alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 96
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 96 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36281, June 25, 2010, and by USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38432, July 7, 2014.

§ 96.240 What functional requirements must a safety management system meet? The functional requirements of a safety management system must include— ( a ) A written statement from the responsible person stating the company's safety and environmental protection policy;
( b ) Instructions and procedures to provide direction for the safe operation of the vessel and protection of the environment in compliance with the applicable U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and international conventions to which the U.S. is a party (SOLAS, MARPOL, etc.);
( c ) Documents showing the levels of authority and lines of communication between shoreside and shipboard personnel;
( d ) Procedures for reporting accidents, near accidents, and non-conformities with provisions of the company's and vessel's safety management system, and the ISM Code;
( e ) Procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations by shoreside and shipboard personnel;
( f ) Procedures for internal audits on the operation of the company and vessel(s) safety management system; and
( g ) Procedures and processes for management review of company internal audit reports and correction of non-conformities that are reported by these or other reports.
M14004 – Chemical 3 

Process Flow CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
#### § 231.2 Security Control Officer.

The postmaster or a supervisor designated by the postmaster shall act as Security Control Officer for each post office. The Security Control Officer shall be responsible for the general security of the post office, its stations and branches, in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the Chief Postal Inspector.

(39 U.S.C. 401)

[36 FR 4762, Mar. 12, 1971]
The following application options are accessed via 

 FAFSA on the Web

 FAFSA on the Web Renewal

 FAFSA on the Web EZ

 FAFSA on the Web EZ Renewal

 FAFSA on the Phone (FOTP)

 FAFSA on the Phone EZ

 FAFSA on the Web Corrections

The following application options are accessed via www.fafsa.gov
Editorial Note on Part 67
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

§ 67.10-10 Operating requirements. ( a ) Sound signals required by §§ 67.20-10, 67.25-10, and 67.30-10 must be operated continuously, regardless of visibility, unless the sound signal is controlled: ( 1 ) By an attendant on the structure;
( 2 ) Remotely by an attendant on a nearby structure; or
( 3 ) By a fog detection device capable of activating the sound signal when the visibility in any direction is reduced to the rated range at which sound signal operation is required by this part.
( b ) During construction and until such time as a sound signal is installed and operating on a platform, the whistle of an attending vessel moored alongside the platform may be used to sound the signal required for the structure by this part.
[CGFR 58-17, 23 FR 3377, May 20, 1958, as amended by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, May 5, 2004]
§ 174.13 Owner or operator requirements. A State numbering system must contain the requirements applicable to an owner or a person operating a vessel that are prescribed in the following sections of Part 173: ( a ) Paragraph (a) of § 173.15 *Vessel number required.*
( b ) Section 173.19 *Other numbers prohibited.*
( c ) Paragraph (a) of § 173.21 *Certificate of number required.*
( d ) Section 173.23 *Inspection of certificate.*
( e ) Section 173.25 *Location of certificate of number.*
( f ) Section 173.29 *Notification of issuing authority.*
( g ) Section 173.71 *Application for certificate of number.*
( h ) Section 173.73 *Duplicate certificate of number.*
( i ) Section 173.77 *Validity of certificate of number.*
(46 U.S.C. 1451, 1467, 1488; 49 CFR 1.46(n)(1))
[CGD 77-117, 44 FR 42195, July 19, 1979]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest**
 
Volume1: Report | Plate 1 | Plate 2A | Plate 2B | Plate 2C | Plate 3
Volume2: Report | Plate1 | Plate 2 | Plate 3 | Plate 4| Plate 5 | Plate6
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.16:1560/V.1-2
Item Number:0624 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001059950
 
June 6, 2018
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


                                                           EXHIBIT 15(b)






May 10, 1999


Georgia Power Company
241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE
Atlanta, Georgia  30308



Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Georgia Power Company has incorporated by reference in
Registration Statement 333-75193 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
1999 which includes our report on Georgia Power Company dated May 10, 1999
covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant
to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), such report is not
considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


/s/  Arthur Andersen LLP
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-571 (Review)] 

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# ACTION:

Termination of five-year review. 

