alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 4062.2 Definitions.

The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: benefit liabilities, Code, contributing sponsor, controlled group, ERISA, fair market value, guaranteed benefit, multiple employer plan, notice of intent to terminate, PBGC, person, plan, plan administrator, proposed termination date, single-employer plan, and termination date.

In addition, for purposes of this part, the term *collective net worth of persons subject to liability in connection with a plan termination* means the sum of the individual net worths of all persons that have individual net worths which are greater than zero and that (as of the termination date) are contributing sponsors of the terminated plan or members of their controlled groups, as determined in accordance with section 4062(d)(1) of ERISA and § 4062.4 of this part.
§ 4050.403 Duties of plan sponsor. ( a ) *Providing for benefits.* For each distributee who is missing upon close-out of a subpart D plan, the plan sponsor must provide for the distributee's plan benefits either— ( 1 ) By purchase of an annuity contract from an insurer; or
( 2 ) By— ( i ) Determining the distributee's benefit transfer amount under paragraph (e) of this section, and
( ii ) Transferring to PBGC as described in this subpart D an amount equal to the distributee's benefit transfer amount.
( b ) *Diligent search.* For each distributee whose location the plan sponsor does not know with reasonable certainty upon close-out of a subpart D plan, the plan sponsor must have conducted a diligent search as described in § 4050.404.
( c ) *Filing with PBGC.* For each distributee who is missing upon close-out of a subpart D plan, the plan sponsor must file with PBGC as described in § 4050.405.
( d ) *Benefit transfer amount.* The benefit transfer amount for a missing distributee is the amount determined by the plan sponsor as of the benefit determination date using whichever one of the following three methods applies: ( 1 ) *De minimis.* If the single sum actuarial equivalent of the distributee's benefits (including any payments missed in the past) determined using plan lump sum assumptions is de minimis, then the missing distributee's benefit transfer amount is equal to that single sum.
( 2 ) *Non-de minimis; single sum payment cannot be elected.* If the single sum actuarial equivalent of the distributee's benefits (including any payments missed in the past) determined using plan lump sum assumptions is not de minimis, and a single sum payment cannot be elected, then the missing distributee's benefit transfer amount is the present value of the distributee's accrued benefit determined using PBGC missing participants assumptions, plus ( i ) For a missing distributee not in pay status whose normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later) precedes the benefit determination date, the aggregate value of payments of the straight life annuity that would have been payable beginning on the normal retirement date (or accrual cessation date if later), accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from the date each payment would have been made to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date, as determined by the plan sponsor; or
( ii ) For a missing distributee in pay status, the aggregate value of payments of the pay status annuity due but not made, accumulated at the missing participants interest rate from each payment due date to the benefit determination date, assuming that the distributee survived to the benefit determination date.
( 3 ) *Non-de minimis; single sum payment can be elected.* If the single sum actuarial equivalent of the distributee's benefits (including any payments missed in the past) determined using plan lump sum assumptions is not de minimis, and a single sum payment can be elected, then the missing distributee's benefit transfer amount is the greater of the amounts determined using the methodology in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section.
#### § 4206.7 Amount of credit in plans using the direct attribution method.

In a plan that uses the direct attribution allocation method described in section 4211(c)(4) of ERISA, the credit shall equal the amount of the liability assessed for the prior partial withdrawal, reduced as if that amount was being fully amortized in level annual installments beginning with the plan year in which the prior partial withdrawal occurred, over the greater of 10 years or the amortization period for the resulting base when the combined charge base and the combined credit base are offset under section 431(b)(5) of the Code. When an employer's prior partial withdrawal liability has been reduced or waived, this credit shall be adjusted in accordance with § 4206.8.

