alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 110

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 110 appear at 70 FR 56090, Sept. 23, 2005.

#### § 110.100 Enforcement.

If a recipient fails to comply with any term of the grant agreement, a noncompliance action may be taken. The recipient will have the opportunity to object and provide information and documentation challenging the suspension or termination action. Costs incurred by the recipient during a suspension or after termination of the grant agreement are not allowable unless the Associate Administrator authorizes it in writing. Grant agreements may also be terminated in whole or in part with the consent of the recipient at any agreed upon effective date, or by the recipient upon written notification.

[84 FR 4000, Feb. 14, 2019]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, June 9, 1995 (77), Para 77.7 Memorials]
[Page 888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.77.7  memorials

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII,

       109. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the 
     State of Louisiana, relative to memorializing the Congress of 
     the United States to propose an amendment to the Constitution 
     of the United States to prohibit burning of the U.S. flag; to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
```
#### § 11.113 Suspension or Termination of IRB Approval of Research.

An IRB shall have authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Any suspension or termination of approval shall include a statement of the reasons for the IRB's action and shall be reported promptly to the investigator, appropriate institutional officials, and the department or agency head.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
Editorial Note on Part 105
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 105 appear at 70 FR 56087, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 105.50 Serving a subpoena. ( a ) *Personal service.* Anyone who is not an interested party and who is at least 18 years of age may serve you with a subpoena and fees by handing the subpoena and fees to you, by leaving them at your office with the individual in charge, or by leaving them at your house with someone who lives there and is capable of making sure that you receive them. If PHMSA issues a subpoena to an entity, rather than an individual, personal service is made by delivering the subpoena and fees to the entity's registered agent for service of process or to any officer, director or agent in charge of any of the entity's offices.
( b ) *Service by mail.* You may be served with a copy of a subpoena and fees by certified or registered mail at your last known address. Service of a subpoena and fees may also be made by registered or certified mail to your agent for service of process or any of your representatives at that person's last known address.
( c ) *Other methods.* You may be served with a copy of a subpoena by any method where you receive actual notice of the subpoena and receive the fees before leaving the hearing at which you testify.
( d ) *Filing after service.* After service is complete, the individual who served a copy of a subpoena and fees must file the original subpoena and a certificate of service with the PHMSA official who is responsible for conducting the hearing.
#### EMILY MOORE, PLAINTIFF, v. ATLANTIC AND SUBURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chibe Justice, and Justices Parker and Katzenbach.

Eor the rule, *Bourgeois & Coulomb.*

Contra, *Oscar LeWine*and *William I. Garrison.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover compensation for injuries 'which she received, as she alleged, while attempting to board a trolley car of the defendant company in Pleasantville, and which, as she claimed, was caused by the negligence of the operator of the car. Her story told on the witness-stand at the trial of the cause was that the trolley car stopped at a street intersection to discharge and take on passengers; that she, with a Mrs. Eck, started to get on the car, Mrs. Eck going first and the plaintiff following her ; that Mrs. Eck got on safely, but as the plaintiff got one foot on the step the car started up, and she was thrown to the ground; that as the result thereof her leg was severely bruised; that she also received a bruise across the lower portion of her abdomen, and also that she suffered a severe nervous shock. Her story as to the happening of the accident was corroborated by the testimony of Mrs. Eck. The jury awarded her a verdict of $500; and, a rule to show cause having been allowed the defendant, it is now contended before us that the finding of re*106sponsibility on its part was against the weight of the evidence, the argument being that the proofs greatly preponderate in favor of the conclusion that no such casualty as alleged in the complaint ever occurred. A reading of the testimony submitted on the part of the defendant, as well as that submitted by the plaintiff, leads us to the conclusion that the jury was entirely justified in finding that the alleged accident to Mrs. Moore which is the subject of the present litigation actually occurred, and that it was caused by the carelessness of the operator in starting the car while she was in the act of boarding it.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending April 28, 2012

----

