alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 203.18 Statement with respect to packers engaging in the business of custom feeding livestock. ( a ) In its administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Department has sought to promote and maintain open and fair competition in the livestock and packing industries, and to prevent unfair or anticompetitive practices when they are found to exist. It is the opinion of the Department that the ownership or operation of custom feedlots by packers presents problems which may under some circumstances result in violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
( b ) Packers contemplating entering into such arrangements with custom feedlots are encouraged to consult with the Administration prior to the commencement of such activities. Custom feedlots are not only places of production, but are also important marketing centers, and in connection with the operation of a custom feedlot, it is customary for the feedlot operator to assume responsibility for marketing fed livestock for the accounts of feedlot customers. When a custom feedlot is owned or operated by a packer, and when such packer purchases fed livestock from the feedlot, this method of operation potentially gives rise to a conflict of interest. In such situations, the packer's interest in the fed livestock as a buyer is in conflict with its obligations to feedlot customers to market their livestock to the customer's best advantage. Under these circumstances, the packer should take appropriate measures to eliminate any conflict of interest. At a minimum, such measures should insure: ( 1 ) That feedlot customers are fully advised of the common ties between the feedlot and the packer, and of their rights and options with respect to the marketing of their livestock;
( 2 ) That all feedlot customers are treated equally by the packer/custom feedlot in connection with the marketing of fed livestock; and
( 3 ) That marketing decisions rest solely with the feedlot customer unless otherwise expressly agreed.
( c ) Packer ownership or operation of custom feedlots may also give rise to competitive problems in some situations. Packers contemplating or engaging in the business of operating a custom feedlot should carefully review their operations to assure that no restriction of competition exists or is likely to occur.
( d ) The Department does not consider the existence of packer/custom feedlot relationships, by itself, to constitute a violation of the Act. In the event it appears that a packer/custom feedlot arrangement gives rise to a violation of the Act, an investigation will be made on a case-by-case basis, and, where warranted, appropriate action will be taken.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0015) (7 U.S.C. 203, 204, 207, 217a, 222 and 228)
[49 FR 33004, Aug. 20, 1984, as amended at 68 FR 75388, Dec. 31, 2003; 84 FR 45648, Aug. 30, 2019]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode.

Stephen P.A. Fodor,Ph.D., the Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Affymetrix, Inc.certifies that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Affymetrix, Inc.
| March 1, 2007 | /s/ STEPHEN P.A. FODOR, Ph.D. |
|--------------------|-------------------------------|
|               | Name:                         | Stephen P.A. Fodor, Ph.D. |
|               | Title:                        | *Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### § 27.115 Implementation.

The Executive Assistant Director may implement this part in a phased manner, selecting certain chemical facilities for expedited initial processes under these regulations and identifying other chemical facilities or types or classes of chemical facilities for other phases of program implementation. The Executive Assistant Director has flexibility to designate particular chemical facilities for specific phases of program implementation based on potential risk or any other factor consistent with this part.

[72 FR 17729, Apr. 9, 2007, as amended at 86 FR 41891, Aug. 4, 2021]
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

         Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly  Report of Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information contained in the such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of
the Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated:  AUGUST 8, 2005
        --------------



                                                      /S/ TIMOTHY T. TEVENS
                                                      ------------------------
                                                      Timothy T. Tevens
                                                      Chief Executive Officer



                                                      /S/ KAREN L. HOWARD
                                                      ------------------------
                                                      Karen L. Howard
                                                      Interim Chief Financial
                                                         Officer
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA to Host Series of Webinars on Two New Inflation Reduction Act Programs 

to Advance Clean Energy Initiatives in Rural America

WASHINGTON, May 12, 2023 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary of Rural 

Development Xochitl Torres Small today announced that USDA will host a series of webinars on two new 

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) programs. The Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) and Empowering 

Rural America (New ERA) programs are brand new initiatives that will expand clean, affordable, and reliable 

energy in rural communities (including U.S. territories and Compact of Freely Associated States).

USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is launching these two programs under the IRA by making nearly $11 

billion in budget authority available in loans, grants, loan modifications, and partially forgivable loans. This will 

help electrify rural America with clean, affordable, reliable energy and enhance the quality of life in rural 

communities.

USDA staff will hold the webinars via Zoom at the following dates and times:

• RUS update on IRA funding: 

May 17, 2:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. ET 

Register for May 17

• Overview of funding available through IRA:

May 22, 24, 31 and June 1, 3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. ET

Register for May 22

Register for May 24

Register for May 31

Register for June 1

Additional webinars will be scheduled and announced soon.

The Biden-Harris Administration championed the Inflation Reduction Act to help provide new funding and 

unprecedented incentives to expand clean energy, transform rural power production, create jobs, and spur new 

opportunities for the people of rural America. It is the largest single investment in rural electrification since the 

Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

For more information, visit the Inflation Reduction Act website.

If you would like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
# C_2007123EN.01000101.xml

| 5.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4300 — Philips/Intermagnetics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 123/01)

On 7 November 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4300. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4300. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
### §4808. Revising regulatory requirements for transfers of all types of assets with recourse

#### (a) Review and revision of regulations

#### (1) In general

During the 180-day period beginning on September 23, 1994, each appropriate Federal banking agency shall, consistent with the principles of safety and soundness and the public interest—

(A) review the agency's regulations and written policies relating to transfers of assets with recourse by insured depository institutions; and

(B) in consultation with the other Federal banking agencies, promulgate regulations that better reflect the exposure of an insured depository institution to credit risk from transfers of assets with recourse.

#### (2) Regulations required

Before the end of the 180-day period beginning on September 23, 1994, each appropriate Federal banking agency shall prescribe the regulations developed pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).

#### (b) Regulations required

#### (1) In general

After the end of the 180-day period beginning on September 23, 1994, the amount of risk-based capital required to be maintained, under regulations prescribed by the appropriate Federal banking agency, by any insured depository institution with respect to assets transferred with recourse by such institution may not exceed the maximum amount of recourse for which such institution is contractually liable under the recourse agreement.

#### (2) Exception for safety and soundness

The appropriate Federal banking agency may require any insured depository institution to maintain risk-based capital in an amount greater than the amount determined under paragraph (1), if the agency determines, by regulation or order, that such higher amount is necessary for safety and soundness reasons.

#### (c) Coordination with section 1835(b) of this title

This section shall not be construed as superseding the applicability of section 1835(b) of this title.

#### (d) Definitions

For purposes of this section, the terms "appropriate Federal banking agency", "Federal banking agency", and "insured depository institution" have the same meanings as in section 1813 of this title.

(Pub. L. 103–325, title III, §350, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2242.)
#### Tobias Goodman, Appellant, v. Moses Hess, Respondent.

Motion denied with ten dollars costs. Order signed.
### §5329. Resolution of supervisory jurisdictional disputes among member agencies

#### (a) Request for Council recommendation

The Council shall seek to resolve a dispute among 2 or more member agencies, if—

(1) a member agency has a dispute with another member agency about the respective jurisdiction over a particular bank holding company, nonbank financial company, or financial activity or product (excluding matters for which another dispute mechanism specifically has been provided under title X); 1

(2) the Council determines that the disputing agencies cannot, after a demonstrated good faith effort, resolve the dispute without the intervention of the Council; and

(3) any of the member agencies involved in the dispute—

(A) provides all other disputants prior notice of the intent to request dispute resolution by the Council; and

(B) requests in writing, not earlier than 14 days after providing the notice described in subparagraph (A), that the Council seek to resolve the dispute.

#### (b) Council recommendation

The Council shall seek to resolve each dispute described in subsection (a)—

(1) within a reasonable time after receiving the dispute resolution request;

(2) after consideration of relevant information provided by each agency party to the dispute; and

(3) by agreeing with 1 of the disputants regarding the entirety of the matter, or by determining a compromise position.

#### (c) Form of recommendation

Any Council recommendation under this section shall—

(1) be in writing;

(2) include an explanation of the reasons therefor; and

(3) be approved by the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the voting members of the Council then serving.

#### (d) Nonbinding effect

Any recommendation made by the Council under subsection (c) shall not be binding on the Federal agencies that are parties to the dispute.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title I, §119, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1408.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Title X, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is title X of Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1955, known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, which enacted subchapter V (§5481 et seq.) of this chapter and enacted, amended, and repealed numerous other sections and notes in the Code. For complete classification of title X to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of this title and Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
### §2907. Operation of branch facilities by minorities and women

#### (a) In general

In the case of any depository institution which donates, sells on favorable terms (as determined by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency), or makes available on a rent-free basis any branch of such institution which is located in any predominantly minority neighborhood to any minority depository institution or women's depository institution, the amount of the contribution or the amount of the loss incurred in connection with such activity may be a factor in determining whether the depository institution is meeting the credit needs of the institution's community for purposes of this chapter.

#### (b) Definitions

For purposes of this section—

#### (1) Minority depository institution

The term "minority institution" 1 means a depository institution (as defined in section 1813(c) of this title)—

(A) more than 50 percent of the ownership or control of which is held by 1 or more minority individuals; and

(B) more than 50 percent of the net profit or loss of which accrues to 1 or more minority individuals.

#### (2) Women's depository institution

The term "women's depository institution" means a depository institution (as defined in section 1813(c) of this title)—

(A) more than 50 percent of the ownership or control of which is held by 1 or more women;

(B) more than 50 percent of the net profit or loss of which accrues to 1 or more women; and

(C) a significant percentage of senior management positions of which are held by women.

#### (3) Minority

The term "minority" has the meaning given to such term by section 1204(c)(3) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.

(Pub. L. 95–128, title VIII, §808, as added Pub. L. 102–233, title IV, §402(b), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1775; amended Pub. L. 102–550, title IX, §909(2), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3874.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1204(c)(3) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), is section 1204(c)(3) of Pub. L. 101–73, which is set out as a note under section 1811 of this title.

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–550 substituted "may be a factor in determining whether the depository institution is" for "shall be treated as".

1 So in original. Probably should be "minority depository institution".
### Part A—Establishment and Activities of Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
# C_2010100EN.01003201.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-94/10)

2010/C 100/47

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danfoss A/S and Sauer-Danfoss ApS

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for reimbursement brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the ground that it is not the undertaking that paid the duty to the State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for reimbursement brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the ground that it is not the undertaking that paid the duty to the State?

| 2. | Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for damages brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the grounds put forward by the Member State (specifically, that the undertaking is not the directly injured party and that there is no direct causal link between any loss and the conduct giving rise to liability)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Community law preclude a Member State from rejecting a claim for damages brought by an undertaking to which excise duty imposed contrary to a directive has been passed on, where such rejection — in circumstances such as those of the present case — is on the grounds put forward by the Member State (specifically, that the undertaking is not the directly injured party and that there is no direct causal link between any loss and the conduct giving rise to liability)?

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): The Association of Genetic Biomarkers and 
Hereditary Hemochromatosis, DD11-008, Initial Review

    Correction: This notice was published in the Federal Register on 
January 21, 2011, Volume 76, Number 14, Page 3908. The date for the 
aforementioned meeting has been changed to the following:

DATES: April 26, 2011 (Closed)
    Contact Person for More Information: Michael Dalmat, Dr.P.H., 
Scientific Review Officer, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease 
Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Director, Extramural 
Research Program Office, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-92, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6423, E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#68252d2c59282b2c2b462f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5989091e495969196fb929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: February 25, 2011.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2011-4990 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2010317EN.01004803.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 October 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-2/10) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Applications for payment of medical expenses - No act adversely affecting an official - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

2010/C 317/86

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by A. Del Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing a request for payment of 100 % of the applicant’s medical expenses

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Mr Marcuccio’s action is dismissed, in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Mr Marcuccio’s action is dismissed, in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation;

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs;

| 3. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 500. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 500.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13/03/2010, p. 53.

1

---
§ 115.111 Zero tolerance of sexual abuse; Prevention of Sexual Assault Coordinator. ( a ) The agency shall have a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and outlining the agency's approach to preventing, detecting, and responding to such conduct.
( b ) The agency shall employ or designate an upper-level, agency-wide PSA Coordinator with sufficient time and authority to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with these standards in all of its holding facilities.