[61 FR 34086, July 1, 1996, as amended at 80 FR 55009, Sept. 11, 2015]
§ 500.51 Refusal to issue or to renew, or suspension or revocation of certificate. The Secretary may suspend or revoke or refuse to issue or to renew a Certificate of Registration (including a Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate) if the applicant or holder: ( a ) Has knowingly made any misrepresentation in the application for such certificate;
( b ) Is not the real party in interest in the application or Certificate of Registration and the real party in interest is a person who has been refused issuance or renewal of a certificate, has had a certificate suspended or revoked, or does not qualify under this section for a certificate;
( c ) Has failed to comply with the Act or these regulations;
( d ) Has failed to pay any court judgment obtained by the Secretary or any other person under the Act or these regulations or under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 or any regulation under such Act;
( e ) Has failed to comply with any final order issued by the Secretary as a result of a violation of the Act or these regulations or a violation of the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 or any regulation under such Act;
( f ) Has been convicted within the preceding five years: ( 1 ) Of any crime under State or Federal law relating to gambling, or to the sale, distribution or possession of alcoholic beverages, in connection with or incident to any farm labor contracting activities, or
( 2 ) Of any felony under State or Federal law involving robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, grand larceny, burglary, arson, violation of narcotics laws, murder, rape, assault with intent to kill, assault which inflicts grievous bodily injury, prostitution, peonage, or smuggling or harboring individuals who have entered the United States illegally.
( g ) Has been found to have violated paragraph (1) or (2) of section 274A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee, for employment in the United States, ( 1 ) An alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien as defined in section 274A(h)(3) of INA with respect to such employment, or
( 2 ) an individual without complying with the requirements concerning verification of the person's identity and employment authorization as stated in section 274A(b) of INA.
[48 FR 36741, Aug. 12, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 13329, Mar. 31, 1989]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of UC HUB
GROUP, INC. for the quarter ending January 31, 2007, I, Larry Wilcox, Chief
Financial Officer of UC HUB GROUP, INC., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending October 31, 2005, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

      The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter ending October 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of UC HUB
      GROUP, INC.

Dated:  March 19, 2007.

                               /s/  Larry Wilcox
                               ----------------------------------------
                               Larry Wilcox, Chief Financial Officer of
                               UC HUB GROUP, INC.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 137 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 137

 Recognizing the importance of Hot Springs National Park on the 175th 
      anniversary of the enactment of the Act that authorized the 
               establishment of Hot Springs Reservation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2007

   Mrs. Lincoln (for herself and Mr. Pryor) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the importance of Hot Springs National Park on the 175th 
      anniversary of the enactment of the Act that authorized the 
               establishment of Hot Springs Reservation.

Whereas, with the establishment of the Hot Springs Reservation, the concept in 
        the United States of setting aside a nationally significant place for 
        the future enjoyment of the citizens of the United States was first 
        carried out 175 years ago in Hot Springs, Arkansas;
Whereas the Hot Springs Reservation protected 47 hot springs in the area of Hot 
        Springs, Arkansas;
Whereas, in the first section of the Act of April 20, 1832 (4 Stat. 505, chapter 
        70), Congress required that ``the hot springs in said territory, 
        together with four sections of land, including said springs, as near the 
        centre thereof as may be, shall be reserved for the future disposal of 
        the United States, and shall not be entered, located, or appropriated, 
        for any other purpose whatever'';
Whereas the Hot Springs Reservation was the first protected area in the United 
        States;
Whereas the Act that authorized the establishment of the Hot Springs Reservation 
        was enacted before the establishment of the Department of the Interior 
        in 1849, and before the establishment of Yellowstone National Park as 
        the first national park of the United States in 1872;
Whereas, in 1921, the Hot Springs Reservation was renamed ``Hot Springs National 
        Park'' and became the 18th national park of the United States; and
Whereas the tradition of preservation and conservation that inspired the 
        development of the National Park System, which now includes 390 units, 
        began with the Act that authorized the establishment of the Hot Springs 
        Reservation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That on 175th anniversary of the Act of Congress that 
authorized the establishment of the Hot Springs Reservation, the Senate 
recognizes the important contributions of the Hot Springs Reservation 
and the Hot Springs National Park to the history of conservation in the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```
AWALANGl N 

FtcdLeumer 

Environmental Protection .t\gcncy 

Office of Science and Technology · · 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue North West 

Washlngton, D.<;. ~0460 · 

To \\-'hom It May Concern: 

July 8th, 2014 

Thank you for inviting the Qawalangin Tnbe of Unalaska. to provide input and 

express our concerns regarding the EPA's intent to formally propose an interpretive 

rule of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 518(e) in the Federal Register. 

