alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 28, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Glazing Industry Secretariat Committee (“GISC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Glazing Industry Secretariat Committee, Topeka, KS. The nature and scope of GISC's standards development activities are: To function as the Secretariat with oversight and administrative responsibilities for ANSI Standard Z97.1, American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials Used in Buildings—Safety Performance Specifications and Methods of Test, establishing the specifications and methods of tests for safety properties of safety glazing materials (glazing materials designed to promote safety and to reduce or minimize the likelihood of cutting and piercing injuries when the glazing materials are broken by human contact) as used for all building and architectural purposes.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25852  Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### §10421. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 98–457, title III, §320, formerly §309, Oct. 9, 1984, 98 Stat. 1762; Pub. L. 102–295, title III, §311(b), May 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 203; Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §40272(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1937; renumbered §320 and amended Pub. L. 108–36, title IV, §§405, 415(5), June 25, 2003, 117 Stat. 826, 830, which defined terms as used in this chapter, was omitted in the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–320, title II, §201, Dec. 20, 2010, 124 Stat. 3484. See section 10402 of this title.
U.S. Department of AgricultureFood Safety and Inspection ServiceWashington, DC 20250NATIONAL RESIDUE PLAN FOR 1998July 1998Prepared by:Emerging Issues BranchChemistry and Toxicology DivisionOffice of Public Health and Science

****
**
TABLE OF CONTENTS
**
**
 **Preface to the National Residue Plan for 1998**

 National Residue Plan for 1998

**Section 1.** Statement of Purpose and Discussion of Compound/Slaughter Class Pair Selection for the Monitoring Plan and Special Projects.
**Section 2.** Justification for not including Levamisole and Mycotoxins inthe Monitoring Plan.
**Section 3.** Justification for Special Projects.

**Section 4.** Monitoring Plan Compound Selection Criteria and TableKeys.

**Section 5.** Compound/Slaughter Class Pair Scoring Tables.

Table I:  AntibioticsTable II:  SulfonamidesTable III:  ArsenicTable IV:  Chlorinated Hydrocarbons/Organo-PhosphatesTable V:  HalofuginoneTable VI:  IvermectinTable VII:  Carbadox

**Section 6.** Compound/Slaughter Class Pairs Sorted in Descending Order, with Sampling Frequencies Sorted by Quartile.

**Section 7.** 1998 National Residue Program, Sampling Frequencies for the Monitoring Plan, Sorted by Compound Class.

**Section 8.** 1998 National Residue Program, Sampling Frequencies for SpecialProjects, Sorted by Compound Class.

**Section 9.** 1998 National Residue Program, Summary Table for the Monitoring Plan and Special Projects.

**Appendix I**.Table of Residue Limits

Introduction

Limits

**Appendix II**. Table of FSIS Residue Analytical Capability

**Appendix III**. Table of Compunds Historically Ranked under theCompound Evaluation System
**Appendix IV**. List of Historical Compounds Considered for PossibleInclusion in Previous AnnualNational Residue Plans.

**Appendix V**. Compounds Included in the National Residue Plans1972 to 1996.[2000]  [1999]
| Office of Public Health and Science || FSIS | USDA |

**
Buried Pipe and

Underground Piping and 

Tanks

Temporary Instruction

20 October 2011

David Alley
Agenda

• Objectives• Content• Status• Implementation
Objectives

• Determine whether industry is 

implementing initiatives in a “commitand enduring fashion....”

• Enable staff to assess whether initia

implemented provides reasonable assurance of structural and leaktight integrity
Content

• Two phases

– Each phase has required content

• Inspectors may look beyond require

content

– Guidance provided on potential areas 

interest
Content

• Phase 1

– Concentrates on consistency between 

initiative and licensee program

• Are attributes in sections 3.3A and 3.3B of 

Are attributes in sections 3.3A and 3.3B of 14 in licensee program?

• Are completion dates in licensee program 

to those recommended in NEI 09-14?

• Has licensee completed appropriate items

– Predominantly yes/no and if not why n

answers
Content

• Phase 2

– Verifies completion dates since Phase – Concentrates on implementation

• Series of questions to be answered by ins

Series of questions to be answered by ins
Content

• Non Mandatory Section

– May be used in either first or second p– To be selectively used by inspectors
Content

• Nothing in TI is regulatory in nature

– No enforcement activities contemplate

• Phase 1

– D i ti f d b t NEI 09 Deviations found between NEI 09-14 

 a

licensee programs are undesirable

• Phase 2

– Answers viewed in totality

• No one answer is good or bad
Status

• TI drafted (Aug 2011)• Draft placed on NRC Website (Sep 2

– Public comments invited

• C (O ) omments received (Oct 2011)• TI revised (in progress)• TI issued (Nov 2011)
Implementation

• TI initiated (upon issuance)

– Inspections begin as soon as Decemb

• Inspections complete (June 2014)• TI complete ( ) Dec 2014

)
No: 14-035 June 11, 2014

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues Annual Report on Abnormal Occurrences for FY2013

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released its annual report on abnormal occurrences for 

fiscal year 2013, citing 10 events involving radioactive materials. During this reporting period, no 

events at NRC-licensed facilities, including nuclear power plants, were significant enough to be 

reported as abnormal occurrences.

An accident or event is considered an abnormal occurrence if it involves a major reduction in 

the degree of protection of public health and safety. Abnormal occurrences can include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, moderate exposure to or release of radioactive material licensed by the NRC or a 

state agency; major degradation of safety-related equipment; or major deficiencies in design, 

construction, use of, or management controls for facilities or radioactive material.

For FY 2013, the 10 abnormal occurrences reported happened in Agreement States. (The NRC 

has agreements with 37 states under which the states regulate industrial and medical uses of radioactive 

materials.) Two of the events involved exposure of an embryo or fetus, and the remaining eight 

involved misadministration of radioactive material during diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. An

estimated 16 million medical procedures involving radioactive materials are performed in U.S. medical 

facilities each year. Three of the 10 events occurred in previous fiscal years and are included because 

the NRC completed its evaluation of these events in FY 2013.

The report details investigation of each incident by the NRC, state agencies and licensees, as 

well as measures taken to ensure such incidents do not recur.

A section on “other events of interest” discusses four events that do not meet the abnormal 

occurrence criteria but have been perceived by Congress or the public to be of high health and safety 

significance, have received significant media coverage, or have caused the NRC to increase its attention 

to or oversight of a program area. Three of these events occurred at nuclear power plants, and one 

involved a nuclear fuel facility. This section includes updates to other events of interest reported in 

previous annual reports.

The report on abnormal occurrences for fiscal year 2013 is published as NUREG-0090, Volume 

36. It was transmitted to Congress on June 6 and is available on the NRC website.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of LFG International, Inc. (the"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lyle Durham, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

 

 

/s/ Lyle Durham 

Lyle Durham, Chief Financial Officerand

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 22, 2006
#### In the Matter of Executive Towers at Lido, LLC, et al., Respondents, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 807]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated December 2, 2003, which denied a petition for administrative review and confirmed a determination of the Rent Administrator, dated January 24, 2003, denying the petitioners’ applications to adjust certain initial legal regulated rents based on the presence of unique or peculiar circumstances, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered July 29, 2004, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal to determine the applications on the merits pursuant to Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations (9 NYCRR) § 2502.3 (b).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the petition to annul, as arbitrary and capricious and without a rational basis in the rec*938ord and in the law, a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) denying the petitioners’ applications to adjust certain initial legal regulated rents pursuant to Emergency Tenant Protection Regulations (9 NYCRR) § 2502.3 (b) based on the presence of unique or peculiar circumstances, and remitted the matter to the DHCR for a determination of the applications on the merits *(see*CPLR 7803 [3]; *Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 5*NY3d 303, 312 [2005]; *Matter of Marciano v Roldan,*294 AD2d 440 [2002]; *cf. Matter of Melendez v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*304 AD2d 580). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 960.18 Grounds for adjudication by the Secretary. ( a ) In accordance with the procedures in this subpart, a person may appeal the following adverse actions for adjudication by the Secretary: ( 1 ) The denial of a license;
( 2 ) The categorization of a system in a tier;
( 3 ) The failure to make a final determination on a license grant or denial or a licensee's modification request within the timelines provided in this part;
( 4 ) The imposition of a license condition;
( 5 ) The denial of a licensee-requested license modification; and
( 6 ) The replacement of an existing license with a license granted under § 960.3(a)(1) or termination of an existing license under § 960.3(a)(2).
( b ) The only acceptable grounds for appeal of the actions in paragraph (a) of this section are as follows: ( 1 ) The Secretary's action was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; or
( 2 ) The action was based on a clear factual error.
( c ) No appeal is allowed to the extent that there is involved the conduct of military or foreign affairs functions.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
MediciNova, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Yuichi Iwaki, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of MediciNova, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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 results of operations of MediciNova, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date:    May 10, 2006By:

/S/    YUICHI
IWAKIYuichi Iwaki, M.D., Ph.D. President and Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL


EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with this Quarterly
Report of Bekem Metals, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Yermek Kudabayev, Principal Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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 the
      Company.








Date:
      May 7, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Yermek KudabayevYermek
      KudabayevChief
      Executive Officer
### Part B—National Science and Technology Strategy
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 quarterly report of ATM Financial Corp. on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur Davis, Chief
Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial 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, as amended; and

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

Date:  November 9, 2005    By /s/ Arthur Davis
                           Arthur Davis
                           President & Chief Financial Officer
### SUBCHAPTER XII–J—MENTAL HEALTH COURTS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior subchapter XII–J, consisting of sections 3796ii to 3796ii–8, related to grants for drug courts, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–134, title I, §101[(a)] [title I, §114(b)(1)(A)], Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–21; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 104–140, §1(a), May 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 1327.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00358-CV

__________________

ROBERT R. HERMAN AND ELENA HERMAN, Appellants

V.

BLOOM 827, LLC, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 58th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-202,407

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert R. Herman and Elena Herman appeal from a judgment signed August 

16, 2019. On December 16, 2019, we notified the parties that the clerk’s record had 

not been filed due to the appellants’ failure to pay, or to arrange to pay, the District 

Clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice also warned the appellants

that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless they established 
2

that they paid the fee or needed additional time to do so. None of the parties filed a 

response. 

There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the clerk’s 

record, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on February 5, 2020

Opinion Delivered February 6, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
### §10905. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995.

(Pub. L. 99–425, title VI, §606, Sept. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 977; Pub. L. 101–501, title V, §503, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1256; Pub. L. 103–252, title I, §124, May 18, 1994, 108 Stat. 650.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–252 substituted "to carry out this chapter such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995" for "$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1990, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994 for carrying out this chapter".

1990—Pub. L. 101–501 substituted "are authorized" for "is authorized", inserted ", $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994" after "1990", and directed the substitution of "fiscal year" for "each of the fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989, and", which was executed by making the substitution for "each of the fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, and" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–252 effective May 18, 1994, but not applicable to Head Start agencies and other recipients of financial assistance under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) until Oct. 1, 1994, see section 127 of Pub. L. 103–252, set out as a note under section 9832 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–501 effective Oct. 1, 1990, see section 1001(a) of Pub. L. 101–501, set out as a note under section 8621 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1986, see section 1001 of Pub. L. 99–425, set out as an Effective Date of 1986 Amendment note under section 8621 of this title.
### §90101. Organization

(a) Federal Charter.—The Help America Vote Foundation (in this chapter, the "foundation") is a federally chartered corporation.

(b) Nature of Foundation.—The foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation and is not an agency or establishment of the United States Government.

(c) Perpetual Existence.—Except as otherwise provided, the foundation has perpetual existence.

(Added Pub. L. 107–252, title VI, §601(a), Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1718, §152601; renumbered §90101, Pub. L. 113–237, §3(c)(6)(B), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2840.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–237 renumbered section 152601 of this title as this section.
BPIP/PRIME Workgroup**9th Conference on Air Quality Modeling October 9, 2008** **Research Triangle Park, NC Roger W. Brode** **U.S. EPA, OAQPS Air Quality Modeling Group** **Research Triangle Park, NC**Ad Hoc BPIP/PRIME Workgroup**Emerged from 2007 R/S/L Modelers Workshop; BPIP/PRIME issues did not make “Top Three”** **list; not directly linked with AIWG****Members include Dennis Becker, MN; John Roth, WI; Jerry Freeman, NC; and Ken Rairigh,** **WY. Alan Huber has also participated.****Several potential issues to address, have held a few meetings (conference calls) so far** Potential BPIP/PRIME Issues**"Split-building" phenomenon - model produces much lower estimates when a building is entered as two** **adjacent tiers of equal height****Long narrow buildings - projected length is much lon ger** **than actual along-wind fetch over the building leng th for** **some wind angles, and the cavity is rotated based o n** **the wind angle and is positioned relative to the projected building rather than the actual building** **Original criterion in BPIP for selecting dominant t ier for** **old downwash algorithms (tier with highest GEP heig ht)** **may not be applicable in PRIME**Potential BPIP/PRIME Issues (cont.)**Use of wind tunnel derived "equivalent building dimensions" (EBDs) needs to be reviewed and perhaps** **standard procedures and/or guidance developed on th eir** **use in regulatory modeling – procedures developed fo r** **use in previous downwash algorithms may not be appropriate for PRIME downwash due to cavity algori** **thm and more refined treatment of stack/building geomet** **ry****Capped/horizontal stack procedures for PRIME downwash sources – draft BETA-test options in** **AERMOD provide a starting point, but some verificat ion** **and validation is needed**Potential BPIP/PRIME Issues (cont.)**Discontinuities can occur for stacks that straddle the “EPA** **formula height” for GEP (Hb + 1.5L); AERMOD model change being considered to remove this discontinuit** **y****Horizontal meander algorithm currently not incorpor ated** **in PRIME component of AERMOD****AERMOD-PRIME does not account for upwind dispersion for plume released within the cavity due to recircu** **lation****PRIME includes partial plume entrainment into the c avity,** **but the wake effects switch is "all-or-nothing" - a formulation change to allow partial entrainment int** **o the wake may reduce some discontinuities in model resul** **ts, especially for CBL conditions where near field** **updraft/downdraft influences could be important****Is there a minimum WS needed to generate a wake?**