Personnel            Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation -- appointment of Tim Clark as senior associate director.            -Announced, April 26, 2012            Enforcement            Community First, Inc., Columbia, Tennessee -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.            -Announced, April 25, 2012                        Community West Bancshares, Goleta, California -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.            -Announced, April 24, 2012                        North Valley Bancorp, Redding, California, and North Valley Bank -- written agreement dated January 6, 2010, terminated April 16, 2012.            -Announced, April 24, 2012                        North Valley Bank, Zanesville, Ohio -- written agreement dated May 4, 2010, terminated April 19, 2012.            -Announced, April 25, 2012                        Pacific International Bancorp, Seattle, Washington -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.            -Announced, April 24, 2012                        Truman Bank, Clayton, Missouri -- issuance of a prompt corrective action directive with the consent of the bank.            -Announced, April 24, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending May 11, 2013

|Filer                    | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                                  
|------------------------ | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|DONEGAL GROUP, INC       | CIC            | Gregory M. Shepard, Bradenton, FL, to acquire up to 24.38 percent of Donegal Group Inc., Marietta, PA.                                                                                             | Newspaper:05/27/2013Federal Register:05/20/2013        
|Newspaper:               | 05/27/2013    
|Federal Register:        | 05/20/2013    
|MERCHANTS BANK OF BANGOR | Premises       | Merchants Bank, Bangor, PA, request approval to establish a branch office located at 2 West Broad Street, Bethlehem, PA, therefore exceeding the 150% threshold investment in their bank premises. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:               | Not applicable
|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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
§ 172.432 INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE label. ( a ) Except for size and color, the INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE label must be as follows:
( b ) In addition to complying with § 172.407, the background on the INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE label must be white.
( c ) Labels conforming to requirements in place on August 18, 2011 may continue to be used until October 1, 2014.
[Amdt. 172-123, 56 FR 66258, Dec. 20, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 53136, Aug. 14, 2002; 76 FR 43527, July 20, 2011; 76 FR 56314, Sept. 13, 2011; 76 FR 81400, Dec. 28, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS   SUMMARY   FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM
REGISTRANT'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE QUARTER ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         305
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  261
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                      11,398
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,665
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,587
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 52002XC0924(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52002XC0924(01)

**Notice concerning the anti-dumping duty in force in respect of imports into the Community of certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Romania: modification of the name of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate **

*
Official Journal C 227 , 24/09/2002 P. 0008 - 0008 *

Notice concerning the anti-dumping duty in force in respect of imports into the Community of certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Romania: modification of the name of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate

(2002/C 227/06)

Imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Romania are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Commission Decision No 1758/2000/ECSC(1), as last amended by Decision No 979/20002/ECSC(2). Pursuant to Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 963/2002(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 130/2002(4), these measures have been continued and are now governed by Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

Sidex SA, a company located in Romania, whose exports to the Community of certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel are subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate of 5,7 % by the aforementioned Decision, has informed the Commission that it has changed its name into Ispat Sidex SA. The company has asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous name of Sidex SA.

The Commission has examined the information supplied, which demonstrates that all the company's activities linked to the manufacturing, sales and exports of certain hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy steel are unaffected by the change of name. The Commission therefore concludes that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Decision No 1758/2000/ECSC. In view of the absence of any substantive change of circumstances, the reference to Sidex SA should be read as Ispat Sidex SA in Article 1(2) of Decision No 1758/2000/ECSC.

The Taric additional code previously attributes to Sidex SA shall apply to Ispat Sidex SA.

(1) OJ L 202, 10.8.2000, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 150, 8.6.2002, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 149, 7.6.2002, p. 3.

(4) OJ L 192, 20.7.2002, p. 9.
-----Original Message----- 

From: bpaul3@austin.rr.com [mailto:bpaul3@austin.rr.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:05 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

I worked in the mental health field for 10 years and saw how hard the 

professionals in the field tried to stop the stigma that was attached 

to these illnesses. It is important that insurance companies not be 

