alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32 (b)

       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 Northland Cable Properties Seven
Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10Q for the period ended March
31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Form 10-Q"), I, Gary Jones, President of Northland Communications
Corporation, the General Partner, 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
            or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
            78(d)); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Partnership.

DATE: 5-11-06

/s/  GARY S. JONES
-------------------------------------
     Gary S. Jones
     President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and will be
retained by Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### October 11, 2011



# STEAM ELECTRIC ELG RULEMAKING UMRA AND FEDERALISM IMPLICATIONS:

CONSULTATION MEETING



# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

# TECHNOLOGIES UNDER CONSIDERATION &

PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE COSTS ( Costs for plant capacity of 50

- 600 MW)

A

- 1 

###  FGD wastewater

 Option 1: No change to ELG (No cost)

 Option 2: Chemical precipitation ($0.9

- $3.2 million/yr)

 Option 3: Chemical precipitation + Biological ($1.7

- $4.5 million/yr)

 Option 4: Chemical precipitation + Evaporation ($4.2

- $10.2 million/yr)



###  Leachate from landfills/ponds containing coal combustion residues

 Option 1: No change to ELG (No cost)

 Option 2: Chemical precipitation ($0.5

- $1.6 million/yr)

 Option 3: Chemical precipitation + Biological ($1.1

- $2.5 million/yr)

Note : The costs shown are for a new treatment system and do not take into account the savings associated with ceasing operation of an existing treatment system (e.g., avoiding construction of a new settling pond or ceasing operation of an existing settling pond designed to comply with current effluent limits for total suspended solids).

# TECHNOLOGIES UNDER CONSIDERATION &

PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE COSTS ( Costs for plant capacity of 50

- 600 MW)

A

- 2 

###  Fly ash

 Option 1: No change to ELG (No cost)

 Option 2: Zero discharge of fly ash transport water, based on conversion to dry fly ash transport ($0.3

- $2.2 million/yr)



###  Bottom ash

 Option 1: No change to ELG (No cost)

 Option 2: Zero discharge of bottom ash transport water, based on either complete recycle of transport water or conversion to dry bottom ash transport ($0.9

- $3 million/yr)

Note : The costs shown are for a new treatment system do not take into account the savings associated with ceasing operation of an existing treatment system (e.g., avoiding construction of a new settling pond or ceasing operation of an existing settling pond designed to comply with current effluent limits for total suspended solids).

# TECHNOLOGIES UNDER CONSIDERATION &

PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE COSTS ( Costs for plant capacity of 50

- 600 MW)

A

- 3 

###  Flue gas mercury control wastes (e.g., activated carbon injection)

 Option 1: No change to ELG (no cost)

 Option 2: Zero discharge, based on dry handling practices (minimal cost, if any)



###  Gasification wastewater

 Option 1: No change to ELG (no cost)

 Option 2: Evaporation (no cost)

 Option 3: Evaporation + Cyanide destruction (minimal cost)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 750 

To require any person that sells or distributes a mobile application that 

the Federal Government has prohibited for Government-owned devices 

to disclose that fact to any individual who downloads, updates, or otherwise uses such application, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2023 

Mrs. CAMMACK (for herself and Mr. SOTO) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require any person that sells or distributes a mobile 

application that the Federal Government has prohibited 

for Government-owned devices to disclose that fact to 

any individual who downloads, updates, or otherwise uses 

such application, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chinese-owned Appli5 cations Using The Information of Our Nation Act of 

6 2023’’ or the ‘‘CAUTION Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 750 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any person that sells or distrib3 utes a mobile application that the Federal Government has 

4 prohibited the use of for Government-owned devices under 

5 Public Law 117–328, before the download or update of 

6 the application, shall disclose, in a clear and conspicuous 

7 manner, that the use of the mobile application is prohib8 ited on Government-owned devices under law to any indi9 vidual who downloads, updates, or otherwise uses the ap10 plication. 

11 (b) ENFORCEMENT.— 

12 (1) UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRAC13 TICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated 

14 as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or decep15 tive act or practice prescribed under section 

16 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

17 (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). 

18 (2) POWERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS19 SION.— 

20 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Trade 

21 Commission shall enforce this section in the 

22 same manner, by the same means, and with the 

23 same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though 

24 all applicable terms and provisions of the Fed25 eral Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 750 IH

1 seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of 

2 this section. 

