alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 84

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 84.306 Wearability test requirements.

(a) NIOSH will conduct the wearability test on a total of three of the units submitted for approval. Three human subjects (two males and one female), one subject per unit, will conduct the test. The three subjects will range in height and weight as follows: One subject of height ≥174 cm and weight ≥90 kg; one subject of either 163 cm ≤height <174 cm, regardless of weight, or 72 kg ≥weight <90 kg, regardless of height; and one subject of height <163 cm and weight <72 kg. All units tested must meet all conditions specified in this section to receive approval.

(b) NIOSH will evaluate the ease and speed with which users can don the CCER, as follows:

(1) Each test subject will be provided with manufacturer instructions, and must be able to don the CCER correctly, isolating the lungs within 30 seconds;[1] and

(2) A CCER must not include any design, construction, or material characteristic that can be anticipated or demonstrated, under plausible conditions, to hinder the user in the correct and timely donning of the CCER.

(c) NIOSH will continuously monitor CCER use by each test subject during the activities specified in Table 4 to evaluate the ability of the CCER to provide an adequate and uninterrupted breathing supply, including but not limited to the requirements of § 84.303(b), without harming or hindering a user. NIOSH will not approve a CCER if the use of any unit during these activities indicates any potential for the CCER to harm or hinder the user or to fail to provide an adequate and uninterrupted breathing supply to the user during reasonably anticipated conditions and activities of an escape.

| Activity | Minimum duration |
| --- | --- |
| Sitting | 1 minute. |
| Stooped walking | 1 minute. |
| Crawling | 1 minute. |
| Lying on left side | 1 minute. |
| Lying on right side | 1 minute. |
| Lying on back | 1 minute. |
| Bending over to touch toes | 1 minute. |
| Turning head from side to side | 1 minute (at least 10 times). |
| Nodding head up and down | 1 minute (at least 10 times). |
| Climbing steps or a laddermill | 1 minute (1 step/second). |
| Carrying 50-lb bag on treadmill at 5 kph | 1 minute. |
| Lifting 20-lb weight from floor to an upright position | 1 minute (at least 10 times). |
| Running on treadmill at 10 kph | 1 minute. |

Table 4—Wearability Test Requirements

###### Footnotes -
  84.306

[1] This time limit does not apply to any additional steps that might be required after the lungs are protected to adjust the unit for wear.
§ 13.200 Fiduciary accounts. Except as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, any fiduciary appointed by VA to receive payments on behalf of a beneficiary must deposit the beneficiary's VA benefits in a fiduciary account that meets the requirements prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section. ( a ) *Separate accounts.* Except as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, a fiduciary must establish and maintain a separate financial institution account for each VA beneficiary that the fiduciary serves. The fiduciary must not commingle a beneficiary's funds with the fiduciary's funds or any other beneficiary's funds, either upon or after receipt. The account must be: ( 1 ) Established for direct deposit of VA benefits,
( 2 ) Established in a Federally-insured financial institution, and in Federally-insured accounts when funds qualify for such deposit insurance, and
( 3 ) Titled in the beneficiary's and fiduciary's names and note the existence of the fiduciary relationship.
( b ) *Exceptions.* The general rule prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section regarding establishment and maintenance of separate accounts does not apply to the following fiduciaries: ( 1 ) The beneficiary's spouse;
( 2 ) State or local Government entities;
( 3 ) Institutions, such as public or private medical care facilities, nursing homes, or other residential care facilities, when an annual accounting is not required. *See* § 13.280 regarding accounting requirements; or
( 4 ) A trust company or a bank with trust powers organized under the laws of the United States or a state.
(Authority: U.S.C. 501, 5502, 5509, 5711)
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**167 CAF 14-00155**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF DESIREE R. BOSLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

TONYA R. BOSLEY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 12.)

JULIE B. HEWITT, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Judith S. Claire, J.), entered October 17, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order dismissed the objection of the Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human Services and affirmed the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs ( see Matter of Chautauqua County Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v Matteson , ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 20, 2015]).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Monday' Monday's extrapolation call s extrapolation call

Frank Behan Frank Behan to: David Ogulei, Charles Hall, Gary Gross, 

Michael Galbraith, Genevieve Damico 03/15/2012 02:58 PM

History: This message has been replied to.

FYI - with respect to what EPA has stated on metals extrapolation in the past, I believe these are the 

substantive discussions on the topic (that our office has released):

May 2, 1997 (proposed rule): 62 FR at 24238

Sept 30, 1999 (final rule): 64 FR at 52946-47

July 3, 2001 (direct final rule): 66 FR at 35097-98 [Note: no adverse comments were 

received on this amendment so it became effective on Oct 16, 2001]

Some of these notices reference a background document that supported the May 1997 notice. This 

document is attached below.

TSD Vol 3 (Extrapolation) - May 1997 NODA.pdf

If you are aware of other relevant notices/documents on the issue, can you forward to the group prior 

to Monday's call. Thanks

Frank

703-308-8476 

Call to Discuss Questions on the HazWaste Combustor MACT

Mon03/19/2012 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM

Attendance is for Frank Behan

Chair: David Ogulei / David Ogulei /R5/USEPA/US

Rooms: R1816/R5 Metcalfe - 18th Floor@EPA

This entry has an alarm. The alarm will go off before the entry starts.

Required: Charles Hall/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Frank Behan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Gary 

Gross/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Galbraith/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Optional: Genevieve Damico/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Time zones: This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Mon 

03/19/2012 10:00 AM CDT11:30 AM CDT
#### § 1.522 Determination of the question as to whether disclosure will be prejudicial to the mental or physical health of claimant.

Determination of the question when disclosure of information from the files, records, and reports will be prejudicial to the mental or physical health of the claimant, beneficiary, or other person in whose behalf information is sought, will be made by the Chief Medical Director; Chief of Staff of a hospital; or the Director of an outpatient clinic.

[33 FR 19009, Dec. 20, 1968]
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  June 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Kass, Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/Steven Kass*
---------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

August 12, 2004



     * The originally  executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at
the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results
of operations as of and for the periods covered therein.



/s/ William G. Smith, Jr.
-----------------------------
William G. Smith, Jr.
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 10, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





q1st2006a	1
Exhibit 32.2

                      AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    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 on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2005 of AXA Equitable  Life Insurance  Company (the  "Company") as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Stanley B. Tulin,  Vice Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

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


                                        /s/ Stanley B. Tulin
                                        --------------------
                                        Stanley B. Tulin
                                        Vice Chairman of the Board and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
         Date: November 14, 2005
115 STAT. 832 PUBLIC LAW 107–86—DEC. 18, 2001

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2261 (S. 1184):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Oct. 16, considered and passed House.

Nov. 30, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–86

107th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2853 Candler

Road in Decatur, Georgia, as the ‘‘Earl T. Shinhoster Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

2853 Candler Road in Decatur, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Earl T. Shinhoster Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Earl T.

Shinhoster Post Office’’.

Approved December 18, 2001.

Dec. 18, 2001

[H.R. 2261]
#### C & M CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc. *v.*SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK of Pine Bluff

76-406

545 S.W. 2d 631

January 24, 1977

*John M. Fincher,*for appellant.

*907
      *John G. Lile, Larry C. Wallace*and *Michael G. Thompson,*for appellee.

PER CURIAM

Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. The motion is based upon non-compliance with Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2127.1 (Supp. 1975) and Rule 26 A, Rules of the Supreme Court, 3 A Ark. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1975, p. 135) in that: notice of application for extension of time for filing the record in this case was not given to appellee’s attorney; the order granting the extension did not recite that a reporter’s transcript of the evidence had been ordered; and the order did not recite that the extension was related to the inclusion in the record of evidence stenographically reported.

The failure of an appellant to take further steps to secure the review of a judgment or decree, after having given notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground for such action as this court may take, which may include dismissal of the appeal. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2106.1 (Repl. 1962). In this case we do not deem it appropriate to dismiss the appeal.

It is clear from the affidavit of the court reporter filed with appellant’s response that the extension was based upon her inability to complete the transcript due to her heavy workload and that appellant’s application for extension was made upon her request. In this respect the situation is unlike that in *Perry*v. *Perry,*257 Ark. 237, 515 S.W. 2d 640. Although it is not seriously contended that appellee’s attorney was served with notice of the application, it is clear that appellee’s attorney inquired of the clerk of the trial court some time after the expiration of 90 days after the notice of appeal was filed and learned that the motion had been filed and the extension granted. Yet appellee took no action in the matter until more than 150 days had elapsed after the date of filing of the notice of appeal, when notice was given to appellant’s attorney that appellee would move to dismiss. We cannot agree that appellee’s showing of prejudice is sufficient basis for dismissal of the appeal in view of the fact that if it had been greatly prejudiced it could have availed itself of the procedure set out in *Norfleet*v. *Norfleet,*223 Ark. 751, 268 S.W. 2d 387.

Hickman, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                           1,915
<SECURITIES>                                        65
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                       367
<INVENTORY>                                     13,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,772
<PP&E>                                          15,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,769
<OTHER-SE>                                         734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,823
<SALES>                                         44,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,934
<CGS>                                           32,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   120
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,035
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,035
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 404.12 Protection and administration of inventions.

A Federal agency may take any suitable and necessary steps to protect and administer rights to Government owned inventions, either directly or through contract.

[71 FR 11514, Mar. 8, 2006]
#### STATE ex rel. HENRY RINES v. DISTRICT COURT FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY and Others.1

July 15, 1914.

Nos. 18,928—(294).

.Election contest — change of venue.

The venue in an election contest over a state office is controlled by *&.*S. 1913, § 529, which expressly provides for a change of venue as in civil actions. [Reporter.]

*405Upon the relation of Henry Hines, this court granted its order directing the district court for Hennepin county, and the eight judges of that court, to show cause, pursuant to G. S. 1913, § 8276, why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue directing respond-' ent judges and the clerk of that court to desist from taking further ' proceeding in the primary election contest of Henry Nines, as contestant, against Jacob A. O. Preus, as contestee, and to return to tho clerk of the district court for Kanabec county the files in that matter received from him.

The petition of relator set out that he was an elector of the village of Mora, in the county of Kanabec; that he was a duly qualified candidate for nomination for state auditor upon the Kepublican ticket at the state primary election held June 16, 1914; that the state canvassing board certified that Jacob A. O. Preus, having received a majority of votes cast after elimination, was the nominee of the Kepublican party for state auditor; that relator, pursuant to G. S. 1913, §§ 357, 358, obtained from .the judge of the district court for Kanabec county an order requiring said Preus, as candidate, and Julius H. Schmahl, as secretary of state, to show cause why relator’s prayer that his name be substituted and printed in place of the name of said Preus as such candidate should not be granted; that contestee Preus demanded a change of venue to the county of Hennepin, in which county said contestee was resident, and that the clerk of the district court for Kanabec county transmit to the clerk of the district court for Hennepin county the files in the contest proceedings ; that demand had been made upon the clerk of the district court for Hennepin county to return the files to Kanabec county and the demand was refused.

*S. R. Child, J. C. Pope*and *J. C. King,*for relator.

*J. F. McGee,*for respondents.

1

 Reported in — N. W. —.

Per Curiam.

Application for a writ of mandamus to the district court of Hennepin county commanding it to return the papers and files in the con*406test proceeding of Nines v. Preus to the clerk of tbe district court of Kanabec county, where the contest was commenced, on the ground that such papers and files were improperly transmitted to the district court of Hennepin county on a demand of contestee, under section 7722, G. S. 1913, that the venue of such contest be changed to that county.

After consideration, it is ordered that the application be denied and the order to show cause discharged. The venue in contest proceedings of this kind is controlled by section 529, which expressly provides for a change of venue as in civil actions.
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Barry Young <BYoung@baaqmd.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:28 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: Jim Karas; Pamela Leong; Sanjeev Kamboj

Subject: RE: PSD Delegation Agreement

Good Afternoon Shaheerah,

  

This email is in response to your 10/9/2015 email request.

  

 Please send me the facility addresses for: Tosco Corporation (EPA PSD Permit Number SFB 78‐07) and IBM

Corporation (EPA PSD Permit Number SFB 82‐01), so I can confirm their current names.

  

 “Tosco SF Area Refinery at Rodeo” is currently named “Phillips 66 Company – San Francisco Refinery”.

  

 The facility names have not changed for: Calpine Gilroy Cogen, Crockett Cogen, or Martinez Cogen Limited

Partnership.

  

 Cardinal Cogen is the only facility on the list that is shut down.

  

Regards,

‐‐Barry

Barry G. Young

Senior Advanced Projects Advisor | Engineering Division 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

939 Ellis Street | San Francisco, CA 94109  Office: 415.749.4721 |  Fax: 415.749.4949

byoung@baaqmd.gov | www.baaqmd.gov

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 9:12 AM 

To: Barry Young 

Subject: PSD Delegation Agreement

  

Hi Barry,

Per our phone call a couple of days ago, we are identifying all the PSD permits issued by both EPA and the BAAQMD

under the PSD delegation agreement so that they can be transferred to the District (which is likely happen concurrently

with the NSR rulemaking). Below are the permits listed in the current delegation agreement.

Facility EPA PSD Permit Number Issuance Date

Calpine Gilroy Cogen SFB 84‐04 August 1, 1985

Cardinal Cogen SFB 82‐04 June 27, 1983

Crockett Cogen SFB 82‐05 February 9, 1983
2

IBM Corporation SFB 82‐01 June 9, 1982

Martinez Cogen Limited Partnership SFB 83‐01 December 13, 1983

Tosco Corporation SFB 78‐07 December 18, 1978

Tosco SF Area Refinery at Rodeo SFB 85‐03 March 3, 1986

It would be helpful if you would send me a list of the following info:

1. Identify any of the above facilities names are have changed (and provide the current facility name).

2. Identify whether any of the above facilities are has been shut down.

3. Identify any other the PSD permits issued directly by the BAAQMD under the delegation (e.g., Russell City

Energy Center).

I would greatly appreciate your help. Feel free to contact me for questions.

Thanks.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
#### § 388.1 General.

This part 388 establishes the compulsory license fees for coin-operated phonorecord players beginning on January 1, 1982, in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 116.
MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

REGULATION IX 

PUBLIC RECORDS

4/20/25 Rule 903

1

RULE 903. INSPECTION OF PUBLIC RECORDS

 -- DISCLOSURE PROCEDURE 

(Adopted 3-8-84; and Repealed April 20, 2005)
#### Haag *v.*Deter.

[No. 20,879.

Filed June 29, 1906.]

Appeal and *Error.—Vacation Appeal.—Parties.—Assignment of*Errors.—Where one of two joint judgment defendants appeals and does not make his codefendant a party to the assignment of errors, the appeal will be dismissed, though notice of such appeal was served on such codefendant.

From Wabash Circuit Court; *A. H. Plummer,*Judge.

Action by Melissa Deter against Henry M. Haag and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, said Haag appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court under §1337u Burns 1901, Acts 1901, p. 590.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*McCracken & Eikenbury,*for appellant.

*Reasoner & Ward,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

In the court below appellee recovered a joint judgment against appellant and one Enyart, and from *127said judgment appellant seeks to prosecute a vacation appeal. Notice has been served on Enyart, but he has not been named as a party in the assignment of errors. Appellee makes this point, and insists on a dismissal of the appeal. Rule six of this court requires that “the assignment of errors shall contain the full names of all the parties,” and under the settled practice this appeal must be dismissed. Elliott, App. Proc., §323; Ewbank’s Manual, §126.

It is so ordered.