alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Key Points about EPA’s Quantitative Risk Analysis for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
CASAC Ozone Reconsideration Panel Conference Call February 18, 2011



## Anne E. Smith, Ph.D. Comments sponsored by API1 

# Premise

• The Ozone Reconsideration must be based only on information that was in the record prior to the Final Rulemaking in 2008

• The following comments are based solely on information in that record.

# Very Little of EPA’s Estimates of Risk Are Due to Ozone Exposures above 70 ppb (max 8- hour average)

2 # Deaths Attributable to Ozone Exposures > 70 ppb (8- hr avg ) Percent of Total Mortality Incidence Atlanta 0.6 (
- 2.6 , 3.7) 0.01% (
- 0.03, 0.04%) Cleveland 4.0 (
- 2.5 , 10.4) 0.03% (
- 0.02, 0.07%) Detroit 1.9 (
- 0.6 , 4.5) 0.01% (
- 0.00, 0.02%) Houston 1.5 (0.1 , 3.0) 0.02% (0.00, 0.04%) Los Angeles 0 (0 , 0) 0% (0, 0%) Sacramento 0.1 (
- 0.3 , 0.5) 0.00% (
- 0.00, 0.01%) St. Louis 0.4 (
- 0.8 , 1.6) 0.01% (
- 0.02, 0.04%) Mortality Risk Estimates for Exact Attainment of 74 ppb Alternative Standard(*) (for Average of 2002 and 2004 Data; 95% Confidence Intervals in Parentheses)

(*) The 74 ppb Alternative Standard in EPA’s Risk Analysis is a close approximation to the current ozone standard of 75 ppb 

### The other 93% of EPA’s risk estimates are due to exposures below 70 ppb , the vast majority

below even

60 ppb ... where there is little confidence in the risk associations

# 92% to 100% of the Total Risk Disappears If PolicyRelevant Background Assumption is Varied over its Range of Uncertainty (for both Morbidity and Mortality)

3 # Deaths Using Model - Based PRB Assumption # Deaths Using 1997 ’s Monitorbased PRB Assumption Change in Risk Estimate Atlanta 5.3 0.1 98% ↓ Cleveland 31.7 2.6 92 % ↓ Detroit 30.2 0.7 98% ↓ Houston 17.8 0.7 96 % ↓ Los Angeles 28.6 0.0 100 % ↓ Sacramento 9.5 0.1 99 % ↓ St. Louis 3.4 0.2 96 % ↓ 

### EPA’s decision to alter its PRB assumption

**-- NOT new concentration**  **- response information**  **– is solely responsible for the larger quantitative morbidity and mortality**  **risk estimates as compared to the prior (1997) ozone review** Sensitivity of Quantitative Risk Estimates to PRB Assumption at Exact Attainment of 74 ppb Alternative Standard (Average of 2002 and 2004 Air Quality Data)

# Even If Effects Occur Below 60 ppb, a Tighter Standard Is Unlikely to Reduce Those Effects as EPA Estimates,

Because EPA Assumes Unlikely Reductions on Days with Already- Low Peak Ozone Levels

4 **Even at 84 ppb NAAQS 60% of days have 8** **- hr max O3**  **between 25 and 40 ppb, yet are assumed by EPA to**  **experience significant further % reductions if standard is**  **tightened further** (Detroit 2004 Ambient Monitor Data)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31065]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Intent To Issue 2 Draft Comprehensive Conservation 
Plans and Associated Environmental Assessments for 2 National Wildlife 
Refuges in the Southwest Region

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service) has prepared draft Comprehensive Conservation Plans 
(CCP) and associated Environmental Assessments for the Balcones 
Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, Austin, Texas; and the Buenos 
Aires National Wildlife Refuge, Sasabe, Arizona, pursuant to the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and its implementing regulations.

DATES: The Service will be open to written comments through March 5, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies may be obtained by writing to: Mr. Tom Baca, Natural 
Resource Planner, Division of Refuges, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306. Comments should be submitted 
to: Mr. Tom Baca, Natural Resource Planner, Division of Refuges, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It is Service policy to have all lands 
within the National Wildlife Refuge System managed in accordance with 
an approved CCP. The CCP guides management decisions and identifies 
refuge goals, long-range objectives, and strategies for achieving 
refuge purposes. The planning process has considered many elements, 
including habitat and wildlife management, habitat protection and 
acquisition, public and recreational uses, and cultural resources. 
Public input into this planning process has assisted in the development 
of the draft documents. The CCP will provide other agencies and the 
public with a clear understanding of the desired conditions for the 
Refuges and how the Service will implement management strategies.
    The Service intends to consider comments and advice generated in 
response to the draft documents prior to the preparation of a final 
CCP. The Service is furnishing this notice in compliance with Service 
CCP policy: (1) To advise other agencies and the public of the 
availability of the draft documents, and (2) to obtain suggestions and 
advice for consideration in preparation of final documents.
    The Service anticipates that final CCP documents and any associated 
NEPA documents will be available by July 31, 2001.

    Dated: November 29, 2000.
Thomas C. Bauer,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 00-31065 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 207 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 

analogues. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2017 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GRASSLEY, 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. TILLIS, and 

Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to 

controlled substance analogues. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Synthetic Abuse and 

5 Labeling of Toxic Substances Act of 2017’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SALTS Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES. 

8 Section 203 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

9 U.S.C. 813) is amended— 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 207 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘A controlled’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A controlled’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) DETERMINATION.—In determining whether a 

5 controlled substance analogue was intended for human 

6 consumption under subsection (a), evidence related to the 

7 following factors may be considered, along with all other 

8 relevant evidence: 

9 ‘‘(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling 

10 of the substance. 

11 ‘‘(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the 

12 substance for the marketed, advertised, or labeled 

13 purpose. 

14 ‘‘(3) The difference between the price at which 

15 the substance is sold and the price at which the sub16 stance it is purported to be or advertised as is nor17 mally sold. 

18 ‘‘(4) The diversion of the substance from legiti19 mate channels and the clandestine importation, man20 ufacture, or distribution of the substance. 

21 ‘‘(5) Whether the defendant knew or should 

22 have known the substance was intended to be con23 sumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or any 

24 other immediate means. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 207 IS

1 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—For purposes of this section, the 

2 existence of evidence that a substance was not marketed, 

3 advertised, or labeled for human consumption shall not 

4 preclude the Government from establishing, based on all 

5 the evidence, that the substance was intended for human 

6 consumption.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 472 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 207 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 

analogues. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2017 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GRASSLEY, 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. 

WARNER, Mr. HATCH, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. SMITH, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JUNE 19, 2018 

Reported by Mr. GRASSLEY, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to 

controlled substance analogues. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Synthetic Abuse and 

5 Labeling of Toxic Substances Act of 2017’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SALTS Act’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 207 RS

1 SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES. 

2 Section 203 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

3 U.S.C. 813) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘A controlled’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A controlled’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(b) DETERMINATION.—In determining whether a 

8 controlled substance analogue was intended for human 

9 consumption under subsection (a), evidence related to the 

10 following factors may be considered, along with all other 

11 relevant evidence: 

12 ‘‘(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling 

13 of the substance. 

14 ‘‘(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the 

15 substance for the marketed, advertised, or labeled 

16 purpose. 

17 ‘‘(3) The difference between the price at which 

18 the substance is sold and the price at which the sub19 stance it is purported to be or advertised as is nor20 mally sold. 

21 ‘‘(4) The diversion of the substance from legiti22 mate channels and the clandestine importation, man23 ufacture, or distribution of the substance. 

24 ‘‘(5) Whether the defendant knew or should 

25 have known the substance was intended to be conVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:07 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S207.RS S207

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 207 RS

1 sumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or any 

2 other immediate means. 

3 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—For purposes of this section, the 

4 existence of evidence that a substance was not marketed, 

5 advertised, or labeled for human consumption shall not 

6 preclude the Government from establishing, based on all 

7 the evidence, that the substance was intended for human 

8 consumption.’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 472 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 207 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to 

controlled substance analogues. 

JUNE 19, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
#### Will S. FOX, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 7260.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

July 12, 1940.

Theodore B. Benson, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

William L. Cary, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before MARIS, JONES, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons sufficiently set forth in the memorandum opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals, its decision is affirmed.
#### RICHARDSON v. STATE.

No. 15612.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1932.

Jake Newberry, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, violating the speed law; the punishment, confinement in the county jail for 90 days.

*114The record is before us. without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No ■question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

HAWKINS, J., not sitting.'
<PAGE>

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


The following is a list of the subsidiaries of Soulfood Concepts, Inc.(the
"Company"):

         1) Shark Restaurant Corp., incorporated under the laws of New York on
June 7, 1990 (owned 100% by the Company);

         2) Shark Restaurant California, Inc., incorporated under the laws of
California on June 23, 1997 (owned 100% by the Company); ceased operations in
June 1999.

         3) Affair Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Shark Bar Restaurant Chicago,
purchased on January 10, 1997 (owned 100% by the Company); temporarily ceased
operations in July 1999.

         4) Shark Bar, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Georgia on January
29, 1998 (owned 100% by the Company);

         5) 7 West Restaurant Corp. ("7 West"), incorporated under the laws of
New York on February 1, 1994 (owned 100% by the Company);

         6) Avenue A Restaurants Associates, L.P. ("Avenue A"), organized as a
limited partnership under the laws of New York on September 22, 1994 (owned 62%
by 7 West);

         7) Shark Catering Corp., incorporated under the laws of New York on May
14, 1992 (owned 100% by the Company) currently inactive; and

         8) TWS Restaurant Corp., incorporated under the laws of New York on May
1, 1995 (owned 100% by the Company) currently inactive.
#### BUCHANAN et al. v. DAVIS et al.

No. 1672—6153.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

May 26, 1933.

Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price and Allen Wight, all of Dallas, for plaintiffs in error.

Cqke & Coke, Seay, Seay, Malone & Lips7 comb, John Jackson, Julian B. Mastin, and R. G. Storey, all of Dallas, for defendants in error.

Robert Thompson, pro se.

CRITZ, Judge.

This suit was filed in the district court of Dallas, Tex., by Boleta Davis et al. against W. M. Buchanan et al. to establish and recover their interests in five tracts of land in Dallas county, Tex., for a partition, and for an accounting for rents and revenues thereto. Trial in the district court resulted in a judgment, from which W. M. Buchanan et al. appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas. The case was transferred in equalizing the dockets of the several courts of civil appeals to the Court of Civil Appeals at Waco. On hearing in the latter court it reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the entire cause thereto for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion. 43 S.W. (2d) 279. Both sides except W. M. Buchanan applied for writs of' error to this court by two applications, Both were granted.

We have carefully road and considered both applications for writs of error filed in the Supreme Court, together with the briefs and arguments filed by their counsel, and in our opinion the Court of Civil Appeals has correctly disposed of this ease in every detail, and for correct reasons given. Under such circumstances it would be a waste of effort for us to write a further opinion. We therefore content ourselves with following a custom now established by this court and simply adopt and approve the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as our opinion.

We recommend that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals which reverses the judgment of the district court and remands the cause thereto for further proceedings in accordance with such opinion be affirmed.

CURETON, Chief Justice.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, reversing and remanding the cause, is affirm, ed, as recommended by the Commission of Appeals.

We approve the holdings of the CommiSr sion of Appeals on the questions discussed in its opinion.
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2269 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Global Food Security Act of 2016 for 

5 additional years. 

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

†S 2269 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Global Food Security 

3 Reauthorization Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

5 (a) ASSISTANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE GLOBAL FOOD

6 SECURITY STRATEGY.—Section 6(b) of the Global Food 

7 Security Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 9305(b)) is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘fiscal years 2017 and 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘fis9 cal years 2017 through 2023’’. 

10 (b) EMERGENCY FOOD SECURITY PROGRAM.—Sec11 tion 492(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 

12 U.S.C. 2292a(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 

13 2017 and 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2017 through 

14 2023’’. 

15 SEC. 3. GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY STRATEGY IMPLEMENTA16 TION REPORTS. 

17 Section 8(a) of the Global Food Security Act of 2016 

18 (22 U.S.C. 9307(a)) is amended— 

19 (1) by striking ‘‘Not later than 1 year and 2 

20 years’’ and inserting ‘‘During each of the first 7 

21 years’’; and 
3 

†S 2269 ES

1 (2) by striking ‘‘for 2017 and 2018’’ and in2 serting ‘‘at the end of the reporting period’’. 

Passed the Senate June 19, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2269 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Global Food Security Act of 

2016 for 5 additional years.
Meeting Summary: Pine Oil Registration Review Meeting with 

Pine Oil Steering Committee/Joint Venture

July 25, 2012, 8:30am-9:30am

Room S-8671, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants

Pine Oil Steering Committee/Joint Venture: Bill McCormick, Susan Little, Olivia Laird*, 

Mary Pisculli*, Kimberlee Young*, Mary Beth Enders*

EPA:William Hazel, Tim McMahon, Tim Leighton, Michelle Centra, Rebecca von dem Hagen

*participated via conference call

Summary

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 the Antimicrobials Division (AD) hosted a meeting with the Pine 

Oil Steering Committee/Joint Venture. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ongoing 

issues regarding the registration review of pine oil. During the meeting, the group discussed the 

history of the committee’s submissions to the agency as well as the status of studies currently 

under review, outstanding issues from the RED, the use of IDREAM in the dietary risk 

assessment of pine oil, and the overlap of registration review with the post-RED DCI. The 

agency provided clarification on the path forward for both post-RED and registration review 

activities. Information on the registration review of pine oil can be found at regulations.gov in 

docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0005.

Action Items

The agency will send the registrant DERs in the near future and clarify data requirements 

expected to be required by the post-RED DCI. AD plans to publish the pine oil registration 

review Final Work Plan in September 2012.
Exhibit 24.6








Power of Attorney


(RadiSys Form 10-K)





The undersigned constitutes and appoints SCOTT GROUT and BRIAN BRONSON, and each of them, as the undersigned's true and lawful attorneys and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution for the undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the RadiSys Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do any and all acts and things necessary or advisable to be done, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys and agents or either of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney, in the capacity indicated, as of the date set forth below.





Dated:  March 1, 2011








/s/ LORENE K. STEFFESSignatureLorene K. SteffesType or Print Name
Exhibit 32.1

The following statement is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350).

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

Re: BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the report of BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank W. Getman Jr., President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.


Date: November 12, 2004   /s/ Frank W. Getman Jr.
                         ------------------------
                         Frank W. Getman Jr.
                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                         (chief executive officer and chief
                         financial officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. and
will be retained by BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Christopher Garabedian, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of AVI BioPharma, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AVI BioPharma, Inc.



|               |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|March 14, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Christopher Garabedian           
|               |  |  |  | Christopher Garabedian,              
|               |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|               |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AVI BioPharma, Inc. and will be retained by AVI BioPharma, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report on
Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by AVI BioPharma, Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that AVI BioPharma, Inc.
specifically incorporates it by reference.