alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38002-38003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RR09-7-000]


North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

July 23, 2009.
    Take notice that on July 20, 2009, the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation filed a Three-Year Electric Reliability 
Organization Performance Assessment Report, pursuant to section 215(c) 
of the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
regulations, 18 CFR 39.3(c).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public

[[Page 38003]]

Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on 
the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3b5b6a1b0bc9d9f9a9d96a08683839c8187b395968190dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e383b2c3d31101217101b2d0b0e0e110c0a3e181b0c1d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 3, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18149 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 2 - 0 109 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 -NM - 244 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### Hessler v. Gamble Township School Directors

July 24, 1951.

*Greevy, Greevy*and *Knittle,*for plaintiff.

*Sidney A. Simon,*for defendants.

Williams, J.,

— Plaintiff has brought this action in ejectment, asking to recover possession *48of a certain lot in Gamble Township. He also asks mesne profits, as well as other damages. An answer and counterclaim has been filed.

Preliminary objections have been made to the counterclaim on the ground that this counterclaim violates Rule of Civil Procedure 1056. This rule provides that a counterclaim may be pleaded if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences from which plaintiff’s cause of action arose.

The complaint is to the effect that defendant was in possession of a tract of land upon which is erected a building once used as a school house and that it was agreed that when defendant school board removed the school house to some other part of the township that then the lot of land would revert back to the complainant’s predecessors in title or their heirs or assigns. It is alleged in the complaint that defendant removed the school house and has been occupying the building and property unlawfully.

The answer in ejectment is to the effect that school directors are continuing to use the property for school purposes. Defendant’s counterclaim alleges that plaintiff unlawfully and without right entered the school premises referred to in the complaint, tore out seats, removed blackboards and damaged property of the school board.

If plaintiff has a cause of action it arises from the unlawful occupation of the school house in question by defendant. The counterclaim is based upon the right of possession of this same school house, and therefore, we are of the opinion that the counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence from which the cause of action arose, and that therefore the preliminary objection should be dismissed.

The preliminary objection is dismissed.
Exhibit 10.15



 Exhibit 10.15 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO THE DOMINION RESOURCES, INC. 
 NEW BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN 
 AMENDMENT, effective January 1, 2007, to the Dominion Resources, Inc. New Benefit Restoration Plan (the “Plan”). 
 Dominion Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Plan, as originally effective as of January 1, 2005. The Board of Directors of the Company or its delegate has the power (pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Plan) to
amend the Plan and has delegated certain authority to amend such plan to the Dominion Resources Services, Inc. CEO (the “Services CEO”). Pursuant to such delegation, the Services CEO can authorize amendments that do not materially increase
or enhance benefits to be provided under the Plan. 
 The Administrative Benefit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the
“Committee”) has the authority under the Plan to determine the actuarial and other factors to be used in calculating the lump-sum equivalent value of accrued Plan benefits. In its December 12, 2006 meeting, the Committee recommended
that a set rate of 4% be established for the actuarial discount rate for lump-sum distributions under the Plan during calendar years 2007 through 2009. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2007, Section 1.12 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety as follows: 
 1.12    “Lump Sum Equivalent” means a single lump sum payment that is actuarially determined as the amount required to provide an after-tax monthly payment equal to the after-tax amount
of the Monthly Benefit payable for the period determined under Section 3.1(b). Effective for distributions occurring on or after January 1, 2007 and on or before December 31, 2009, unless otherwise determined by the Administrative
Benefit Committee, the actuarial discount rate for determinations of the Lump Sum Equivalent shall be 4 percent (4%). Beginning January 1, 2010, the actuarial discount rate shall be determined by the Administrative Benefit Committee. The
actuarial determination shall be computed using any other actuarial or other factors as determined by the Administrative Benefit Committee. The after-tax amounts shall be based on Federal income and FICA tax rates and the state income tax rate for
the residence of the Participant at the date of the payment, as determined by the Administrative Benefit Committee.
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Neenah Enterprises, Inc. pursuant to Rule 13a- 14(a) or
Rule 15d- 14(a) , as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Neenah Enterprises, Inc.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;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;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Gary W. LaCheyGary W. LaCheyCorporate Vice President  Financeand Chief Financial Officer
§ 1.412(c)(1)-1 Determinations to be made under funding method—terms defined. ( a ) *Actuarial cost method and funding method.* Section 3 (31) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) provides certain acceptable (and unacceptable) actuarial cost methods which may (or may not) be used by employee plans. The term “funding method” when used in section 412 has the same meaning as the term “actuarial cost method” in section 3 (31) of ERISA. For shortfall method for certain collectively bargained plans, see § 1.412(c)(1)-2; for principles applicable to funding methods in general, see regulations under section 412(c)(3).
( b ) *Computations included in funding method.* The funding method of a plan includes not only the overall funding method used by the plan but also each specific method of computation used in applying the overall method. However, the choice of which actuarial assumptions are appropriate to the overall method or to the specific method of computation is not a part of the funding method. For example, the decision to use or not to use a mortality factor in the funding method of a plan is not a part of such funding method. Similarly, the specific mortality rate determined to be applicable to a particular plan year is not part of the funding method. See section 412(c)(5) for the requirement of approval to change the funding method used by a plan.
[T.D. 7733, 45 FR 75202, Nov. 14, 1980]
# IrA rny , _<. -^' Nov 19, 2013 

