alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §59h. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 59h was editorially reclassified as section 506 of this title.
<Page>

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Public
Accountants" incorporated by reference into this Post-Effective Amendment No.
13 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-71688) of First Fortis Life
Insurance Company and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report
dated February 17, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of First
Fortis Life Insurance Company included in the Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information of Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registration
Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-71688) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Minneapolis, Minnesota                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
January 21, 2003
No: III-24-004 March 27, 2024 

Contact: Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663 

 Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 

NRC Proposes $27,000 Civil Penalty Against Indianapolis-based Healthcare Company

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $27,000 civil penalty against Community 

Health Network, a multi-site healthcare services provider, for violations associated with radiological controls 

at its facilities in Indianapolis, Indiana. 

The NRC identified three violations of NRC requirements. One involved the licensee’s failure to 

control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material. The second involved the licensee’s failure to 

prepare written directives before the administration of a medical isotope. The third involved the failure to 

monitor workers’ exposure to radiation sources. The violations were documented in a November 2023 

inspection report.

The NRC issued the enforcement action after reviewing the circumstances surrounding the proposed 

violations, considering the information presented by the company during a pre-decisional enforcement 

conference, and taking into account any corrective actions the company has or plans to take to comply with 

NRC regulations. 

The company has 30 days to pay the fine, dispute it, or request involvement from a neutral third-party 

mediator to resolve the issue.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, William V. Carey, President and Chief Executive Officer of Central European
Distribution Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Central European Distribution Corporation;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: July 10, 2009
|                    | 
|By:                 |  | /s/ WILLIAM V. CAREY                 
|                    |  | William V. Carey                     
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  | (principal executive officer)
### §59–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 59–1 was editorially reclassified as section 6318 of this title.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission

*Time and Date:*                     10 a.m.-12 p.m. November 3, 2004.                 

*Place:*                     Harrisburg Hilton and Towers, One North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.                 

*Status:*                     Most of the meeting will be open to the public. If there is a need for an executive session (closed to the public), it will be held at about 9:30 a.m.                 

*Matters To Be Considered:*

*Portions Open to the Public:*                     The primary purpose of this meeting is to (1) Review the independent auditors' report of Commission's financial statements for fiscal year 2003-2004; (2) Review the                           ( print page 62434)                        Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) generation information for 2003; (3) Consider a proposed budget for fiscal year 2005-2006; (4) Review recent national developments regarding LLRW management and disposal; and (5) Elect the Commission's Officers.                 

*Portions Closed to the Public:*                     Executive Session, if deemed necessary, will be held at about 9:30 a.m.                 

*Contact for Further Information:*                     Richard R. Janati, Pennsylvania Staff member on the Commission, at (717) 787-2163.                 

Richard R. Janati, 

PA Staff Member on the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 04-23884 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0000-00-P
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23494]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Agenda

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, October 26, 2004.

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS: The one item is open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 7439B, Aircraft Accident Report--In-Flight 
Separation of Vertical Stabilizer, American Airlines Flight 587, Airbus 
Industrie A300-605R, N14053, Belle Harbor, New York, November 12, 2001.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Ms. 
Carolyn Dargan at (202) 314-63-05 by Friday, October 22, 2004.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
http://www.ntsb.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: October 15, 2004.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-23494 Filed 10-15-04; 3:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
IN IT I AL REVI E W ENG I NEERI NG R EPORT PMN : 15 - 0001 Focus R eady Draft 1 0/27/2014 ENG I N EER : Ch audh ary \ A F D PV ( kg/yr) : 70 , 000 SUBMI TTER : Cr oda I nc . USE : I n ert s u r f actant in f ood use and n on - food u se pest i c i de formulat i ons . Consolidated set : P - 1 5 - 0001 to P - 15 - 0006 . %P = 3 . 26% and %pho % (top s t r uctu re , x = 4 a n d y = 9 , C4 6 H 95 0 1 7 P , MW 95 1 . 23) . A

n a l og i s a surfactant i n wa t er r flux for so l de r c c ircu i t pac k . Ana l ogs are hydrau li c f r acturi ng sur f actan t s which in crease t h e e fr acturi ng flu i d . OTHER U S E S : Ana l og i s a we tti ng ma n u f ac t u re o f electr on i c circu i t A n a l og i s a de - r es i na t or for paper p u lp . Ana l og d r e l ease agent compounded into res i ns . is a n ant i - st i c king agent u sed

b r akes . MSDS : Yes in t h e manufactu tic fi be r s . A n a l ogs P - 8 4 - 02 63 are soft eners a n d water repellents f o r l eathe r . A n a l og co r rosion i nhib i to r f or o i l a n d gas product i o n . Analog a sp i n fin i sh for ny l on fiber . Analog P- 05 - 068 1 i s a ( l ub r i cant) f or indus t r i a l fi ber u sed to mak e clutch es and
Labe l : No Gen Eqpt : Safety g l asses wi t h s i de - shie l ds/ Use p r otec ti ve gloves/ I mpe r v i o u s c l oth i ng/Imperv i ous protect i ve apro n Resp ir ator : No personal resp i ratory p r otec ti ve equ i pment no r mally r equ ired . H

ea l t h Ef f ec t s : May cau se eye , s k i n , o r rep i rato r y t r act i r r i ta ti on . /Ingest i on may cause irr i ta ti on to m u cous membra n es TLV/ PE L : None estab l ished .Consumer Use : No SAT (concern s) ( 1 0/ 1 5/ 2 0 14 ) : Re l ated Migrat ion to grou ndwater : Slow PBT ra ti ng : P 1 B 1 T 1 H

ea l t h : 1 - 2 Inhalat i on E co : 2 Wate r (All re l ease s t o wa t er wi t h a CC 18 ppb)OCCUPAT I ONAL EX POS U RE RAT I NG : 0 - 1 NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTI ONS :

POLLUTION PR EVENT I ON CONS I D ERAT I ONS : P 2 Cl aim : The use of Crodafos SG Pho s phate Este r (CSGPE) surfactan t s as pest i cide i ne rt ingredients has been app r oved by the E PA OP P under t he au s pices o f the Joint I ne rt s Ta s k F o r ce (J I TF) Cl us t er Team 2 (CS T 2 ) . As such , t he s e types o f surfactan ts have already u n dergone a tho r ough r isk assessment by OPP acco r d i ng to the 1 996 Food Qua li ty P rotec t ion Ac t s ta n dard o f "rea s o n ab l e certai nty o f no harm ". The r i sk a s ses s ment co n duc t ed by OP P a l so t akes i nto con s ideration phys i cochmeica l p r oper ti e s that a r e relevan t to de t ermin e e n v i ro nmental fa t e and t he po t entia l f o r env i ronme n tal b i oaccumulat i on and per s i stence . EXPOSURE -B AS E D REV I EW : NoIN IT I AL REVI E W ENG I NEER I NG REPORTIN IT I AL REVI E W ENG I NEER I NG REPORT
### §74a–5. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 74a–5 was editorially reclassified as a note under section 5142 of this title.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the ABM AMRO MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Multi-Class Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, SERIES 2001-4, as follows:

     1. I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 15, 2004.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Michael L. Parker
                         Michael L. Parker,
                         President and Director
From: McKaughan, Colleen

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:44:12 PM To: richard_bark@fmi.com Cc: Nudd, Gregory; GLASS, GEOFFREY; Chen, Eugene; Kelly, Shaheerah; Webb, Thomas; ecm@azdeq.gov Subject: New Court

- Ordered Deadline for Arizona Regional Haze FIP

Dear Richard,

I’m writing to let you know that the court

- ordered deadline for EPA to propose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in Arizona has been extended to September 6, 2013. Our deadline for final action on Arizona’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) remains July 15, 2013. The deadline for commenting on our December 20, 2012 proposed action on Arizona’s SIP is March 6, 2013.