allowed to attach their stigmas. 

Sincerely, 

Barbara Paul 

4009 Jaffna Cv 

Austin, TX 78749
II

Calendar No. 378

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1836

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 24, 1996

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property

in the town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New

York, for inclusion in the Amagansett National Wildlife

Refuge.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1836 PCS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR IN2 CLUSION IN THE AMAGANSETT NATIONAL

3 WILDLIFE REFUGE.

4 (a) AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY.—The Sec5 retary of the Interior may acquire, for inclusion in the

6 Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge, the area known as

7 the Shadmoor Parcel, consisting of approximately 98 acres

8 (as determined by the Secretary) located along the Atlan9 tic Ocean adjacent to municipal park land in the town of

10 East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York.

11 (b) MANAGEMENT OF ACQUIRED INTERESTS.—

12 Lands and interests acquired by the United States under

13 this section shall be managed by the Secretary of the Inte14 rior as part of the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge.

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 378

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1836

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acAmagansett National Wildlife Refuge. Suffolk County, New York, for inclusion in the quire property in the town of East Hampton,

APRIL 24, 1996

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
#### § 172.526 [Reserved]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, June 29, 1995 (89), Para 89.5 Providing for the Consideration of the Conference Report on H. Con. Res 67]
[Page 1067]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.89.5  providing for the consideration of the conference report on 
          h. con. res 67

  Mr. SOLOMON, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 175):

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 
     The provisions in section 2 of this resolution shall be 
     effective upon the adoption by the Congress of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 67.

     SEC. 2. HOUSE CONFORMING CHANGES.

       (a) Revenue Instruction in the House.--For the purposes of 
     the compliance with reconciliation directions in the House 
     under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, subclause (II) of section 
     105(a)(2)(B)(xii) of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget 
     for Fiscal Year 1996 shall be deemed to read as follows:
       ``(II) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction such that the total 
     level of revenues for that committee for fiscal year 2002 is 
     not less than $1,295,840,000,000 and for fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002 is not less than $7,896,813,000,000.''.
       (b) House Certification Procedure.--Section 205 of the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996 
     shall not apply with respect to the House.

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  Mr. GOSS moved the previous question on the resolution to its adoption 
or rejection.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House now order the previous question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KINGSTON, announced that the yeas had it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
not present and not voting.
  A quorum not being present,
  The roll was called under clause 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by 
electronic device.

Yeas

233

When there appeared

Nays

181
```
§ 15.1 Scope. ( a ) *Applicability.* This part governs the maintenance, safeguarding, and disclosure of records and information that the Secretary of DOT has determined to be Sensitive Security Information, as defined in § 15.5. This part does not apply to the maintenance, safeguarding, or disclosure of classified national security information, as defined by Executive Order 12968, or to other sensitive unclassified information that is not SSI, but that nonetheless may be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, in the case of information that has been designated as critical infrastructure information under section 214 of the Homeland Security Act, the receipt, maintenance, or disclosure of such information by a Federal agency or employee is governed by section 214 and any implementing regulations, not by this part.
( b ) *Delegation.* The authority of the Secretary under this part may be further delegated within DOT.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131498 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. SUZANNE VERBRUGGHE, as Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representative of the Justices Estate of George Verbrugghe, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131498 COA: 263686 Macomb CC: 04-004423-NH SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL – MACOMB COUNTY, INC., Defendant-Appellee,

and

ARSENIO V. DeLEON, M.D., and MARIUS LAURINAITIS, M.D., Defendants-Appellants,

and

JAVED ZIA, M.D., Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of October 17, 2007, the appli cation for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in ab eyance pending the decision in Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on April 9, 2008, 480 Mich 1159 (2008), the application is again considered, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Washington v Sinai Hospital of Greater Detroit , 478 Mich 412 (2007), and Braverman

, supra

.

l0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk