alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*National Nuclear Security Administration*http://www.nnsa.energy.gov

HomeMedia RoomFact Sheets

----

# Belgium Nuclear Security Summit: Fact Sheet

March 27, 2012

As one of the leaders in nuclear technology development, Belgium’s nuclear program has covered all aspects of nuclear fuel cycle including reprocessing and operated a reprocessing plant between 1966 and 1974.
        - Belgium signed the NPT in 1975 as a non-weapons state, but has retained a leading nuclear technology research center and derives over 50% of its energy from nuclear power using 7 power reactors.
        - SCK-CEN is one of the largest research centers in Belgium whose mission includes among other areas, the backend of the nuclear fuel cycle, decommissioning of nuclear sites, and countering nuclear proliferation.
        - At the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit, Belgium has announced it will work jointly with the United States to eliminate its excess highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium.
        - SCK-CEN has been working closely for the past year with NNSA’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), to identify materials that can be transferred to the United States for disposition.
        - Belgium and the United States will continue to work together to complete the removal of this material in connection with the Nuclear Security Summit in 2014.

*Material quantities and locations are considered sensitive information so cannot be shared at this time.*

US Department of State: Belgium Nuclear Security Summit[1]

NNSA PoliciesSite MapSite FeedbackDepartment of Energy

----

**Source URL (retrieved on *Jan 28, 2013*):**http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/factsheets/belgium

**Links:**[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/27/fact-sheet-belgium-nuclear-security-summit
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2361 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2361

     To amend the commencement dates of certain temporary Federal 
                              judgeships.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 1995

 Mr. Moorhead introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the commencement dates of certain temporary Federal 
                              judgeships.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMMENCEMENT DATE OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.

    Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 
101-650; 104 Stat. 5101; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is amended by striking out 
the last sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``The first vacancy in 
the office of district judge in each of the judicial districts named in 
this subsection, except the western district of Michigan, occurring 5 
years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill a 
temporary judgeship created by this Act, shall not be filled. The first 
vacancy in the office of district judge in the western district of 
Michigan, occurring after December 1, 1995, shall not be filled.''.
                                 <all>
```
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0747 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: William & Cathey Blau 

Address: 

87079 Amboy Road 

Twentynine Palms, CA, 92277 

Email: carablau@thegrid.net 

Phone: 760-367-2117 

Organization: Private Practice 

General Comment 

As mental health practitioners, we strongly support mental health parity and we hope the final bill 

will insure that mental health services receive equal treatment with regard to standards of review 

regarding evidence-based criteria as do physical health problems. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: May 04, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae632e 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/4/2010
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.321 Ethylamine. Ethylamine must be packaged as follows: ( a ) In 1A1 drums which meet Packing Group I performance level requirements.
( b ) In specification cylinders as prescribed for any compressed gas except acetylene.
[Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52667, Dec. 21, 1990]
### Fw: Status Update on NAAQS Review

Lydia Wegman

to:

Tricia Crabtree

06/02/2010 06:50 PM

Show Details

From: Lydia Wegman

Sent: 05/26/2010 06:29 PM EDT

To: "Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Ron Evans

Subject: Re: Status Update on NAAQS Review

Thanks Jim. I just left you a voicemail asking about the comments so I'm glad to have this update. I'll plan to talk to you in

the AM.

From: "Laity, James A." [James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: 05/26/2010 06:07 PM AST

To: Lydia Wegman

Cc: Ron Evans

Subject: Status Update on NAAQS Review

Lydia, I promised you interagency RIA comments today and I am not able to deliver, my apologies but we are

very close and should be able to get to you in the morning. We have also made substantial progress on the

implementation comments we discussed, but need a little more time. Will touch bases in the morning.

‐‐ jim 

### Page 1 of 1

6/2/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\tcrabtre\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web2444.htm
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Vicsandra Jones and Darren Jones, individually and as next friends of 

John Doe, a minor v. Josi Calderon Shipley

Appellate case number: 01-16-00046-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-56901

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellants’ Motion for En Banc Reconsideration is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting for the En Banc Court*

Date: January 31, 2017

*En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Massengale, Brown, Huddle, and Lloyd.
#### James Drinning, *Appellant, v.*Mary J. Powell, *Respondent*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hykman, J.
§ 210.25 Measurement criteria and procedures. The parameters and procedures for the measurement of the noise emission levels are prescribed in the Standards. ( a ) Quantities measured are defined in § 201.21 of the Standards.
( b ) Requirements for measurement instrumentation are prescribed in § 201.22 of the Standards. In addition, the following calibration procedures shall be used: ( 1 ) ( i ) The sound level measurement system including the microphone shall be calibrated and appropriately adjusted at one or more nominal frequencies in the range from 250 through 1000 Hz at the beginning of each series of measurements, at intervals not exceeding 1 (one) hour during continual use, and immediately following a measurement indicating a violation.
( ii ) The sound level measurement system shall be checked not less than once each year by its manufacturer, a representative of its manufacturer, or a person of equivalent special competence to verify that its accuracy meets the manufacturer's design criteria.
( 2 ) An acoustical calibrator of the microphone coupler type designed for the sound level measurement system in use shall be used to calibrate the sound level measurement system in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section. The calibration must meet or exceed the accuracy requirements specified in section 5.4.1 of the American National Standard Institute Standards, “Method for Measurement of Sound Pressure Levels,” (ANSI S1.13-1971) for field method measurements.
( c ) Acoustical environment, weather conditions, and background noise requirements are prescribed in § 201.23 of the Standards. In addition, a measurement tolerance of 2 dB(A) for a given measurement will be allowed to take into account the effects of the factors listed below and the interpretations of these effects by enforcement personnel: ( 1 ) The common practice of reporting field sound level measurements to the nearest whole decibel;
( 2 ) Variations resulting from commercial instrument tolerances;
( 3 ) Variations resulting from the topography of the noise measurement site;
( 4 ) Variations resulting from atmospheric conditions such as wind, ambient temperature, and atmospheric pressure; and
( 5 ) Variations resulting from reflected sound from small objects allowed within the test site.
Editorial Note on Part 190
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 190 appear at 78 FR 58908, Sept. 25, 2013.

§ 190.407 Master Agreement. PHMSA and the applicant will enter into an agreement within 60 days after PHMSA received notification from the applicant provided in § 190.405, outlining PHMSA's recovery of the costs associated with the facility design safety review. ( a ) A Master Agreement, at a minimum, includes: ( 1 ) Itemized list of direct costs to be recovered by PHMSA;
( 2 ) Scope of work for conducting the facility design safety review and an estimated total cost;
( 3 ) Description of the method of periodic billing, payment, and auditing of cost recovery fees;
( 4 ) Minimum account balance which the applicant must maintain with PHMSA at all times;
( 5 ) Provisions for reconciling differences between total amount billed and the final cost of the design review, including provisions for returning any excess payments to the applicant at the conclusion of the project;
( 6 ) A principal point of contact for both PHMSA and the applicant; and
( 7 ) Provisions for terminating the agreement.
( 8 ) A project reimbursement cost schedule based upon the project timing and scope.
( b ) [Reserved]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00487-CV

Mary Alice SAIZ,

Appellant

v.

SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and Stripes LLC,

Appellees

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-02-28,530-CV

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees, Susser Holdings Corporation and Stripes LLC, 