If EPA finalizes disapproval of any aspect of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, we are obligated to propose and later finalize a FIP to address these disapproved portions. The deadlines for these proposed and final actions are set in a consent decree. The parties to the consent decree recently agreed to extend these deadlines and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order granting a motion to amend the consent decree to reflect these new deadlines. The new deadlines of September 6 , 2013 for the proposed action and February 6, 2014 for the final action provide the agency more time for the technical work that will form the basis of the FIP.

If you are planning to provide technical information that you think would be helpful to EPA i n preparing our FIP proposal, please provide that information no later than May 10, 2013 . This will allow us enough time to review and consider the information in preparing the proposal.

In the case of the equipment you identified as BART

- eligible (the ele ctric furnace, the four Hoboken converters, and the remelt/mold pouring vessel) in Gila County, Arizona, we are particularly interested in getting your feedback regarding the effectiveness of existing SO 2 controls and the estimated costs of installing more effective SO 2 controls and increasing the effectiveness of existing controls. We are also interested in the costs of installing lower NO x emitting combustion equipment and the expected emission reductions associated with such an upgrade. You may also prop ose your own five factor BART analyses for SO 2 and NO x for the
BART

- eligible units.

If you have any questions, please let me know. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Colleen McKaughan
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Beales and Senior Judge Clements

VIKING CONTRACTING, INC. AND

 LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1701-12-4 PER CURIAM

JANUARY 8, 2013

MARIA ELENA ALIAGA

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Alan D. Sundburg; Friedlander Misler, PLLC, on brief), for 

appellants.

(Andrew S. Kasmer, on brief), for appellee.

Viking Contracting, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corporation (employer) appeal a decision 

of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Maria E. Aliaga (claimant) was totally 

disabled and had no duty to market her residual work capacity.1

 We have reviewed the record 

and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Aliaga v. Viking Contracting, 

Inc., JCN VA000-0015-5292 (Aug. 24, 2012). We dispense with oral argument and summarily 

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 Claimant contends that the record fails to set forth when employer filed its notice of 

appeal. Although the notice of appeal was not included in the joint appendix, the record shows 

that employer filed a notice of appeal with the commission on September 25, 2012, sent via 

certified mail on September 21, 2012. Thus, the notice was timely filed.

Claimant also contends that employer failed to preserve the marketing issue before the 

full commission. The deputy commissioner found that claimant was totally disabled, therefore, 

she was under no obligation to market her residual ability. On July 13, 2011, employer filed a 

request for review before the full commission. In the request for review, employer claimed error 

with the finding that “claimant had no duty to market her residual capacity.” The full 

commission found that a questionnaire signed by claimant’s treating physician was sufficient to 

support claimant’s ongoing disability. Employer preserved the issue.

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

Walnut Creek Field Office

1450 Maria Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5378

CONTACT: Mark Hammond June

7, 1996

Office: (510) 975-0254 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Home: (415) 674-1024

RIV-3996

Pager: (800) 916-4952

NRC PROPOSES $1,500 FINES

FOR SAN DIEGO RADIOGRAPHY FIRMS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed fining

two San Diego radiography firms $1,500 each for conducting

radiography on U.S. Navy ships without NRC licenses or

authorization.

An NRC inspection determined that the two companies,

Industrial Marine Testing Labs and Gamma Tech Industries, were

aware that an NRC license was necessary for radiography on Navy

ships. As an alternative to obtaining a license, the firms also

had the option of filing for reciprocity with the NRC. That

involves notifying the agency of intended work not covered by a

state license, receiving approval and paying a fee.

Both firms are licensed by the State of California to

conduct radiography in California, except in areas of exclusive

federal jurisdiction, such as Navy ships. (Radiography uses highenergy X-ray or gamma radiation and special cameras to photograph

industrial equipment for quality control).

An NRC inspection and investigation of the two firms that

began last summer determined that Gamma Tech and Industrial

Marine had practiced unauthorized radiography on Navy ships on

multiple occasions over the past several years.

The NRC's inspection of the firms' records and interviews

with personnel did not reveal any significant safety violations,

L. J. Callan, Regional Administrator of NRC Region IV in

Arlington, Texas, said in letters informing the companies of the

fines.

``Nonetheless, the failure to obtain NRC authorization is a

matter of significant regulatory concern because it denies the

NRC the opportunity to assure through inspections that

radiography activities are being conducted in compliance with all

NRC radiation safety requirements,'' Mr. Callan said.
The violations are classified as Severity Level III under

NRC's four-level classification system. Level IV is the least

serious. Each company has 30 days to pay the penalty or protest

it. If the protest is denied, a company may request a hearing.

####
§ 18.7 Lading for exportation; notice and proof of exportation; verification. ( a ) *Exportation* — ( 1 ) *Notice.* Within two business days after the arrival at the port of exportation of any portion of an in-bond shipment, CBP must be notified via a CBP approved EDI of the arrival of the merchandise pursuant to § 18.1(j). Failure to report the arrival of bonded merchandise within the prescribed period will constitute an irregular delivery.
( 2 ) *Time to export.* Within 15 calendar days after arrival of the last portion of a shipment arriving at the port of exportation under a transportation and exportation entry, the entire shipment of merchandise must be exported. On the 16th day the merchandise will become subject to general order requirements under § 4.37, § 122.50, or § 123.10 of this chapter, as applicable.
( 3 ) *Notice and proof of exportation.* Within two business days after exportation, the in-bond record must be updated via a CBP approved EDI system to reflect that the merchandise has been exported. The principal on any bond filed to guarantee exportation may be required by the port director to provide evidence of exportation in accordance with § 113.55 of this chapter.
( b ) *Supervision.* The port director will require such supervision of the lading for exportation of merchandise covered by an entry or withdrawal for exportation or for transportation and exportation only as is reasonably necessary to satisfy the port director that the merchandise has been laden on the exporting conveyance.
( c ) *Verification.* CBP may verify export entries and withdrawals against the records of the exporting carriers. Such verification may include an examination of the carrier's records of claims and settlement of export freight charges and any other records that may relate to the transaction. The exporting carrier must maintain these records for five years from the date of exportation of the merchandise.
0-cr-06219-WDF Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2000 P
#### §§ 206.172-206.180 [Reserved]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 01-037 April 2, 2001

ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON RELIABILITY AND PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT

TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, ON APRIL 17

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has

scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on reliability and probabilistic risk assessment on April 17 in

Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two

White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

The subcommittee will discuss the results of the NRC staff’s Phase 1 development of risk-based

performance indicators for nuclear reactors and related matters.

Those who wish to make oral or written statements, or seek additional information on the

meeting or changes to the agenda should contact Michael Markley, at 301-415-6885.

ACRS meeting notices, transcripts and letters are available on the internet, at

http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW/ .

###
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-044 July 2, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330/e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH PSEG NUCLEAR 

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT SALEM AND HOPE CREEK NUCLEAR PLANTS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of PSEG Nuclear LLC on

Monday, July 9, discuss the results of the agencyís annual assessment of safety performance at the

Salem and Hope Creek nuclear generating stations in Hancocks Bridge, N.J.

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, will begin at 1:30 p.m. in the

PSEG Processing Center Auditorium at the plant site. NRC officials will be available afterwards for

informal individual discussions with meeting observers.

The performance period to be discussed is April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. Overall, the NRC

found that the plants operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and fully met all

cornerstone objectives during the period. A letter sent from the NRC Region I office to PSEG

addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. 

The Salem letter is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/salm_2001q1.pdf. The Hope Creek letter is

posted on the NRC web site at: 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/hope_2001q1.pdf.

Current performance information for Salem Unit 1 is available on the NRC web site at: 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SALM1/salm1_chart.html; Salem Unit 2 is available at: 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SALM2/salm2_chart.html; and Hope Creek performance

information is posted at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/HOPE/hope_chart.html.

###