As a federally recognized tribe, it is our utmost priority to exercise our authority and 

protect our Alaskan NatiYe Tribal members' ·rights. Although there are states where 

Indian reservations exist, it appears that in Alaska, the reinterpretation of CWA 

518(e) pwv-isions for Treatment As a State (fAS) will make little to no difference on 

our gmTcmmt."1.1t to government consultation process. Hm.\'Cver, moving forward we 

urge the EPA to continue being mindful of our inherent rights as a sovereign nation. 

Our traditional, cult:ural, and community ties are .connected to the water quality of 

this region and we would like to see the continuance of tribal consultation on matters, 

such as this, related to proposed changes and reinterpretations of EPA regulations on 

a federal level. Through this process, elevated discussions on this issue amongst our 

tribal members have taken place and we appreciate you offering us an opportunity to 

provide input. Please take this as our official statement on the EPA's prop.osition to 

reinterp t the CWA section 518(e). 

Sincerely, 

~\U-c_ ~ 

Qawalangin Tnbe of Unhlaska Presl.dent 

Thomas Robinson ·: 

.. · 

,• 

. 1 . _ .. , •. 

' .. ~ ~, \ ·'\ . ":'\ 

v ·.- . "r-· 

~ 

P.O . Box 334, Unalaska. Alaska 99685 

• ...... 

~ 

O FFICE: (907) 581-2920 FAX (907) 581-3644
<PAGE>


                                                                EXHIBIT 10.25
                                                                Note 1



$100,000      South El Monte, California    December 20, 1995

   For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark Di Salvo or 
order, at South El Monte, California the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, 
with interest from December 22, 1995, on unpaid principal at the rate of 
fifteen (15) per cent per annum; principal payable on July 22, 1996.  
Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the unpaid principal balance 
daily, based on a 365 day year, actual day month, payable monthly. Principal 
and interest shall be payable in lawful money of the United States.  If 
action be instituted on this note, I promise to pay such sum as the Court may 
fix as attorney's fees. This note is secured by the product brands 
BIKINI.BARE-Registered Trademark- .and.NOSE.BETTER-Registered Trademark-.

    December 28, 1995             Ronald G. Lee
-------------------------------  ----------------------------------------
    Date                          Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee


    December 29, 1995             Michael L. Agresti
-------------------------------  ----------------------------------------
    Date                          Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti


<PAGE>




                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25
                                                                   Note 2




                                    STRAIGHT NOTE


    $100,000       South El Monte, California    February 16, 1996

    For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark Di Salvo or
order, at South El Monte, California the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS,
with interest from February 20, 1996, on unpaid principal at the rate of fifteen
(15) per cent per annum; principal payable on January 31, 1998.  Interest shall
be calculated on the basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based on a 365
day year, actual day month, payable monthly. Principal and interest shall be
payable in lawful money of the United States.  If action be instituted on this
note, I promise to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney's fees.  This
note is secured by the product brand.




    February 23, 1996             Ronald G. Lee
-------------------------------  ----------------------------------------
    Date                          Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee


    February 26, 1996             Michael L. Agresti
-------------------------------  ----------------------------------------
    Date                          Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti
§ 4903.4 What rules apply for purposes of filing with PBGC, determining dates of filings, and computation of time? ( a ) *How and where to file.* PBGC applies the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter to determine permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this part. *See* § 4000.4 of this chapter for information on where to file.
( b ) *Date of filing.* PBGC applies the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter to determine the date that a submission under this part was filed with PBGC.
( c ) *Computation of time.* PBGC applies the rules of subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter to compute any time period under this part.
(80 South. 133)

#### MAHONEY v. STATE.

(3 Div. 317.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 26, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; A. B. Poster, Judge.

