alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US

To: John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Gabrielle Stevens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/07/2012 04:54 PM Subject: interagency review emails for docket Hey John, Please docket these with the other interagency review email traffic. Sincerely, Jeb Stenhouse Chief, Program Development Branch Clean Air Markets Division Environmental Protection Agency 202 - 343- 9781 stenhouse.jeb@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US on 02/07/2012 04: 50 PM ----- From: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US To: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>, Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/07/2012 04:34 PM Subject: Re: ROCIS open for amendment

Chrisitne

- just acknowledging receipt of your message and that we expect imminent upload of the final revisions rule into ROCIS. Confirmation should be sent to you very shortly.

**From :**  "Kymn, Christine J." [Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov] **Sent:** 02/07/2012 09:2 5 PM GMT **To:** Richard Haeuber; Jeb Stenhouse **Subject:** ROCIS open for amendment 

### Hi guys, ROCIS is open for amendment. Please ask OP to upload the final rule and let us know when it’s there. Thanks, Christine

----- Forwarded by Jeb Stenhouse/DC/US EPA/US on 02/07/2012 04:50 PM ----- From: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US To: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/07/2012 04:45 PM Subject: Re: ROCIS open for amendment Christine - OP has told us that the final revisions rule is now in ROCIS as requested. Sincerely, Jeb StenhouseChief, Program Development Branch

Clean Air Markets Division Environmental Protection Agency 202 - 343- 9781 stenhouse.jeb@epa.gov

From: "Kymn, Christine J." < Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> To: Richard Haeuber/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/07/2012 04:25 PM Subject: ROCIS open for amendment 

### Hi guys, ROCIS is open for amendment. Please ask OP to upload the final rule and let us know when it’s there. Thanks, Christine
#### § 457.10 CSRA; FSA; CAA; LMRDA.

*CSRA* means the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978; *FSA* means the Foreign Service Act of 1980; *CAA* means the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995; *LMRDA* means the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended.

[62 FR 6093, Feb. 10, 1997]
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3506 — FOX PAINE/ADVANTA)

(2004/C 193/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1

----
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**TheIAU resolutions on astronomical reference systems, time scales, and earthrotation models: explanation and implementation
 
circ 179|errata|
 
SuDoc Number:D 213.4:179;D 213.4:179/ERRATA
Item Number:0393-A-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001031060
February 8, 2019
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.145 Extended term contracts. ( a ) Sometimes service contracts are entered into for an extended term exceeding one year; however, their continuation in effect is subject to the appropriation by Congress of funds for each new fiscal year. In such event, for purposes of this Act, a contract shall be deemed entered into upon the contract anniversary date which occurs in each new fiscal year during which the terms of the original contract are made effective by an appropriation for that purpose. In other cases a service contract, entered into for a specified term by a Government agency, may contain a provision such as an option clause under which the agency may unilaterally extend the contract for a period of the same length or other stipulated period. Since the exercise of the option results in the rendition of services for a new or different period not included in the term for which the contractor is obligated to furnish services or for which the Government is obligated to pay under the original contract in the absence of such action to extend it, the contract for the additional period is a wholly new contract with respect to application of the Act's provisions and the regulations thereunder (see § 4.143(b)).
( b ) With respect to multi-year service contracts which are not subject to annual appropriations (for example, concession contracts which are funded through the concessionaire's sales, certain operations and maintenance contracts which are funded with so-called “no year money” or contracts awarded by instrumentalities of the United States, such as the Federal Reserve Banks, which do not receive appropriated funds), section 4(d) of the Act allows such contracts to be awarded for a period of up to five years on the condition that the multi-year contracts will be amended no less often than once every two years to incorporate any new Service Contract Act wage determination which may be applicable. Accordingly, unless the contracting agency is notified to the contrary (see § 4.4(d)), such contracts are treated as wholly new contracts for purposes of the application of the Act's provisions and regulations thereunder at the end of the second year and again at the end of the fourth year, etc. The two-year period is considered to begin on the date that the contractor commences performance on the contract (i.e., anniversary date) rather than on the date of contract award.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33802-33803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 2-2000]


Foreign-Trade Zone 193-Pinellas County, FL; Application for 
Subzone Status, Amendment of Application--RP Scherer Corporation 
(Gelatin Capsules)

    Notice is hereby given that the application of the Pinellas County 
Board of County Commissioners, grantee of FTZ 193, requesting authority 
for special-purpose subzone status for the gelatin capsule 
manufacturing facilities of RP Scherer Corporation (Scherer) located in 
the St. Petersburg/Clearwater area, Pinellas County, Florida (65 FR 
5308, 2/3/00), has been amended to expand the proposed use of zone 
procedures at the Scherer plant to include the manufacture of a new 
anti-AIDS drug, using foreign and domestic ingredients. The foreign 
ingredients include Lopinavir (HTSUS 2933.59.7000--9.3% duty rate). The 
finished product is classified under HTSUS 3004.70.9010 and is duty 
free. Scherer will be finishing and encapsulating the finished drug 
under contract for Abbott Laboratories, Inc.,

[[Page 33803]]

which has authority from the FTZ Board to produce the drug under zone 
procedures at its Chicago, Illinois, plant.
    The application remains otherwise unchanged.
    The comment period is reopened until June 26, 2000.

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13098 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20365]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1989-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]


Oklahoma; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1989-DR), dated June 6, 2011, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of June 6, 2011.

Craig and Nowata Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-20365 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### § 402.2 Labor organization initial information report.

Every labor organization shall file a report signed by its president and secretary or corresponding principal officers containing the information required to be filed by section 201(a) of the Act, and found necessary to be reported under section 208 thereof by the Secretary, on United States Department of Labor Form LM-1[1] entitled, “Labor Organization Information Report”. There shall be attached to such report and made a part thereof a copy of the constitution and bylaws adopted by the reporting labor organization.

[28 FR 14381, Dec. 27, 1963, as amended at 50 FR 31309, Aug. 1, 1985; 78 FR 8024, Feb. 5, 2013]

###### Footnotes -
  402.2

[1] Filed as part of the original document.
#### § 548.403 Description of method of calculation.

The established basic rate for which approval will be sought will normally be a formula or method of calculation of a rate rather than a specific dollars and cents rates.[20] The application should contain a complete description of the formula or method of calculation of the established basic rate, including any necessary examples which will enable the Administrator to understand how the rate will be computed and applied.

[20 FR 5683, Aug. 6, 1955]

###### Footnotes -
  548.403

[20] See § 548.200.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13176]



[[Page 33749]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 2000-ASW-10]


Revision of Class D Airspace, Alexandria England AFB, LA; 
Revocation of Class D Airspace, Alexandria Esler Regional Airport, LA; 
and Revision of Class E Airspace, Alexandria, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which revises Class D Airspace at Alexandria England AFB, LA; revokes 
Class D Airspace at Alexandria Esler Regional Airport, LA; and revises 
Class E Airspace at Alexandria, LA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 65 FR 15860 is 
effective 0901 UTC, August 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air 
Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on March 24, 2000, 
(65 FR 15860). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on August 10, 2000. No adverse comments were received, 
and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be 
effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 16, 2000.
JoEllen Casilio,
Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 00-13176 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE

GEORGE R. DIPP

RELATOR

 §

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00276-CV

An Original Proceeding 

in Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, George R. Dipp, asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the

Honorable Carlos Villa, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El Paso County. Relator has

also filed a motion seeking emergency relief from the trial court’s order of August 11, 2008

canceling Relator’s notice of lis pendens. In order to be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator

must meet two requirements. First, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its

discretion. In re Prudential Insurance Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). 

Second, the relator must demonstrate he has no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 135-36. Based

on the record before us, we are unable to conclude that Relator is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny Relator’s motion for temporary relief and his petition for writ of

mandamus. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.8(a), 52.10.

September 16, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
#### § 500.44 Form of application.

