alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

BECKHAM, LISA

Subject: Discuss PSD Rules with EPA,

Location: R9-ConfLine-Card2-AIR_Only/Conf-Line/Region-9-RESTRICTED

Start: Mon 11/3/2014 10:30 AM

End: Mon 11/3/2014 11:30 AM

Recurrence: (none)

Meeting Status: Meeting organizer

Organizer: BECKHAM, LISA

Required Attendees: goldmanm@sbcapcd.org; gwilley@co.slo.ca.us; dono@gbuapcd.org; 

bmclaughlin@bcaqmd.org; sspaethe@fraqmd.org; Yannayon, Laura

Optional Attendees: David Lusk; Jim Wagoner

Resources: R9-ConfLine-Card2-AIR_Only/Conf-Line/Region-9-RESTRICTED

Call: 866-299-3188 

Code: 415-972-7418 

Lisa Beckham 

Environmental Engineer 

Air Permits Office 

EPA Region 9 

(415) 972-3811
### §300mm–52. World Trade Center Health Registry

For the purpose of ensuring ongoing data collection relating to victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the WTC Program Administrator shall ensure that a registry of such victims is maintained that is at least as comprehensive as the World Trade Center Health Registry maintained under the arrangements in effect as of January 1, 2015, with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXXIII, §3342, as added Pub. L. 111–347, title I, §101, Jan. 2, 2011, 124 Stat. 3657; amended Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title III, §302(h), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 3000.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–113 substituted "January 1, 2015" for "April 20, 2009".
§ 1006.420 Review of DHHL's performance. ( a ) *Objective.* HUD will, at least annually, review DHHL's performance to determine whether the DHHL has: ( 1 ) Carried out eligible activities in a timely manner;
( 2 ) Carried out and made certifications in accordance with the requirements and the primary objectives of the Act and this part and with other applicable laws;
( 3 ) A continuing capacity to carry out the eligible activities in a timely manner;
( 4 ) Complied with its housing plan; and
( 5 ) Submitted accurate performance reports.
( b ) *Basis for review.* In reviewing DHHL's performance, HUD will consider all available evidence, which may include, but not be limited to, the following: ( 1 ) The DHHL's housing plan and any amendments thereto;
( 2 ) Reports prepared by the DHHL;
( 3 ) Records maintained by the DHHL, including their retention under 2 CFR 200.333, noting that the NHHBG Annual Performance Report is the program's final expenditure report;
( 4 ) Results of HUD's monitoring of the DHHL's performance, including field evaluation of the quality of the work performed;
( 5 ) Audit reports;
( 6 ) Records of drawdowns on the line of credit;
( 7 ) Records of comments and complaints by citizens and organizations; and
( 8 ) Litigation.
( c ) *Failure to maintain records.* The DHHL's failure to maintain records may result in a finding that the DHHL failed to meet the applicable requirement to which the record pertains.
[67 FR 40776, June 13, 2002, as amended at 80 FR 75945, Dec. 7, 2015; 89 FR 9764, Feb. 12, 2024]
#### Winthrop Tilley, as Administrator of the Estate of Peter M. Tilley, Deceased, Appellant, v. Silver Bay Association for Christian Conferences and Training et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
### §3796h. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796h was editorially reclassified as section 10321 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 103.35 Is there a time limit on when I can file?

Yes, you must notify us within one year that you are a victim of discrimination. If you indicate that there is more than one act of discrimination, or that the discrimination is continuing, we must receive your information within one year of the last incident of discrimination.

[64 FR 18540, Apr. 14, 1999]
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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub No. 5) (2005-1)] 

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor. 

# SUMMARY:

The Board has approved the first quarter 2005 rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The first quarter 2005 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.107. The first quarter 2005 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.546. The first quarter 2005 RCAF-5 is 0.521. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541. [Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.] 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, call ASAP Document Solutions at (301) 577-2600. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.] 

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Decided: December 17, 2004. 

By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Buttrey. 

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 04-28086 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77307-77308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28172]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


Rate for Attorney Fee Assessment Beginning in 2005

AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Social Security Administration is announcing that the 
attorney-fee assessment percentage rate under section 206(d) of the 
Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 406(d), is 6.3 percent for 
2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Winn, Associate General 
Counsel for Program Law, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security 
Administration, Phone: (410) 965-3137, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcd6d5d192cbd5d2d2fccfcfdd92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c161511520b1512123c0f0f1d521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 406 of Public Law No. 106-170, the 
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, established 
an assessment for the services required to determine and certify 
payments to attorneys from the benefits due claimants under Title II of 
the Act. This provision is codified in section 206 of the Act (42 
U.S.C. 406). The legislation set the assessment for the calendar year 
2000 at 6.3 percent of the amount that would be required to be 
certified for direct payment to the attorney under section 206(a)(4) or 
206(b)(1) before the application of the assessment. For subsequent 
years, the legislation requires the Commissioner of Social Security to 
determine the percentage rate necessary to achieve full recovery of the 
costs of determining and certifying fees to attorneys, but not in 
excess of 6.3 percent. The Commissioner of Social Security has 
determined, based on the best available data, that the current rate of 
6.3 percent will continue for 2005. During the calendar year 2005, we 
will begin directly paying fees to attorneys in cases under Title XVI 
of the Act and to eligible non-attorney representatives in cases under 
Title II and/or Title XVI of the Act, as provided in sections 302 and 
303 of Public Law No. 108-203, the Social Security Protection Act of 
2004. Once these new programs begin, we will use the 6.3 percent rate 
announced in this notice when calculating assessments on direct 
payments made under these new statutory provisions during the calendar 
year 2005.
    We will continue to review our costs on a yearly basis.


[[Page 77308]]


    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Dale W. Sopper,
Deputy Commissioner for Finance, Assessment and Management.
[FR Doc. 04-28172 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
MATS area source spreadsheet

12/10/2011 06:53 PM From: Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Mancini, Dom" <dmancini@omb.eop.gov>, "Higgins, Cortney" <cortney_higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: "Wayland, Bob" <wayland.robertj@epa.gov>, "Maxwell, Bill" <Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov>, "Culligan, Kevin" <culligan.kevin@epa.gov>, "Tsirigotis, Peter" <Tsirigotis.Peter@epamail.epa.gov>

Attached a draft area-source spreadsheet based on the nationwide emission estimates we made in the proposal. We have color-coded the units that don't appear to meet the MACT limits based on calculations from the estimated emissions. There is also a field showing whether a unit meets the final MACT limit based on the ICR data. The control technology field is a bit cryptic as it appears to assign technologies that are on common stacks to only one of the units feeding the common stack. I observed this with the Cherokee power plant that lists 4 units and only one appears

controlled while all 4 have SO2 and PM controls. Given the time constraints, we didn't want to delay getting you the info so it's a bit less polished.

Area source_Baseline_Emissions_Estimates_EPA- HQ-OAR-2009-0234-2986(1)_120911.xlsx
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George P. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  February 12, 2011


/s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1421.1 Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

The term *Foreign Service Labor-Management Relations Statute* means chapter 10 of title 1 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, codified as chapter 41 of title 22 of United States Code.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                         427,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,204,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (57,845)
<INVENTORY>                                  5,156,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,279,617
<PP&E>                                       7,351,779
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,102,254)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,393,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,965,923
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,397
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,623,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,393,794
<SALES>                                     13,266,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,266,668
<CGS>                                        4,560,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,560,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,666,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             195,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                844,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                   347,169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            497,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   497,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
§ 1000.56 How are NAHASDA funds paid by HUD to recipients? ( a ) Each year funds shall be paid directly to a recipient in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance and the trust responsibility of the Federal government to Indian tribes consistent with NAHASDA.
( b ) Payments shall be made as expeditiously as practicable.
#### § 227.210 Reporting.

No reporting is required with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person.
§ 100.148 Effective date. The privilege under this subpart applies to self-tests conducted both before and after January 30, 1998, except that a self-test conducted before January 30, 1998 is not privileged: ( a ) If there was a court action or administrative proceeding before January 30, 1998, including the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act with the Department or a substantially equivalent state or local agency; or
( b ) If any part of the report or results were disclosed before January 30, 1998 to any aggrieved person, complainant, department or agency, or to the general public.
[62 FR 66433, Dec. 18, 1997]
#### Wurlitzer Company, Respondent, v Playtime Distributors, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 14, 1976 in Albany County, which granted summary judgment to plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon. This is an action on a promissory note made by defendant Playtime Distributors, Inc., and personally guaranteed by defendant David A. Nicholson, a vice-president of Playtime. Pursuant to the note, which was dated April 1, 1975, Playtime promised to pay to the order of plaintiff the sum of $21,523.17, together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum, in monthly installments commencing April 15, 1975. According to the complaint, however, no payments have been made by defendants on the note beginning with the installment due on October 15, 1975, and this action has resulted. Although Playtime has defaulted in answering the complaint and made no appearance in this action, defendant Nicholson denies in his answer that he unconditionally guaranteed payment of the note. He further maintains that his guarantee was subject to a condition precedent, *to wit:*that plaintiff orally agreed to obtain a third party as a coguarantor on the note with him. Since plaintiff failed to obtain the guarantee of a third party, defendant concludes that his guarantee never became effective and that he is not liable to plaintiff on the note. Ultimately, plaintiff decided to move for summary judgment and its motion came on to be heard at Special Term. Holding that parol evidence of the alleged condition precedent was inadmissible to defeat the written instrument herein, that court granted plaintiff summary judgment on the note for the sum of $20,755.78 with interest and costs. This appeal ensued. The sole question presented for our review is whether or not Special Term was correct in ruling that parol evidence was inadmissible to establish the alleged condition precedent, and we find that its decision must be affirmed. The guarantee Nicholson personally executed and gave to plaintiff was clear, complete and unambiguous on its face and, most significantly, it was also unconditional (see *Long Is. Trust Co. v International Inst, for Packaging Educ.,*38 NY2d 493). In pertinent part it provided that Nicholson would "unconditionally guarantee * * * that all sums payable on said note shall be promptly paid in full”. Plainly, Nicholson cannot now be permitted to attempt to prove by parol evidence the alleged condition precedent, which would contradict the express terms of the guarantee by conditioning the effectiveness thereof upon the obtaining by plaintiff of an additional guarantor’(see, also, *Meadow Brook Nat. Bank v Bzura,*20 AD2d 287). Under these circumstances, the grant of summary judgment was entirely proper. Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### §5182. Legal services

Whenever the President determines that low-income individuals are unable to secure legal services adequate to meet their needs as a consequence of a major disaster, consistent with the goals of the programs authorized by this chapter, the President shall assure that such programs are conducted with the advice and assistance of appropriate Federal agencies and State and local bar associations.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title IV, §415, formerly §412, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 157; renumbered §415, Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §106(h), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4705.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 415 of Pub. L. 93–288 was renumbered section 418 by Pub. L. 100–707 and is classified to section 5185 of this title.
exh10b1.htm






ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.


EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


 


The Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. Executive Severance Plan, as adopted effective January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows effective as of October 18, 2010:


 



	
1.  

	
The third sentence of Section 3.1(a) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:












“If the release is not revoked, the payment under subsections 3.1(a)(i) and (iii) shall be payable no later than 60 days following the date of the participant’s Separation from Service.”


 



	
2.  

	
The fourth sentence of Section 3.1(a) is amended in its entirety to read as follow:













	
  

	
“If the release is timely revoked, the participant shall not be entitled to any benefit under Section 3.1(a)(i), (ii) and (iii).”







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officers on this 18th day of October 2010.


 


ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.












By /s/ Son-Jai Paik


Its Vice President


 


By /s/ Alyson J. Nakamura


Its Secretary
#### Allen Mangum, Appellant, v Marson Construction Corp. et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Leon Marrano & Sons, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 23, 1976, which denied his motion, *inter alia,*to vacate the automatic dismissal of his action and to restore it to the Trial Calendar, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered May 17, 1976, which dismissed the action on the basis of his default. Appeal from the judgment dismissed. No appeal lies from a judgment entered upon default. Order affirmed. One bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals is awarded to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. There had been a delay of nearly three years between the time the *588case was marked off the calendar for failure to file a statement of readiness and the day this motion was made. The alleged excuses merely demonstrate that the delay was attributable to neglect by plaintiff or his attorney. Plaintiff has not submitted a sufficient affidavit of merit to warrant restoration of the case to the Trial Calendar (see *Keating v Smith,*20 AD2d 141; *Sortino v Fisher,*20 AD2d 25). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:20:11-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
# Team Nutrition

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Team Nutrition 

Fueling Children's Healthy Growth, Learning, and Play

Team Nutrition is an initiative of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service to support the child nutrition programs through training and technical assistance for foodservice, nutrition education for children and their caregivers, and school and community support for healthy eating and physical activity.

About Team NutritionOrder Team Nutrition Resources

I'm looking for

I am a...
SchoolChild Care OrganizationState AgencyPartner

Spotlights

School Lunch Materials

Learn more about school lunch! Find event ideas, recipes, activities, and more for school nutrition professionals, families, and teachers.

FY 2024 Team Nutrition Training Grants for Meal Pattern Modernization and Retention and Mentorship Opportunities

Grant recipients just announced! Over $8.6 million awarded to eleven state agencies. 

HMI Recognition Awards for School Food Authorities

School Food System Transformation Challenge Sub-Grants

The Whole Grain Resource for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs

Crediting Tip Sheets in Child Nutrition Programs 

Reducing Added Sugars at School Breakfast

Back to School

Team Nutrition Recipes

Popular Topics

                                - Reducing Added Sugars at School Breakfast
                                - Offer Versus Serve Materials
                                - Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs
                                - A Guide to Smart Snacks in School
                                - Discover MyPlate: Nutrition Education for Kindergarten
                                - Nibbles for Health: Nutrition Newsletters for Parents of Young Children
                                - Crediting Handbook for the CACFP
                                - CACFP Meal Pattern Training Tools
                                - USDA Standardized Multicultural Recipes for the CACFP
                                - Serving Up MyPlate: A Yummy Curriculum
                                - How School Lunch Is Made And How You Can Help
                                - Professional Standards: Resources

Page updated: September 27, 2024