Ed Mahoney appeals from an adverse ruling in a prosecution against him.

Reversed and remanded.

Goodwyn & McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellant.

P. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The ruling of the' Supreme Court in the case of Kreutner v. State, 80 South. 125, necessitates a reversal of the judgment in this case.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       32
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (23)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
132 STAT. 1628 PUBLIC LAW 115–228—AUG. 2, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4528: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–775 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

June 25, considered and passed House. 

July 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–228 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation statutes, and 

for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012. 

Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (16 

U.S.C. 1827a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and retained’’ after 

‘‘landed’’. 

SEC. 2. SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010. 

The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the High Seas Driftnet 

Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks’’, approved January 4, 2011 (Public Law 111–348; 

124 Stat. 3668), is amended— 

(1) by striking section 104 and inserting the following: 

‘‘SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

‘‘Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title 

shall be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any 

way the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such 

conservation and management measures as the Secretary considers 

necessary and appropriate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 1854(g)).’’; and 

(2) in section 1, by striking the item relating to section 

104 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 104. Rule of construction.’’. 

Approved August 2, 2018. 

16 USC 1826i 

note. 

Aug. 2, 2018 

[H.R. 4528] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
## API Meeting Summary

TO: EPA Docket No. EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2010

‐ 0682

FROM: Brenda Shine, U.S.EPA, OAQPS/SPPD/Refining and Chemicals Group

(E143

‐ 01)

PARTICIPANTS: EPA: Janet McCabe, Joe Goffman, Peter Tsirigotis, Mike Koerber, Brenda

Shine

API: Matt Todd, Khary Cauthen, John Wagner, Barbara Ehimika, Chuck

Feerick (API Contractor: Advanced Network Solutions)

DATE OF MEETING: August 21, 2014

SUBJECT: Discuss the Proposed Standards of the Petroleum Refinery Sector Rule

On August 21, 2014, API met with EPA OAR senior management to discuss aspects of the

Refinery Residual Risk and Technology Review as presented in the attached meeting agenda.API Meeting with EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe

Refinery Risk & Technology Review Proposed Rule

- August 21, 2014

EPA Policy Implications on Safety Equipment

 Flares and atmospheric Pressure Relief Devices (PRDs) are critical safety equipment

. The pr o posed rule conflicts with the ability

to operate this equipment as designed

o The rule p rohibits the use of atmospheric PRDs in HAPs service

, and sets unachievable and unnecessary velocity and smoke

limits for existing flares

o T he associated cost, operational, and environmental implications of the prohibition and new flare limits are not addressed

(~300 new flares would be required at a cost of ~ $10+ billion )

API Requests EPA :

 Implement work practices (root cause/corrective action) to minimize potential for PRD releases

 Eliminate unnecessary restrictions (e.g. flare velocity and smoke requirements)

Risk and Technology Review

 EPA’s cost estimates are unrealistic and not reflective of the industry (i.e., $240 million vs. >$2.5 billion)

 The rule adds significant costs for compliance assurance with no associated emission reduction

o For example, flare requirements (dual limits, automatic pilot ignition , opacity monitoring), PRD monitoring, fenceline

monitoring

API Request s EPA :

 Maintain the existing coker floor ; any revision, based on 112(d)(6), must consider cost and, thus, be no more restrictive

than the recent NSPS Ja (i.e., 5 psig)

 Establish simplif ied flare standards for steam

- assisted flares that assure high combustion efficiency (i.e., CZNHV of 200

btu/scf) without demanding the unnecessary combustion of supplemental natural gas, expensive GC analyzers, and

automatic pilot ignition