3 (B) PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.—Any 

4 person that violates this section shall be subject 

5 to the penalties (including the provisions of sub6 sections (l) and (m) of section 5 of such Act 

7 that provide for a maximum civil penalty per 

8 violation of $46,517 and entitled to the privi9 leges and immunities, provided in the Federal 

10 Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### § 524.1580 Nitrofurazone topical dosage forms.
# C_2014061EN.01002202.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/22

---

Action brought on 13 January 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-4/14)

2014/C 61/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 26 February 2013 announcing his dismissal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 26 February 2013 announcing his dismissal;

| — | set the amount of EUR 35 000, together with default interest, which the European Parliament is under an obligation to pay him should his re-instatement meet with insurmountable legal obstacles; |
| --- | --- |

—

set the amount of EUR 35 000, together with default interest, which the European Parliament is under an obligation to pay him should his re-instatement meet with insurmountable legal obstacles;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
?.o,ecu.\z%o2 • r<->)Cyo^>~c^> jLt.:_^.Oiu.sjtAol-/s[j/lSLjy 

### -me Smie or-naLM 'ann^M^Bti. . ___^— ^^_eou^0P MJ. 'i- '1 • . ^ ' • pQithMl. /, £rn»/nas>n "M 2120® -D.ecuijSjiis^ riea.se. AV<1 er\C.\s>sei> a./v^ncW color Copy o9 Skffes- £%hilM So 

### (Co-z-z/fio? Jipmad*) d/eods-pa-fhi-pAalh Mevidence s-ufai'tkj /o ihi-t atS'trvp "/Xi color oepy ricrt c/e*r/y jAoirfS ne SPG(o/cxrwy) //hes af 

### Convergent* "p/gcJ/iafyi. /*reetrtfio.y/'/t&ui/tr /nJ/'cfe Me Aousx, gjAen Jb(eV 

### eupressiw/ nd gj-Vr o_6reAff-ofi Ml c/oor/fyresfajd, r/eGM. Mc/u<k wis aspaAt $9 & ^ ">y- utsfJ- A*-yeur review. 

### A&oetJ-&.//y
itA- <rfr £riLa/nuin //C>8/0/ 3 C7f/>/Ctr&( &t/\*7<mJ. 7* 77»g'^

.' ' ' ' . • .."">''•''- >BA3i rf

16~J- tao-^
§ 520.2520d Trichlorfon, phenothiazine, and piperazine. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each 54.10 grams (1.91 ounces) of water dispersible powder contains 9.10 grams of trichlorfon, 6.25 grams of phenothiazine, and the equivalent of 20.0 grams of piperazine base (as piperazine dihydrochloride).
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in horses* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 18.2 milligrams (mg) of trichlorfon, 12.5 mg of phenothiazine, and 40 mg of piperazine base per pound of body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For removal of bots (*Gastrophilus nasalis, Gastrophilus intestinalis*), large strongyles (*Strongylus vulgaris*), small strongyles, large roundworms (ascarids, *Parascaris equorum*), and pinworms (*Oxyuris equi*).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[48 FR 2757, Jan. 21, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 79 FR 28833, May 20, 2014; 85 FR 4208, Jan. 24, 2020] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: At 79 FR 28833, May 20, 2014, § 520.2520d was amended in part by redesignating paragraph (e) as (c). This action could not be performed because paragraph (e) did not exist.
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.1100 Cochineal extract; carmine. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* ( 1 ) The color additives cochineal extract and carmine shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 73.100(a) (1) and (2) and (b).
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for drug use made with carmine and cochineal extract may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in this subpart as safe in color additive mixtures for coloring drugs.
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* Cochineal extract and carmine may be safely used for coloring ingested and externally applied drugs in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling requirements.* The label of the color additives and any mixtures intended solely or in part for coloring purposes prepared therefrom shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of these color additives is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FARIS FAKHOURY, M.D. and FARIS J. FAKHOURY, M.D., P.A.,

Appellants,

v.

NEIL GREENBERG and AUGUSTA GREENBERG, his wife, BRANDT 

DELHAMER, M.D., EMERGENCY SPECIALISTS OF WELLINGTON, 

INC., and WELLINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, 

INCORPORATED,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-1282

[March 11, 2021]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 50-2020-CA-000297-XXXX-MB.

Dinah S. Stein of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, and Alex 

D. Barker of Adams Coogler, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Lisa Levine of Lisa S. Levine, P.A., Weston, Crane A. Johnstone of 

Johnstone Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Nichole J. Segal of Burlington 

& Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees Neil Greenberg and 

Augusta Greenberg, his wife.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Breadcrumb              -  Home 
              - 									Grants							

# Grants

## Featured

                                  - **Grants.gov error messages**
                                  - Simpler NOFO pilot
                                  - Award recipient FAQs

## Find Funding

We award grants for ideas and projects that benefit the public.

Find Grant Funding lists all open and closed opportunities.

## Apply for a Grant

Visit Apply for a Grant to:
                                  - Complete mandatory registrations
                                  - Determine your eligibility
                                  - Prepare your application
                                  - Follow the application process

## Manage your Grant

Visit the Manage your Grant to:
                                  - Attend workshops and get other training
                                  - Understand administrative and financial requirements
                                  - Review policies, regulations, and guidance
                                  - Follow reporting requirements

## Become a Grant Reviewer

Visit Become a Grant Reviewer to:
                                  - Understand the grant review process
                                  - Watch quarterly training webinars
                                  - Register in the Reviewer Recruitment Module

## Find Grants

Search HRSA-awarded grants.

February 2024
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT NO. 11
                                --------------

                    BUREAU OF ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC.
                    -------------------------------------

                  CALCULATIONS OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                  -----------------------------------------

                                       Year Ended                Year Ended
                                   December 31, 1996         December 31, 1995
                                   -----------------         -----------------
Net Loss                              $(5,326,874)              $(2,067,983)
                                      ------------              ------------

Weighted average number of common
shares outstanding                      3,774,305                 1,770,273

Stock options and warrants issued
 prior to initial public offering at
 prices less than initial public
 offering price                                 0                    78,802

Other stock options and warrants (a)            0                         0

Total weighted average common shares
 and equivalent common shares           3,774,305                 1,849,075
                                       -----------               -----------
Loss per share                         $    (1.41)               $    (1.12)
                                       -----------               -----------


(a)      Stock options and warrants issued during 1996 and 1995
         were not dilutive and accordingly not considered in the
         calculation above.
§ 556.120 Chlorhexidine. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerance for chlorhexidine is: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* Edible tissues (excluding milk): Zero.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 529.400 of this chapter.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-11-00333-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 0851588

Style: Andrew Whallon, Dahlia Garcia and Richard Grayshaw

v City of Houston

Date motion filed*: April 24, 2015

Type of motion:

Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Motion 

for Rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellant Andrew Whallon

Document to be filed: Motion for Rehearing

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: February 20, 2015

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: March 9, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: May 26, 2015

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: May 5, 2015
# C_2014253EN.01002201.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/22

---

Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission

Greece

Commission

(Case C-296/14 P)

2014/C 253/29

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι. Chalkias and Α. Vasilopoulou)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union, for the reasons more specifically set out, uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic, annul the contested decision of the European Commission and order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union, for the reasons more specifically set out, uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic, annul the contested decision of the European Commission and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the ground of appeal on which it relies, the Hellenic Republic maintains that EU law has been infringed because the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) and (3)(b) TFEU with regard to the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time at issue.

More specifically, by the first part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that by reason of a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU the General Court of the European Union held that the measures at issue constituted a selective economic advantage for the beneficiaries which was sufficient to threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States given the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time, while by the second part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU because it restricted the regulatory scope of that provision to the terms of the Communication on the TCF [Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures] notwithstanding the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time.

---
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 173.115 Alpha-acetolactate decarboxylase (α-ALDC) enzyme preparation derived from a recombinant Bacillus subtilis. The food additive alpha-acetolactate decarboxylase (α-ALDC) enzyme preparation, may be safely used in accordance with the following conditions: ( a ) The food additive is the enzyme preparation derived from a modified *Bacillus subtilis* strain that contains the gene coding for α-ALDC from *Bacillus brevis.*
( b ) ( 1 ) The manufacturer produces the additive from a pure culture fermentation of a strain of *Bacillus subtilis* that is nonpathogenic and nontoxigenic in man or other animals.
( 2 ) The manufacturer may stabilize the enzyme preparation with glutaraldehyde or with other suitable approved food additives or generally recognized as safe substances.
( 3 ) The enzyme preparation must meet the general and additional requirements for enzyme preparations in the *Food Chemicals Codex,* 4th ed., 1996, pp. 133-134, which is incorporated by reference. The Director of the Office of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20055, or may be examined at the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) The additive is used in an amount not in excess of the minimum required to produce its intended effect as a processing aid in the production of alcoholic malt beverages and distilled liquors.
[66 FR 27022, May 16, 2001, as amended at 88 FR 17722, Mar. 24, 2023]
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property From Quitclaim Deed; 
Venice Municipal Airport, Venice, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release 
approximately 1.166 acres of airport property at Venice Municipal 
Airport, Venice, FL, from the conditions, reservations, and 
restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA 
and the City of Venice, FL, dated June 10, 1947. The release of 
property will allow the City of Venice to dispose of the property for 
other than aeronautical purposes. The property is located at 1600 
Harbor Drive South. The parcel is currently designated as non-
aeronautical land use. The property will be released of its federal 
obligations for commercial land use. The fair market value of this 
parcel has been determined to be $2,200,000.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at Venice Municipal 
Airport, 150 Airport Ave. E, Venice FL 34285; and the FAA Airports 
District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 
32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or 
mailed to: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager, Orlando Airports 
District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 
32822-5024. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available 
for inspection by appointment only at Venice Municipal Airport and by 
contacting the FAA at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to 
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, on July 15, 2014.
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-17113 Filed 7-18-14; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```