alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 60-1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart A appear at 85 FR 71570, Nov. 10, 2020.

#### § 60-1.10 Foreign government practices.

Contractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin when hiring or making employee assignments for work to be performed in the United States or abroad. Contractors are exempted from this obligation only when hiring persons outside the United States for work to be performed outside the United States (see 41 CFR 60-1.5(a)(3)). Therefore, a contractor hiring workers in the United States for either Federal or nonfederally connected work shall be in violation of Executive Order 11246, as amended, by refusing to employ or assign any person because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin regardless of the policies of the country where the work is to be performed or for whom the work will be performed. Should any contractor be unable to acquire a visa of entry for any employee or potential employee to a country in which or with which it is doing business, and which refusal it believes is due to the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin of the employee or potential employee, the contractor must immediately notify the Department of State and the Director of such refusal.

[79 FR 72994, Dec. 9, 2014]
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16202]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 731-TA-413-415 and 419 (Review)]

Certain Industrial Belts From Germany, Italy, Japan, and 
Singapore

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Cancellation of the hearing of full five-year reviews 
concerning the antidumping duty orders on certain industrial belts from 
Germany, Italy, Japan, and Singapore.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Bonarriva (202-708-4083) Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6627), the Commission published a 
notice in the Federal Register scheduling full five-year reviews 
concerning the antidumping duty orders on certain industrial belts from 
Germany, Italy, Japan, and Singapore. The schedule provided for a 
public hearing on June 27, 2000. Requests to appear at the hearing were 
filed with the Commission on behalf of Mitsuboshi Belting Corp. and on 
behalf of Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Bando American, Inc. 
Subsequently, each of the parties requesting to appear at the hearing 
withdrew its request. Since there are no current requests by interested 
parties to appear at a public hearing, the Commission determined to 
cancel the public hearing on certain industrial belts from Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and Singapore. The Commission unanimously determined that 
no earlier announcement of this cancellation was possible.
    For further information concerning these reviews, see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to sections 201.35 and 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    Dated: June 21, 2000.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16202 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
The Keetac file The Keetac file(251KB)was not the latest version was not the latest version was not the latest version ;the latest version is of the latest version is of the latest version is of 

181KB in size KB in size

Jiang,Hongming Hongming Hongming(MPCA) to: Kathleen Dagostino 11/14/2012 03:38 PM

Cc: "Neuschler, Catherine (MPCA)"

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded .

2 attachments

BARTNOx62B.xlsx BARTNOx62B.xlsx Keetac BART Supporting Data.xlsx Keetac BART Supporting Data.xlsx

Kathleen:

Catherine cleaned up the spreadsheets I started, resulting in the 

attached version of 181 KB in size. When I replied to your e-mail today, 

I attached a wrong file to add Minitab 16 stuff, making it to 251 KB. I 

should have pasted the stuff to the 181 KB file. Sorry for the error!

I’d need to sort out something else with Minntac’s SO2 data and will 

e-mail you tomorrow.

- Hongming

From: Jiang, Hongming (MPCA) 

Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:42 PM

To: 'Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov'

Cc: Neuschler, Catherine (MPCA)

Subject: RE: Keetac SO2 limit

Kathleen:

Attached is the spreadsheet file, the filename of which is a misnormer 

(as the file holds not only CEMS data for NOx but also CEMS data for 

SO2). See the 2nd tab, cell AF3. You can see how the value was 

calculated and verified. If you received this file previously, please save 

the file attached to this e-mail using a slightly different filename – I 

have added a bit of Minitab graphs and a table of data to show how the 

statistical analysis was done. Let me know if you have questions. 

Thanks!

- Hongming

From: Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov [

mailto:Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:01 AM

To: Jiang, Hongming (MPCA)

Subject: Keetac SO2 limit
Do you have a spreadsheet with your calculations for the SO2 

limit for Keetac? The file you sent us has Keetac on the 

summary page but doesn't have a tab with calculations for the 

facility. Thanks.

