alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Office of Transportation and Air Quality

EPA-420-F-12-069

October 2012

EPA Announces Decision for 

Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: 

Modification to Octamix Waiver, 

Correction Notice

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 

correction notice on its June 14, 2012 decision of the Texas 

Methanol’s gasoline-alcohol fuel waiver, also known as OCTAMIX, 

to allow the use of Baker Hughes corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD 

MFA-10A.

Elements of this Notice

The Environmental Protection Agency reconsidered a portion of a fuel waiver 

granted under section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act to the Texas Methanol Corporation (Texas Methanol) on June 14, 2012, by issuing a notice to approve the use of an 

alternative corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD MFA-10A, in Texas Methanol’s gasolinealcohol fuel, OCTAMIX. This correction notice explains that TOLAD MFA-10A is 

to be blended into the final fuel at 42.7 milligrams per liter (mg/l) rather than at 25 

mg/l, as indicated in the June 14 notice.

On October 14, 2011, Baker Hughes requested that EPA allow the use of its alternative corrosion inhibitor, TOLADTM MFA-10A, at a concentration of 42 mg/l, in 

the OCTAMIX gasoline-alcohol fuel blend which otherwise would not be allowed 

under the OCTAMIX waiver.1 TOLADTM MFA-10A is a fuel additive formulation 

consisting of a corrosion inhibitor. On January 20, 2012, EPA published a notice in 

the Federal Register (77 FR 2979) announcing receipt of Baker Hughes’s request and 

inviting comment on it. The comment period closed on February 21, 2012. On June 

14, 2012, EPA approved the use of TOLAD MFA-10A as an alternative corrosion 

inhibitor in Texas Methanol’s gasoline-alcohol fuel, OCTAMIX.2

1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0894-0001. 2

Regulatory Announcement

 77 FR 35677.
Regulatory Announcement

2

In that June 14, 2012 decision notice, EPA mistakenly listed the approved concentration of 

TOLADTM MFA-10A as 25 mg/l instead of the requested 42 mg/l. Today’s notice corrects that 

mistake and explains why the previous approval is still appropriate when using the concentration of 42 mg/l as originally requested by Baker Hughes.

Health and Environmental Impacts

There will be no adverse health or environmental impact as a result of allowing this alternative corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD MFA-10A, and the clean air benefits of EPA’s gasoline motor 

vehicle fuel programs will continue to be realized.

Gasoline Supply Benefits

This action may provide additional flexibility to the regulated community by allowing an 

additional corrosion inhibitor for use in Texas Methanol’s gasoline-alcohol fuel, also known 

as OCTAMIX. 

For More Information

You can access the rule and related documents on EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality (OTAQ) Web site at:

www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/registrationfuels/notices.htm

For more information on this rule, please contact Joe Sopata at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Transportation and Air Quality (6406J)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 343-9034

E-mail: sopata.joe@epa.gov
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of the Chief ExecutiveOfficer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S. C.Section 1350**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas W.McMinn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| November 14, 2005 |   /s/ Douglas W. McMinn     |   |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Douglas W. McMinn,                    |
|                   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                   GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     (Unaudited)
                                                                  Six Months Ended
                                                              ------------------------
                                                             August 24,       August 25,
                                                                2002            2001
                                                              --------        --------
                                                        (Dollars in thousands, except ratios)
<S>                                                      <C>                  <C>
Earnings:
  Income before income taxes                                  $108,466        $ 57,653
  Add:
    Interest on indebtedness                                     5,643          12,851
    Equity income, net of distributions                            653            (442)
    Minority losses                                              1,141             396
    Portion of rents representative of the interest factor       3,222           3,222
    Amortization of capitalized interest                           624             976
                                                              --------        --------
      Adjusted earnings                                       $119,749        $ 74,656
                                                              ========        ========

Fixed charges:
  Interest on indebtedness                                       5,643          12,851
  Portion of rents representative of the interest factor         3,222           3,222
  Capitalized interest                                            --               917
                                                              --------        --------
     Total fixed charges                                      $  8,865        $ 16,990
                                                              ========        ========


       Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        13.51            4.39
                                                              ========        ========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            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  Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly  Report of GTECH  Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending August 28, 2004
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jaymin B. Patel, Senior Vice 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; 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: November 15, 2004               /s/ Jaymin B. Patel
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Jaymin B. Patel, Senior Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 221

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Correcting the enrollment of H.R. 3159.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 221

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3159,

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the

4 following corrections:
2

•HCON 221 EH

1 (1) In section 5902(b) proposed to be inserted

2 in title 49, United States Code, by section 204(b),

3 strike ‘‘electric’’ and insert ‘‘electronic’’.

4 (2) In section 204(e)(1), by inserting after ‘‘re5 spectively’’ the following: ‘‘, and by moving the text

6 of paragraph (2), as so redesignated down 1 line and

7 to the left, flush full measure and indenting such

8 paragraph’’.

9 (3) In section 205(1), by inserting ‘‘in sub10 section (a)’’ before ‘‘a comma’’.

11 (4) In paragraph (4) of section 5905(a) pro12 posed to be inserted in title 49, United States Code,

13 by section 206, after ‘‘(c),’’, move the remainder of

14 the text of the paragraph down 1 line and to the

15 left, flush full measure.

