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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53887-53888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Agency Information Collection Extension

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; 
comment request.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information 
collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a 
three-year extension of its Legal Collection, OMB Control Number 1910-
0800. The proposed collection will enable DOE to continue to maintain 
DOE control and oversight of DOE contractor's invention reporting and 
related matters.

DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before 
September 29, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting 
comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time 
allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your 
intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer 
may be telephoned at 202-395-4650.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to John Lucas, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-2802 (telephone); (202) 586-
2805 (fax); john.t.lucas@hq.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John T. Lucas, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Washington, DC, 20585; (202) 586-2802 (telephone); (202) 586-
2805 (fax); john.t.lucas@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request 
contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-0800; (2) Information Collection Request 
Title: Legal Collection; (3) Type of Request: Renewal; (4) Purpose: To 
continue to maintain DOE control and oversight of DOE and its 
contractor's invention reporting and related matters. Likely 
respondents are DOE contractors; (5) Annual Estimated Number of 
Respondents: 1817; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 
1817; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 15,127; (8) Annual 
Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $1,034,525.

    Statutory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5908 (a), (b) and (c); 10 CFR 
part 781; 10 CFR 784.

[[Page 53888]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2011.
Robert J. Marchick,
Acting Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and 
Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585.
[FR Doc. 2011-22118 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
CHEMINFORMATICS READ-ACROSS AND QSAR ASSESSMENT FOR CAS 496849-77-5, TARGET PMN SUBSTANCE

CAS 496849-77-5 

TARGET PMN Substance

Structure

Mammalian

Oral LD50 Actual data:

M = 1.1 g/kg, F = 1.5 g/kg

Dermal LD50 Using read-across to Clopyralid: Low toxicity, LD50 > 2000 mg/kg bw

Inhal LC50 Using read-across to DR-0040-9461, LC50 predicted to be approx 0.7 mg/L 7-hr

CMR Using read-across to Clopyralid as well as same mechanistic considerations as described for skin sensitization, 

predicted to be non- genotoxic, carcinogenic or toxic towards reproduction

Repeat Dose Tox Using read-across to DR-0040-9461, Female NOEL predicted to be approx 66 mg/kg; liver and kidney targets; 

Male no NOEL, liver and kidney targets; histopathology confined to liver

Skin/Eye Irritation Using read-across: As a group, this class of chemicals are non-irritating to skin but severely irritating to the eye

Skin Sensitization Expert prediction as a non-sensitizer based on mechanistic consideration. Nucleophilic substitution would 

require electron withdrawing halogens both ortho and para to the leaving group chlorine positioned ortho to 

the ring N. Clopyralid was not a skin sensitizer (accurately predicted by DEREK) whereas DR-0040-9461 was a 

sensitizer in 10/10 Guinea pigs (also accurately predicted by DEREK)

Ecotoxicity

Fish LC50 QSAR: 15.4 mg/L (Halopyrdines –acid)

51.7 (Neutral Organics)

Daphnia EC50 QSAR: 11.1 mg/L (Halopyrdines –acid)

31.1 (Neutral Organics)

Algae EC50 No SAR for Algae for the class Halopyrdines – acid; estimated to be 10.5 mg/L assuming that the ratios between 

Algae and Daphnia values are the same for halopyrdines-acid and for neutral organics

29.3 (Neutral Organics)

Surrogate Data
CAS/DR/K Number

Structure

CAS/DR/K Number

Structure

CAS/DR/K Number

Structure

CAS/DR/K Number

Structure

CAS/DR/K Number

Structure

CAS/DR/K Number

Structure

Endpoint

K-041606 CAS 88912-24-7 CAS 40360-44-9 DR-0040-9461 CAS 1708-17-6 

Clopyralid

CAS 4684-94-0 

Chloropicolinic acid

Mammalian

Oral LD50 M = 1.07 g/kg

F = 0.36 g/kg

M = 1.2 g/kg

F = 2.8 g/kg

F > 2 g/kg M > 2 g/kg Low toxicity: 

Rat > 4.3 g/kg

Mouse > 5 g/kg

Rat = 2180 mg/kg

Dermal LD50 Low toxicity: > 

2000 mg/kg bw

Inhal LC50 M > 0.7 mg/L

7-hr

Low toxicity: LC50 > 

1 mg/L

CMR F NOEL > 66 mg/kg; liver 

and kidney targets; M no 

NOEL, liver and kidney 

targets; histo confined to 

liver

Not genotoxic, 

carcinogenic or 

toxic towards 

reproduction

Repeat Dose 

Tox

Skin/Eye

Irritation

Non-irritating to skin; 

Severely irritating to 

eye

Non-irritating to skin; 

Severely irritating to eye

Skin 

Sensitization

Potential skin sensitizer Not a sensitizer

Ecotoxicity

Fish LC50 > 100 mg/L

Daphnia EC50 > 100 mg/L

Algae EC50
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of Victory Energy Corporation; |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 28, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Fred Smith          |   |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                       |   | Fred Smith              |   |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart 151.50 of Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart 151.50 of part 151 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, and CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996.

#### § 151.50-70 Cargoes requiring inhibition or stabilization.

When table 151.05 refers to this section, that cargo must be—

(a) Inhibited; or

(b) Stabilized.

[CGD 88-100, 54 FR 40040, Sept. 29, 1989]
# C_2012184EN.01000601.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 24 April 2012 — Melvin West v Virallinen syyttäjä

(Case C-192/12)

2012/C 184/10

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Melvin West

Applicant:

Defendant: Virallinen syyttäjä

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

In applying Article 28(2) of the Framework Decision, does ‘executing Member State’ mean the Member State from which a person was originally surrendered to another Member State on the basis of a European arrest warrant, or that second Member State from which the person was surrendered to a third Member State which is now requested to surrender the person onward to a fourth Member State? Or is consent perhaps required from both Member States?

---
#### The Town of Newfield and others, Respondents, *v.*Merritt King, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending May 19, 2007

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Editorial Note on Part 515
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 515 appear at 67 FR 39860, June 11, 2002, and 70 FR 7669, Feb. 15, 2005.

§ 515.1 Scope. ( a ) This part sets forth regulations providing for the licensing and registration as ocean transportation intermediaries of persons who wish to carry on the business of providing intermediary services, including the grounds and procedures for revocation and suspension of licenses and registrations. This part also prescribes the financial responsibility requirements and the duties and responsibilities of ocean transportation intermediaries, and regulations concerning practices of ocean transportation intermediaries with respect to common carriers.
( b ) Information obtained under this part is used to determine the qualifications of ocean transportation intermediaries and their compliance with shipping statutes and regulations. Failure to follow the provisions of this part may result in denial, revocation or suspension of an ocean transportation intermediary license or registration. Persons operating without the proper license or registration may be subject to civil penalties not to exceed $9,000 for each such violation, unless the violation is willfully and knowingly committed, in which case the amount of the civil penalty may not exceed $45,000 for each violation; for other violations of the provisions of this part, the civil penalties range from $9,000 to $45,000 for each violation (46 U.S.C. 41107-41109). Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.
[64 FR 11171, Mar. 8, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 50719, Oct. 1, 2009; 80 FR 68730, Nov. 5, 2015; 84 FR 62467, Nov. 15, 2019]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 22, 2019

izm 

# Order

Clerk July 22, 2019

159845 (6)

RANDY HOLLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 159845

AGC: 16

- 1322

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

__________________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the June 26,

2019 order is denied because it does not appear that the order was entered er roneously.

Within 21 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall pay to the C lerk of the Court the

initial partial filing fee of $21.00; submit a copy of the June 26, 2019 order; and refile a

cop y of the pleadings as ordered. Failure to comply with t his order shall result in the

administrative dismissal of Appellant’s appeal.
#### § 315.6 Transferred vessels and contracts.

The requirements of § 315.5(a)(1) shall not apply to a contractor managing vessels owned by the United States under a contract or contracts previously awarded by another Federal agency if the contract, and the vessels managed under such contract, are subsequently transferred to the Maritime Administration, provided the period of performance of the transferred contract does not exceed the period of performance of the original contract, including options.

[73 FR 49358, Aug. 21, 2008]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending April 28, 2007

|Filer                  | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                              
|---------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF LANCASTER      | * Branch       | Bank of Lancaster, Kilmarnock, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 15104 Northumberland Highway, Burgess, Virginia.                  | Newspaper:05/18/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:             | 05/18/2007    
|Federal Register:      | Not applicable
|BANK OF MCKENNEY       | * Branch       | Bank of McKenney, McKenney, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 4300 Owens Way, Prince George, Virginia.                             | Newspaper:05/07/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:             | 05/07/2007    
|Federal Register:      | Not applicable
|VIRGINIA COMMERCE BANK | * Branch       | Virginia Commerce Bank, Arlington, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 14701 Lee Highway Units A 107 and 108, Centreville, Virginia. | Newspaper:05/07/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:             | 05/07/2007    
|Federal Register:      | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 502.213 Official transcript. ( a ) The Commission will designate the official reporter for all hearings. The official transcript of testimony taken, together with any exhibits and any briefs or memoranda of law filed therewith, will be filed with the Commission. Transcripts of testimony will be available in any proceeding under the rules in this part, at actual cost of duplication.
( b ) ( 1 ) Where the Commission does not request daily copy service, any party requesting such service must bear the incremental cost of transcription above the regular copy transcription cost borne by the Commission, in addition to the actual cost of duplication. Where the requesting party applies for and demonstrates that the furnishing of daily copy is indispensable to the protection of a vital right or interest in achieving a fair hearing, the presiding officer in the proceeding in which the application is made will order that daily copy service be provided the requesting party at the actual cost of duplication, with the full cost of transcription being borne by the Commission.
( 2 ) In the event a request for daily copy is denied by the presiding officer, the requesting party, in order to obtain daily copy, must pay the cost of transcription over and above that borne by the Commission, *i.e.,* the incremental cost between that paid by the Commission when it requests regular copy and when it requests daily copy. The decision of the presiding officer in this situation is interpreted as falling within the scope of the functions and powers of the presiding officer, as defined in § 502.25(a).
( c ) Motions made at the hearing to correct the transcript will be acted upon by the presiding officer. Motions made after an oral hearing to correct the record must be filed with the presiding officer within twenty-five (25) days after the last day of hearing or any session thereof, unless otherwise directed by the presiding officer, and must be served on all parties. If no objections are received within ten (10) days after date of service, the transcript will, upon approval of the presiding officer, be changed to reflect such corrections. If objections are received, the motion will be acted upon with due consideration of the stenographic record of the hearing. [Rule 213.]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 13 (Monday, January 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of Biotechnology Activities, Office of Science Policy, 
Office of the Director; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB).
    Under authority 42 U.S.C. 217a, section 222 of the Public Health 
Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services 
established NSABB to provide advice, guidance and leadership regarding 
Federal oversight of dual-use research, defined as biological research 
with legitimate scientific purposes that could be misused to pose a 
biological threat to public health and/or national security.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(1), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended 
because matters sensitive to the interest of national security will be 
presented.

    Name of Committee: National Science Advisory Board for 
Biosecurity.
    Date: January 31, 2007.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: Representatives from the Intelligence Community will 
present a classified session on the current counterterrorism and 
couterproliferation threats to the U.S.
    Place: At a predetermined location in Virginia.
    Contact Person: Ronna Hill, NSABB Program Assistant, NIH Office 
of Biotechnology Activities, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 496-9838.
    This meeting is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to timing limitations imposed by administrative matters.

    Dated: January 12, 2007.
David Clary,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-240 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### In re Disqualification of Karner. Blumberg *v.*Blumberg.

[Cite as *In re Disqualification of Earner*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1227.]

(No. 98-AP-008

Decided February 9, 1998.)

Moyer, C.J.

This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Alan G. Starkoff, counsel for plaintiff, Rena J. Blumberg, seeking the disqualification of Judge Cheryl S. Earner from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

Affiant claims that Judge Earner should be disqualified from this action because she is related by marriage to one of his.law partners and because he has done legal work for the judge and her husband. Affiant contends that Judge Earner will “overcompensate” for these relationships, thus impacting negatively on his client, and also seeks to avoid the appearance of any impropriety on the part of Judge Earner.

Defendant, Michael S. Blumberg, who is the party most likely to be adversely affected by the alleged relationship, has waived any objection to Judge Earner’s participation and agreed to proceed before her. Affiant’s contention that Judge Earner will rule against his client to demonstrate that her relationship with affiant has no impact on her consideration of the case is a tortured exercise in logic. There is no indication from the record that Judge Earner will base her judgment on anything other than the facts presented before her and the applicable law. Further, affiant was aware that the underlying case was pending before Judge Earner at the time he agreed to represent the plaintiff. His desire to avoid any appearance of impropriety on the part of Judge Earner, as expressed during the December 10, 1997-hearing, could have been satisfied by refusing to accept employment in the matter.

With regard to the allegation that Judge Earner’s bailiff may be called as a witness in this case, this matter was discussed by the judge and counsel for the parties in May 1997 after the defendant filed his motion for relief from judgment. At that time, the parties agreed that Judge Earner could proceed in the case. *1228Absent a change in circumstances that is not evident from this record, affiant cannot now rely on this as a factor in support of disqualification. See *In re Disqualification of Light*(1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 604, 522 N.E.2d 458; *In re Disqualification of Murphy*(1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459; and *In re Disqualification of Pepple*(1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 606, 546 N.E.2d 1298.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken and is denied. The case shall proceed before Judge Earner.