______________________

Kathleen D'Agostino

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA - Region 5

Phone: (312) 886-1767

email: dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov
IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 

NO. F-08-90006 

On Petition for Review of Order and supporting memorandum

dated September 8, 2008

DECIDED: January 21, 2009 

Per Curiam 

 A petition for review filed November 5, 2008, seeking review of the order of 

Chief Judge Michel, dated September 8, 2008, which dismissed the complaint of judicial 

misconduct or disability, having been referred to the active judges of the court eligible to 

participate in the review, and the petition for review, the underlying complaint, and Chief 

Judge Michel’s order having been considered, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The order dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed. 

 FOR THE COURT 

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk of Court
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–48

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 42, THE PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

IN KOSOVO RESOLUTION

MARCH 10, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 103]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 103, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 42, the ‘‘Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo Resolution’’ under a modified open rule. The rule provides two hours of

general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on International Relations.

The rule provides that the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. The rule makes in order only those amendments

printed in the Congressional Record. The rule provides that each

amendment printed in the Congressional Record may be offered

only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee,

and that each amendment shall be considered as read. The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone

votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to

five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen

minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII the results of each

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below:
2

Rules Committee record vote No. 4

Date: March 10, 1999.

Measure: H. Con. Res. 42, the Peacekeeping Operations in

Kosovo Resolution.

Motion by: Mr. Moakley.

Summary of motion: To postpone consideration of the resolution

until the peace agreement has been successfully concluded.

Results: Defeated 3–9.

Vote by Members: Goss—Nay; Linder—Nay; Pryce—Nay; DiazBalart—Nay; Hastings—Nay; Myrick—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Reynolds—Nay; Moakley—Yea; Hall—Yea; Slaughter—Yea; Dreier—

Nay.

Rules Committee record vote No. 5

Date: March 10, 1999.

Measure: H. Con. Res. 42, the Peacekeeping Operations in

Kosovo Resolution.

Motion by: Mr. Moakley.

Summary of motion: To waive points of order against a Gejdenson amendment and to make it in order. The amendment contained

additional findings, an authorization for the deployment of troops,

and a statement in support of the troops.

Results: Defeated 3–9.

Vote by Members: Goss—Nay; Linder—Nay; Pryce—Nay; DiazBalart—Nay; Hastings—Nay; Myrick—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Reynolds—Nay; Moakley—Yea; Hall—Yea; Slaughter—Yea; Dreier—

Nay.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1602 Designation for random selection.

Applications in the services specified in § 1.1601 shall be tendered, accepted or dismissed, filed, publicly noted and subject to random selection and hearing in accordance with any relevant rules. Competing applications for an initial license or construction permit shall be designated for random selection and hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in §§ 1.1603 through 1.1623 and § 73.3572 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.739 Primary jurisdiction referrals. ( a ) Any party to a case involving claims under the Act that has been referred to the Commission by a court pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine must contact the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the Enforcement Bureau for guidance before filing any pleadings or otherwise proceeding before the Commission.
( b ) Based upon an assessment of the procedural history and the nature of the issues involved, the Market Disputes Resolution Division will determine the procedural means by which the Commission will handle the primary jurisdiction referral.
( c ) Failure to contact the Market Disputes Resolution Division prior to filing any pleadings or otherwise proceeding before the Commission, or failure to abide by the Division's determinations regarding the referral, may result in dismissal.
[83 FR 44837, Sept. 4, 2018]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.41 Informal requests for Commission action.

Except where formal procedures are required under the provisions of this chapter, requests for action may be submitted informally. Requests should set forth clearly and concisely the facts relied upon, the relief sought, the statutory and/or regulatory provisions (if any) pursuant to which the request is filed and under which relief is sought, and the interest of the person submitting the request. In application and licensing matters pertaining to the Wireless Radio Services, as defined in § 1.904, such requests must be submitted electronically, via the ULS, and the request must include an email address for receiving electronic service. See § 1.47(d).

[85 FR 85528, Dec. 29, 2020]
EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02DD

Issues on Commercial Water Heaters, Hot 

Water Supply Boilers and Unfired Hot 

Water Storage Tanks as Discussed in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02DD

Definitions and Scope of Coverage 

Instantaneous Water Heaters 

DOE proposes that instantaneous water heaters that are 

designed to heat water to 180 of or higher are subject to 

applicable standards and test procedures for commercial water 

heaters. 
EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02DD

Definitions and Scope of Coverage 

Hot Water Supply Boilers 

• ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Addendum n, provides in essence that this 

product shall meet the efficiency requirements that apply to 

water heaters. 

• DOE proposes provisions to implement the approach in 

Addendum n. 
EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02DD

Definitions and Scope of Coverage 

Heat Pump Water Heaters 

• DOE did not propose a test procedure within this rulemaking; 

• DOE anticipates consideration of a revised version of ASH RAE 

Standard 118.1. 

Waste Heat Recovery Water Heaters 

• Not addressed within the proposed rule; 

• EPCA does not provide energy conservation standards or test 

procedures for these products. 
EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02DD

Test Procedures 

Gas-Fired Water Heaters 

DOE proposes ANSI Z21.1 0.3-1998. 

Oil-Fired Water Heaters 

DOE proposes ANSI Z21.1 0.3-1998 with adaptations provided in 

footnote e to Table 11.1 of ASHRAE 90.1-1989 (Addendum n). 

Electric Water Heaters 

DOE proposes ANSI Z21.1 0.3-1998 with adaptations provided in 

footnote e to Table 11.1 of ASHRAE 90.1-1989 (Addendum n) as 

well as a method of adjusting multiple thermostats. . 
EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 02DD

Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks 

Maximum Heat Loss Requirement 

• DOE proposes that losses be calculated per square foot of 

"nominal surface area" based on the measurement of total 

losses. 

• DOE also addresses interpretation of the statutory exemption 

from this requirement. 

Test Procedure 

DOE proposes use of the standby loss test of ANSI Z21.1 0.3-

1998, performed on an "equivalent" electric storage tank. 

· . ~
No. 11-5316.

#### Abari *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-50.

#### Alto Eldorado Partnership et al. *v.*Santa Fe County, New Mexico, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 28, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00772

- CR

EX PARTE Jorge BECERRA

- ORTIZ

,

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Te xas

Trial Court No. 12255CR Honorable Tully Shahan , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 21, 2022, Ms. Lisa C. Greenwalt, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record for this appeal, filed a notification of late record, stating “[I] don’t

know” to the following questions: the approximate date of trial, the record’s original due date, and the anticipated length of the record. Ms. Greenwalt also stated the record has not been requested by the attorney.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide wri tten proof to this court December 8,

2022 that the appellant has requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, which request must designate the portions of the proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(1). The reporter’s record must be filed no later than twenty days after the date appellant’s written proof is filed with this court.

It is further ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court no later than

Decem ber 8, 2022 that ei ther (1) the fee for preparing the reporter’s record has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

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

court on this 28th day of November, 2022

.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16786]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative Activities; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Intergrative 
Activities (1193).
    Date/Time: July 24, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Room 130, 320, 330, 340, 370, and 470, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Caroline Wardle, Information Technology 
Workforce, Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 1160, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230 
Telephone: (703) 306-1981.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation 
for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate CISE Information Technology 
Workforce proposals submitted in response to the program 
announcement (NSF 00-77).
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 28, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-16786 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-2261: WOODS v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WC6oUUay1e\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/07-22-2022-21-2261-woods-v-us-opinion-21-2261-opinion-7-22-2022_1981615\/\">21-2261: WOODS v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/07-22-2022-21-2261-woods-v-us-opinion-21-2261-opinion-7-22-2022_1981615\/embed\/#?secret=WC6oUUay1e\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2261: WOODS v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"WC6oUUay1e\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: WOODS v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2261 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 301-10.180 Must I travel by a U.S. flag ship?

Yes, when authorized to travel by ship you must use a U.S. flag ship when one is available unless the necessity of the mission requires the use of a foreign ship. (See 46 U.S.C. 55302).

[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55705, Sept. 12, 2022]