## EFIA CBICIZolitrol Number 

# 357099 RECEIVED ,_ OPPT CBIC 

## 2013 NOV 22 AM

10: 29 _' ~~~G Il- z v 

# crF~TE~ 089111 Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M - Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPP"p+'~~(C U .S.Environmental Protection Agency F r ~~ Scanned aProcessed in - CIS by: SHARON 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW . Washington, DC 20460-0001 ATTN : 40 CFR 799.5089

; Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 Re: Letter of Exemption Dear Sir or Madam

: The purpose of this letter is to request exemption for NetchemInc. of a test rule issued under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodiumsalt (1 :1) (CASRN 127-68-4) (Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals, 76 FR 65385, October 21, 2011) . Test Rule : Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals, 76 FR 65385, October 21, 2011 40 CFR 799 .5089

; Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 Chemical Identity: Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodiumsalt (1 :1) CAS No. : 127-68-4 Testing Requirements : 1) A3 Vapor Pressure : ASTM E 1782-08 (thermal analysis) 2) F2 Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test : 40 CFR 799.9355 Basis for Exemption : 1) a) Netchemdoes not have the appropriate facilities to conduct the testing. b) Testing is already being performed by Tiarco Chemical Company. 2) a) Netchemdoes not have the appropriate facilities to conduct the testing. b) Testing is already being performed by Tiarco Chemical Company.p. 2



# NAetchern In

Applicant Contact Info : Name Jamie Canfield Title Director, Sales and Marketing Company NetchemInc. Address 35 Roy Blvd . Brantford ON N3R 7K1 Telephone 519-751-4700 Further Information: Name Chris Yost, PhD Title Technical Sales Executive Company NetchemInc. Address 35 Roy Blvd . Brantford ON N3R 7K1 Telephone 519-751-4700
I understand that if this application is granted before the reimbursement period described in section 4(c)(3)(B) of TSCAexpires, I must pay fair and equitable reimbursement to the person or persons who incurred or shared in the costs of complying with the requirement to submit data and upon whose data the granting of my application was based .

mie Canfield Director, Sales and Marketing NetchemInc.
§ 1.469-10 Application of section 469 to publicly traded partnerships. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Publicly traded partnership* — ( 1 ) *In general.* For purposes of section 469(k), a partnership is a publicly traded partnership only if the partnership is a publicly traded partnership as defined in § 1.7704-1.
( 2 ) *Effective date.* This section applies for taxable years of a partnership beginning on or after December 17, 1998.
[T.D. 8799, 63 FR 69553, Dec. 17, 1998]
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Dean Witter Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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 the Partnership.









By:  	/s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		   Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	   President

Date:		   August 15, 2005
§ 1.401(a)(26)-3 Rules applicable to a defined benefit plan's prior benefit structure. ( a ) *General rule.* A defined benefit plan that does not meet one of the exceptions in § 1.401(a)(26)-1(b) must satisfy paragraph (c) of this section with respect to its prior benefit structure. Defined contribution plans are not subject to this section.
( b ) *Prior benefit structure.* Each defined benefit plan has only one prior benefit structure, and all accrued benefits under the plan as of the beginning of a plan year (including benefits rolled over or transferred to the plan) are included in the prior benefit structure for the year.
( c ) *Testing a prior benefit structure* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* A plan's prior benefit structure satisfies this paragraph if the plan provides meaningful benefits to a group of employees that includes the lesser of 50 employees or 40 percent of the employer's employees. Thus, a plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (c) if at least 50 employees or 40 percent of the employer's employees currently accrue meaningful benefits under the plan. Alternatively, a plan satisfies this paragraph if at least 50 employees and former employees or 40 percent of the employer's employees and former employees have meaningful accrued benefits under the plan.
( 2 ) *Meaningful benefits.* Whether a plan is providing meaningful benefits, or whether individuals have meaningful accrued benefits under a plan, is determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances. The relevant factors in making this determination include, but are not limited to, the following: the level of current benefit accruals; the comparative rate of accruals under the current benefit formula compared to prior rates of accrual under the plan; the projected accrued benefits under the current benefit formula compared to accrued benefits as of the close of the immediately preceding plan year; the length of time the current benefit formula has been in effect; the number of employees with accrued benefits under the plan; and the length of time the plan has been in effect. A rule for determining whether an offset plan provides meaningful benefits is provided in § 1.401(a)(26)-5(a)(2). A plan does not satisfy this paragraph (c) if it exists primarily to preserve accrued benefits for a small group of employees and thereby functions more as an individual plan for the small group of employees or for the employer.
( d ) *Multiemployer plan rule.* A multiemployer plan is deemed to satisfy the prior benefit structure rule in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for a plan year if the multiemployer plan provides meaningful benefits to at least 50 employees for a plan year, or 50 employees have meaningful accrued benefits under the plan. For purposes of this paragraph, all employees benefiting under the multiemployer plan may be considered, whether or not these employees are included in a unit of employees covered pursuant to any collective bargaining agreement.
[T.D. 8375, 56 FR 63415, Dec. 4, 1991]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7358

TIMOTHY CLARENCE ALLISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARCUS HUGHES; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-132-MU) Submitted: January 10, 2001 Decided: January 31, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Clarence Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Clarence Allison seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Allison v. Hughes , No. CA-00-132-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,133-01

EX PARTE BRANDON LEE JENKINS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR31761-A IN THE 75 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM LIBERTY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Jenkins v. State, 08-15-00366-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso Aug. 23, 2017) (not designated for

publication).

The Court remanded the case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law

addressing Applicant’s claims. The trial court recommends denying relief. We agree that Applicant

has not proven harm under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). However, we
2

decline to adopt the trial court’s findings concerning the deficient performance prong of Strickland. 

Relief is denied. 

Filed: April 22, 2020

Do not publish