16 (5) In section 206(2), by striking ‘‘9(b)(1)’’ and

17 inserting ‘‘(b)(1)’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 26,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 93 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 93

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that no person born in the United States will be a United 
States citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen, is lawfully 
in the United States, or has a lawful immigration status at the time of 
                               the birth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1995

   Mr. Foley (for himself, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. 
  Rohrabacher, Mr. Royce, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Ewing, Mr. 
Stump, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mrs. Chenoweth, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Mr. 
 Saxton, Mr. Chrysler, Mr. Wilson, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Klug, 
Mr. Baker of Louisiana, and Mr. Metcalf) introduced the following joint 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that no person born in the United States will be a United 
States citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen, is lawfully 
in the United States, or has a lawful immigration status at the time of 
                               the birth.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --
    ``Section 1. No person born in the United States after the date of 
the ratification of this article shall be a citizen of the United 
States, or of any State, on account of birth in the United States 
unless the mother or father of the person is a citizen of the United 
States, is lawfully in the United States, or has a lawful status under 
the immigration laws of the United States, at the time of the birth.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article 
by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
I, Richard A. Altomare, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Universal
Express, Inc.:

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;


         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

         a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



                                     /S/ RICHARD A. ALTOMARE
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                         Richard A. Altomare, Chief Executive
                                         Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Dated:   May 19, 2004



<PAGE>
#### Gina Young et al., Respondents, v Johnson Tseng et al., Appellants. (Action *No. 1.) L&Y*Development LLC, Plaintiff, and Gina Young, Respondent, v T.C. Food Import & Export Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

[804 NYS2d 259]

In two related actions, inter alia, for specific performance of a *553contract for the sale of real property, Johnson Tseng and T.C. Food Import & Export Co., Inc., the defendants in both actions, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated May 22, 2003, which granted the motion of Gina Young, a plaintiff in both actions, and Century Electric and Building Supply, Inc., a plaintiff in action No. 1, to vacate certain leases entered into by the defendants and denied their motion for a stay of and consolidation of the actions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the defendants could have raised their fraud argument on a prior appeal, they waived appellate review of that argument (see *EIFS, Inc. v Morie Co.,*298 AD2d 551 [2002]; *Duffy v Holt-Harris,*260 AD2d 595 [1999]).

With the exception of their fraud argument, the defendants’ remaining contentions are based upon matter dehors the record and, therefore, cannot be considered on appeal (see *Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc.,*7 AD3d 750 [2004]; *Carhuff v Barnett’s Bake Shop,*54 AD2d 969 [1976]). In any event, they seek to raise again the very issues previously considered and decided against them on a prior appeal (see *Young v Tseng,*300 AD2d 476 [2002]). Reconsideration of those issues is barred by the doctrine of the law of the case (see *Prato v Vigliotta,*277 AD2d 214 [2000]; *Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman,*57 AD2d 898 [1977]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,953-01

EX P ARTE P AUL EDWARD CHAR BONNEAU, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1216154-A IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER F OUR F ROM TARRA NT COUNTY

Y E A R Y , J . , f

i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n .

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N I d i s s e n t f

o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n m y d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n E x p a r t e F o u r n i e r , 4 7 3 S

. W
. 3 d 7 8 9 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 5 )

.

F I L E D : F E B R U A R Y 3 , 2 0 1 6 D O N O T P U B L I S H
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Lawrence, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 612]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered December 22, 2003, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter, since he did not make a motion to dismiss at trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Toney,*12 AD3d 623 [2004]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s identity as the shooter, as well as his guilt of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not require reversal. H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### § 31.6302(b)-1 Method of collection.

For provisions relating to collection by means of returns of the taxes imposed by chapter 21 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), see §§ 31.6011(a)-1 and 31.6011(a)-5.
§ 31.3121(a)(11)-1 Moving expenses. ( a ) The term “wages” does not include remuneration paid on or after November 1, 1964, to or on behalf of an employee, either as an advance or a reimbursement, specifically for moving expenses incurred or expected to be incurred, if (and to the extent that) at the time of payment it is reasonable to believe that a corresponding deduction is or will be allowable to the employee under section 217. The reasonable belief contemplated by the statute may be based upon any evidence reasonably sufficient to induce such belief, even though such evidence may be insufficient upon closer examination by the district director or the courts finally to establish that a deduction is allowable under section 217. The reasonable belief shall be based upon the application of section 217 and the regulations thereunder in Part 1 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations). When used in this section, the term “moving expenses” has the same meaning as when used in section 217 and the regulations thereunder.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a) of this section, or in a numbered paragraph of section 3121(a), amounts paid to or on behalf of an employee for moving expenses are wages for purposes of section 3121(a).
[T.D. 7375, 40 FR 42350, Sept. 12, 1975]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0716

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS DEWAYNE LOHMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

UPON consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time,

as well as agreement, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is 

granted an extension of time up to and including October 16, 2023,

within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on 

appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 25 2023

09/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0716
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19203]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Texas

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility 
under the EB program for Texas.
    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding Texas' EB status:
    <bullet> Texas has modified its law by adding a total unemployment 
rate (TUR) trigger retroactive to February 1, 2009. As a result, Texas 
has retroactively triggered ``on'' to an extended benefit period for 
weeks of unemployment beginning May 3, 2009. Eligible claimants will be 
able to collect up to an additional 13 weeks of Unemployment Insurance 
benefits.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement 
to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and 
is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)). Persons who 
believe they may be entitled to EB or who wish to inquire about their 
rights under the program should contact their State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 
Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances Perkins Bldg., Room S-
4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is 
not a toll-free number) or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c6b656e6e63627f227f6f6378784c686360226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b2c222929242538653828243f3f0b2f2427652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 4th day of August, 2009.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-19203 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


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