recover their costs of this appeal from appellant, Mary Alice Saiz.

SIGNED March 11, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
#### § 230.23 Responsibility for general construction and safe working pressure.

The steam locomotive owner and operator are responsible for the general design and construction of the steam locomotive boilers under their control. The steam locomotive owner shall establish the safe working pressure for each steam locomotive boiler, after giving full consideration to the general design, workmanship, age, and overall condition of the complete boiler unit. The condition of the boiler unit shall be determined by, among other factors, the minimum thickness of the shell plates, the lowest tensile strength of the plates, the efficiency of the longitudinal joint, the inside diameter of the course, and the maximum allowable stress value allowed. The steam locomotive operator shall not place the steam locomotive in service before ensuring that the steam locomotive's safe working pressure has been established.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: August 15, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA

SUBJECT: August 14, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 14, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

ADEQ: Henry Darwin, Eric Massey

Tucson Electric Power: Erik Bakken, Jeff Yockey

Salt River Project: Kara Montalvo, Barbara Sprungl, Kelly Barr

Arizona Corporation Commission: Steve Olea, Margaret ‘Toby’ Little

Arizona Electric Power Coop: Logan Gernet

Arizona Public Service: Chas Spell, Ann Becker, Mike Kafka, Nancy Naski

Pacificorp: Bill Lawson and Cathy Woollums

Tristate: Andy Burger

Will Niebling OAR, Senior Advisor for Congressional and International Affairs

Reid Harvey OAP, Director, Clean Air Markets Division

Kevin Culligan OAQPS, Associate Division Director

Joe Bryson OAP, Climate Protection Partnership Division

Matt Clouse OAP, Climate Protection Partnership Division

Jeremy Mark OAP, Clean Air Markets Division

Jim Ketcham-Colwill Office of Policy Analysis and Review

Erika Wilson OAP

Deborah Jordan Director, R9 Air Division

Colleen McKaughan Associate Director, R9 Air Division

Amy Zimpfer Associate Director, R9 Air Division

Ben Machol Chief, Clean Energy & Climate Change Office

Niloufar Glosson R9

Anita Lee R9

Ray Saracino R9
§ 232.105 General requirements for locomotives. ( a ) The air brake equipment on a locomotive shall be in safe and suitable condition for service.
( b ) All locomotives ordered on or after August 1, 2002, or placed in service for the first time on or after April 1, 2004, shall be equipped with a hand or parking brake that is: ( 1 ) Capable of application or activation by hand;
( 2 ) Capable of release by hand; and
( 3 ) Capable of holding the unit on a three (3) percent grade.
( c ) On locomotives so equipped, the hand or parking brake as well as its parts and connections shall be inspected, and necessary repairs made, as often as service requires but no less frequently than every 368 days. The date of the last inspection shall be either entered on Form FRA F 6180-49A or suitably stenciled or tagged on the locomotive.
( d ) The amount of leakage from the equalizing reservoir on locomotives and related piping shall be zero, unless the system is capable of maintaining the set pressure at any service application with the brakes control valve in the freight position. If such leakage is detected en route, the train may be moved only to the nearest forward location where the equalizing-reservoir leakage can be corrected. On locomotives equipped with electronic brakes, if the system logs or displays a fault related to equalizing reservoir leakage, the train may be moved only to the nearest forward location where the necessary repairs can be made.
( e ) Use of the feed or regulating valve to control braking is prohibited.
( f ) The passenger position on the locomotive brake control stand shall be used only if the trailing equipment is designed for graduated brake release or if equalizing reservoir leakage occurs en route and its use is necessary to safely control the movement of the train until it reaches the next forward location where the reservoir leakage can be corrected.
( g ) When taking charge of a locomotive or locomotive consist, an engineer must know that the brakes are in operative condition.
( h ) ( 1 ) After March 1, 2017, each locomotive left unattended outside of a yard, but not on a track directly adjacent to the yard, shall be equipped with an operative exterior locking mechanism.
( 2 ) The railroad shall inspect and, where necessary, repair the locking mechanism during a locomotive's periodic inspection required in § 229.23 of this chapter.
( 3 ) In the event that a locking mechanism becomes inoperative during the time interval between periodic inspections, the railroad must repair the locking mechanism within 30 days of finding the inoperative lock.
( 4 ) A railroad may continue the use of a locomotive without an operative locking mechanism; however, if the controlling locomotive of a train meeting the requirements of § 232.103(n)(6)(i) does not have an operative locking mechanism for the locomotive, the train must not be left unattended on main track or a siding unless the reverser is removed from the control stand as required in § 232.103(n)(8)(ii) or the locomotive otherwise meets one of the exceptions described in § 232.103(n)(8)(iii).
[66 FR 4193, Jan. 17, 2001, as amended at 80 FR 47835, Aug. 6, 2015]
RYAN L. SCHEURMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4495

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 5, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Don H. Lester, Judge.

Ryan L. Scheurman, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|------------------|

**CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of CSS Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David J. M. Erskine,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

 

|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ David J. M. Erskine                                   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |        |                                                      |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   | David J. M. Erskine,President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

May 26, 2005

 

61

----
From: Valorie.Calton@gmail.com [mailto:Valorie.Calton@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:58 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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. 

Sincerely, 

Valorie Calton 

693 Three Springs Road 

Russellville, TN 37860
#### Abraham Stern and others, *Appellants, v.*The Florence Sewing Machine Company, *Respondent.*

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.
-----Original Message----- 

From: sonomac@sbcglobal.net [mailto:sonomac@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:49 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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. 

Sincerely, 

Richard McDavid 

515 Joaquin Dr. 

Sonoma, CA 95476
-----Original Message----- 

From: lgsherk@yahoo.com [mailto:lgsherk@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:14 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Sherk 

PO Box 111 

Vandiver, AL 35176