erfasste Einfuhren

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 16 vom 18. Januar 1997
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 16 vom 18. Januar 1997

Seite 59, Erwägungsgrund 24,

Seite 59, Erwägungsgrund 27, fünfter Spiegelstrich,

Seite 60, Tabelle, Spalte „Ware“, dritte Zeile,

Seite 62, Artikel 1, zweiter Spiegelstrich:

anstatt:

„Tretlager“

muss es heißen:

„Kurbelgarnituren“

---
#### § 1620.22 Employment cost not a “factor other than sex.”

A wage differential based on claimed differences between the average cost of employing workers of one sex as a group and the average cost of employing workers of the opposite sex as a group is discriminatory and does not qualify as a differential based on any “factor other than sex,” and will result in a violation of the equal pay provisions, if the equal pay standard otherwise applies.
§ 61.89 General limitations. ( a ) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft: ( 1 ) That is carrying a passenger;
( 2 ) That is carrying property for compensation or hire;
( 3 ) For compensation or hire;
( 4 ) In furtherance of a business;
( 5 ) On an international flight, except that a student pilot may make solo training flights from Haines, Gustavus, or Juneau, Alaska, to White Horse, Yukon, Canada, and return over the province of British Columbia;
( 6 ) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute miles during daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night;
( 7 ) When the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface; or
( 8 ) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by an authorized instructor.
( b ) A student pilot may not act as a required pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or regulations under which the flight is conducted, except when receiving flight training from an authorized instructor on board an airship, and no person other than a required flight crewmember is carried on the aircraft.
( c ) A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and may not act as pilot in command— ( 1 ) Of an aircraft other than a light-sport aircraft;
( 2 ) At night;
( 3 ) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher;
( 4 ) In Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower without having received the ground and flight training specified in § 61.94 and an endorsement from an authorized instructor;
( 5 ) Of a light-sport aircraft without having received the applicable ground training, flight training, and instructor endorsements specified in § 61.327 (a) and (b).
( d ) The holder of a student pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft without holding a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter provided the student pilot holds a valid U.S. driver's license, meets the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), and the operation is conducted consistent with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and the conditions of § 61.113(i). Where the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section conflict with § 61.113(i), a student pilot must comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44867, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5220, Feb. 1, 2010; Docket FAA-2016-9157, Amdt. 61-140, 82 FR 3165, Jan. 11, 2017]
#### § 1614.409 Effect of filing a civil action.

Filing a civil action under § 1614.407 or § 1614.408 shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal. A Commission decision on an appeal issued after a complainant files suit in district court will not be enforceable by the Commission. If private suit is filed subsequent to the filing of an appeal and prior to a final Commission decision, the complainant should notify the Commission in writing.

[85 FR 35562, June 11, 2020]
§ 1910.169 Air receivers. ( a ) *General requirements* — ( 1 ) *Application.* This section applies to compressed air receivers, and other equipment used in providing and utilizing compressed air for performing operations such as cleaning, drilling, hoisting, and chipping. On the other hand, however, this section does not deal with the special problems created by using compressed air to convey materials nor the problems created when men work in compressed air as in tunnels and caissons. This section is not intended to apply to compressed air machinery and equipment used on transportation vehicles such as steam railroad cars, electric railway cars, and automotive equipment.
( 2 ) *New and existing equipment.* ( i ) All new air receivers installed after the effective date of these regulations shall be constructed in accordance with the 1968 edition of the A.S.M.E. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII, which is incorporated by reference as specified in § 1910.6.
( ii ) All safety valves used shall be constructed, installed, and maintained in accordance with the A.S.M.E. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII Edition 1968.
( b ) *Installation and equipment requirements* — ( 1 ) *Installation.* Air receivers shall be so installed that all drains, handholes, and manholes therein are easily accessible. Under no circumstances shall an air receiver be buried underground or located in an inaccessible place.
( 2 ) *Drains and traps.* A drain pipe and valve shall be installed at the lowest point of every air receiver to provide for the removal of accumulated oil and water. Adequate automatic traps may be installed in addition to drain valves. The drain valve on the air receiver shall be opened and the receiver completely drained frequently and at such intervals as to prevent the accumulation of excessive amounts of liquid in the receiver.
( 3 ) *Gages and valves.* ( i ) Every air receiver shall be equipped with an indicating pressure gage (so located as to be readily visible) and with one or more spring-loaded safety valves. The total relieving capacity of such safety valves shall be such as to prevent pressure in the receiver from exceeding the maximum allowable working pressure of the receiver by more than 10 percent.
( ii ) No valve of any type shall be placed between the air receiver and its safety valve or valves.
( iii ) Safety appliances, such as safety valves, indicating devices and controlling devices, shall be constructed, located, and installed so that they cannot be readily rendered inoperative by any means, including the elements.
( iv ) All safety valves shall be tested frequently and at regular intervals to determine whether they are in good operating condition.
[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 49 FR 5322, Feb. 10, 1984; 61 FR 9239, Mar. 7, 1996]