# SUMMARY:

The subject five-year review was initiated in November 1999 to determine whether revocation of the existing antidumping duty order on professional electric cutting tools would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to a domestic industry. On June 2, 2000, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order “[b]ecause the domestic interested parties have withdrawn, in full, their participation in the ongoing sunset review” (65 FR 35324). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 2, 2000. 

      ( print page 36844)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vera Libeau (202-205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

Authority:This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69). 

Issued: June 6, 2000.

By order of the Commission. 

Donna R. Koehnke, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-14761 Filed 6-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-U
Editorial Note on Part 67
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

§ 67.10-25 Application for tests. A person requesting a Coast Guard representative at a test of a sound signal must: ( a ) Direct a written request to the Aids to Navigation Division (CG-NAV-1), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7418, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7418 including: ( 1 ) Requestor's name, address, and telephone number;
( 2 ) A description of the sound signal;
( 3 ) Rated range for which approval is requested;
( 4 ) Location of the anechoic chamber; and
( 5 ) Proposed test dates.
( b ) Bear all the expenses of conducting the test conducted in accordance with § 67.10-20 including all travel and per diem expenses of the U.S. Government in sending a Coast Guard representative to the test.
[CGD 72-74R, 37 FR 13512, July 8, 1972, as amended by CGD88-052, 53 FR 25119,July 1, 1988; CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33663, June 28, 1996; USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, May 5, 2004; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36281, June 25, 2010; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38431, July 7, 2014; USCG-2015-0433, 80 FR 44279, July 27, 2015; USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35080, July 28, 2017]
EXHIBIT 32

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Monumental Marketing, Inc. for the period ended, September 30, 2007,
(the "Report") I, Haim Karo, President of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 results of
              operations of Monumental Marketing, Inc.



Date:    January 14, 2008              /s/Haim Karo
                             -------------------------------------------
                                         Haim Karo
                                         President
                                   (Principal Executive)
§ 334.150 Severn River at Annapolis, Md.; experimental test area, U.S. Navy Marine Engineering Laboratory. ( a ) *The restricted area.* The waters of Severn River shoreward of a line beginning at the southeasternmost corner of the U.S. Navy Marine Engineering Laboratory sea wall and running thence southwesterly perpendicular to the main Severn River channel, approximately 560 feet, thence northwesterly parallel to and 50 feet shoreward of the edge of the channel, 1,035 feet, and thence northeasterly perpendicular to the channel, approximately 600 feet, to the shore. Spar buoys will mark the corners of the area adjacent to the channel.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) No vessel or person other than specifically authorized military and naval vessels and persons shall enter or remain in the area during its use for experimental purposes. At all other times vessels and persons may use the area without restriction.
( 2 ) The area will be in use intermittently, and this use will be signified by the presence of white-painted boats or floats, which will be lighted at night.
( 3 ) Upon observing the boats or floats referred to in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or upon being warned, vessels and persons shall immediately vacate the area and remain outside the area during the period of use.
( 4 ) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commandant, Severn River Naval Command, and such agencies as he may designate.
[17 FR 2573, Mar. 25, 1952, as amended at 30 FR 5631, Apr. 21, 1965. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985]
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Lenco Mobile Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.









Dated: May 6, 2010
/s/    MICHAEL LEVINSOHNMichael Levinsohn, Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: May 6, 2010
/s/    THOMAS BANKSThomas Banks, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF POLICY

M EMORANDUM SUBJECT: Transmittal to Docket: Summary o f t he March 1 0 , 2011, Public Meeting s in

Denver, Colorado , regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s Implementation of Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review FROM: Stuart C. Miles - McLean

Office of Regulatory Policy and Management TO: Public Docket #EPA - HQ - OA - 2011 - 0156: Im proving Regulations: General As called for b y President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering "how best to promote retrospecti ve analy sis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify , streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned." As part of its retrospective review of regulatio ns, EPA convene d public meetings around the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodicall y review our regulations. T his Memo transmits to the docket a summary two public meeting s held on March 1 0 , 2011, in Denver, Colorado
.
Opinion issued September 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00739-CR

NO. 01-15-00740-CR

———————————

IN RE WILLIAM HAYWARD FREEMAN, SR., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, William Hayward Freeman, Sr., has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus seeking to compel the court reporter to provide him with a full 

transcript of trial court proceedings.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.1

 

1

The underlying case is Freeman v. State, No. 1322259, in the 182nd District Court 

of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable James Anderson presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
S. Ayer, Chief Executive 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.