An application for issuance or renewal of a Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration or Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate shall be made on forms designated by the Secretary.
§ 500.123 Property damage insurance required. ( a ) When a person who is an employer of a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker provides workers' compensation insurance which protects such worker in the event of bodily injury or death while the worker is being transported, such person must also obtain insurance providing a minimum of $50,000 for loss or damage in any one accident to the property of others (excluding cargo), or evidence of a general liability insurance policy that provides the same protection.
( b ) Such person may evidence the purchase of motor carrier insurance or other appropriate insurance providing such property damage protection by obtaining and making available upon request to the Department of Labor a vehicle or other liability certificate of insurance showing that such person has obtained the property damage insurance required under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) In the absence of the insurance certificate referred to in paragraph (b) of this section, the Department of Labor will look to the actual policy of insurance in determining compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00212

- CV
Vanessa Tijerina v. Diana Conde

On a ppeal from the 197th District Court of Willacy County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2016

- CV

- 0061

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . The Court
orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 19 , 2016
#### John F. Pitz, Sr., Respondent, *v.*James J. Munro, as Receiver for Richmond National Bank of New York, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

Argued June 3, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*474
      *William F. McDermott, Noah A. Stancliffe, George T. Barker*and *John L. Farrell*for appellant.

*Bertram F. Bongard*and *Joseph D. Nunan, Jr.,*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. (See 275 N. Y. 540.)

•Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs Lottghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK>0000060549
<NAME>LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,706,392
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      1,365
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         288,286
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        59,598
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,055,641
<COMMON>                                       424,334
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           82
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            258,910
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 683,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     95,328
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           626,800
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   20,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 630,187
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,055,641
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      845,543
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            64,081
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     633,276
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     697,357
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        148,186
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,277
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 152,463
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        39,190
<NET-INCOME>                                   113,273
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      4,585
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  108,688
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        59,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       37,605
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         186,060
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 408.6 Amendments to the Labor Organization Information Report filed by or on behalf of the subordinate labor organization.

During the continuance of a trusteeship, the labor organization which has assumed trusteeship over a subordinate labor organization, shall file with the Office of Labor-Management Standards on behalf of the subordinate labor organization any change in the information required by part 402 of this chapter in accordance with the procedure set out in § 402.4.

[63 FR 33779, June 19, 1998]
#### CLEVELAND RAILWAY CO v POLSLEY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10407.

Decided April 14, 1930

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, for Ry Co.

Bernsteen & Bernsteen, Cleveland, for Polsley.

*302SULLIVAN, J.

Thus- it appears that a new case is traceable to the instructions of the court in departing from the issue of negligence raised and substituting therefor a new issue which in and of itself has been the subject of numerous decisions which apply exclusively and arise from the starting of a street c,ar, and this is mentioned because of the distinctive legal force of the introduction of the untried issue in the charge of the court above quoted. Not only once but nine times it appears that the word “starting” was the basis of the court’s instructions to the - jury to guide it in its deliberation of the issues in the case and these instructions could have no other effect than to divert the jury from the consideration of the real issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence in the case.

It is a well settled proposition of law and elementary in its nature that the court is confined in its instructions to the jury to the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence and as a rule the issue raised by the pleadings is the sole guide unless there has been a change of the same made by the evidence and if there has been, the court in its discretion may instruct the jury in accordance with the evidence and leave may be given to amend the pleadings but in the case at bar the issues introduced by the court are distinct and material,from the issues raised by both the pleadings and the evidence and consequently there can be no other conclusion but that the giving of the instructions under consideration was prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff in error.

When we come to ■ consider the question as to the verdict and judgment being clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence, we are bound by the rule that where there is credible evidence appearing in the record to sustain the verdict that a reversal cannot be had for the reason that thereby it would be invading the province of the jury upon a question of fact which alone appertained to that tribunal.

Whatever the reviewing court’s private view may be is immaterial. The question is, does the credible evidence to support the plaintiff’s case appear in .the record? There can only be a reversal as a matter of law on the question of the weight of the evidence and this cannot be done while there projects from the record credible evidence to support the verdict.

Adhering to this rule we cannot say that there is reversible error with respect to the weight of the evidence but upon the charge of the court as above noted it is our judgment that it was prejudicial error and for this reason the judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Vickery, PJ., and Levine, J., concur.