/s/ William S. Ayer

William S. Ayer
Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5131

To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to roll back the

wholesale price of electric energy sold in the Western System Coordinating Council, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to

roll back the wholesale price of electric energy sold in

the Western System Coordinating Council, 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 ‘‘Halt Electricity Price5 gouging in San Diego Act’’ or ‘‘HELP San Diego Act’’.
2

•HR 5131 IH

1 SEC. 2. ROLL BACK OF WHOLESALE PRICE FOR ELEC2 TRICITY IN WESTERN MARKET.

3 (a) CEILING.—The Federal Energy Regulatory Com4 mission shall, by not later than November 30, 2000, issue

5 an order establishing the maximum price for electricity

6 sold at wholesale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commis7 sion under the Federal Power Act in the Western System

8 Coordinating Council after June 1, 2000.

9 (b) MAXIMUM PRICE.—For purposes of this Act, the

10 maximum price established by the Federal Energy Regu11 latory Commission shall be the lesser of—

12 (1) an average of the wholesale price for

13 electric energy sold in the Western System Co14 ordinating Council in the three-year period im15 mediately before June 1, 2000, or

16 (2) a price based on a cost-based formula

17 for wholesale rates established in accordance

18 with Part II of the Federal Power Act.

19 (c) REFUND.—Any person selling electric energy at

20 wholesale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission

21 under the Federal Power Act in the Western System Co22 ordinating Council after June 1, 2000, who has received

23 in excess of the maximum price for such energy shall

24 promptly refund to the purchaser the full amount of such

25 excess. Such purchaser shall promptly transfer such re26 fund to the ultimate consumers of such electric energy,
3

•HR 5131 IH

1 except that if such purchaser resold the electric energy at

2 wholesale to any other wholesale purchaser, each such

3 wholesale purchaser shall refund such amount to the per4 son or persons who purchased such electric energy from

5 such wholesale purchaser.

6 (d) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates any re7 quirement of this Act shall be subject to civil penalties

8 equal to three times the value of the amount involved in

9 such violation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commis10 sion shall assess such penalties, after notice and oppor11 tunity for public hearing, in accordance with the same pro12 visions as are applicable under section 31(d) of the Fed13 eral Power Act in the case of civil penalties assessed under

14 such section 31.

15 (e) SEPARABILITY.—If any provision of this Act is

16 found to be unenforceable or invalid, no other provision

17 of this Act shall be affected thereby.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7629

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH EUGENE MCDANIEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-94-111; CA-00-90-3-MU)

Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Eugene McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad,

Jr., United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Eugene McDaniel appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying his

motion for specific performance of a plea agreement. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United

States v. McDaniel, Nos. CR-94-111; CA-00-90-3-MU (W.D.N.C.

Sept. 16, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Proceedingsof the American-British Joint Chiefs of Staff Conferences held in Washington,D.C. on twelve occasions between December 24, 1941 and January 14, 1942
 
epub|mobi| pdf|
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.2:C 76
Item Number:0315 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001021885
January 28, 2019
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 25, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL E. MCKINZY, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-3280 (D.C. No. 2:08-CV-02649-CM-JPO) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , McKAY , andANDERSON , Circuit Judges.

Pro se plaintiff Michael E. McKinzy, Sr., appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Interstate Brands Corporation, as a sanction for disobeying the court’s discovery orders. Mr. McKinzy never addresses the district court’s order that dismissed his lawsuit as a sanction; instead he complains about its earlier orders denying,-2- without prejudice, his motions to amend his complaint and for summary judgment. However, these orders have no affect on the outcome and we will not consider them on appeal. Orr v. City of Albuquerque , 417 F.3d 1144, 1154 (10th Cir. 2005). As to the order of dismissal, Mr. McKinzy never mentions it in his brief, and perforce, never explains any error. “We routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief. Stated differently, the omission of an issue in an opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration of that issue.” Bronson v. Swensen , 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). The appeal is DISMISSED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM