alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2563-000]

Take notice that on May 19, 2000, Cabrillo Power II LLC (Cabrillo II), tendered for filing a corrected tariff sheet to its annual update filing (filed with the Commission on January 21, 2000) governing Reliability Must Run (RMR) services provided by its power plants to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO). Cabrillo II's filing includes corrections to certain typographical errors on the Schedule appended to the RMR Agreement related to Prepaid Start-ups under the RMR Service Agreement.

Cabrillo II has requested an effective date of January 1, 2000.

                    Copies of this filing have been served upon the ISO, the California Electricity                           ( print page 35911)                        Oversight Board, and the California Public Utilities Commission.                

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 9, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-14142 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BallyTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Haddrill, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  November 2, 2007

 

 
| /s/Richard  Haddrill                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard Haddrill                       |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

1

----
§ 203.42 Inspection of non-Federal flood control works. ( a ) *Required inspections.* The Corps will conduct inspections of non-Federal flood control works. These inspections are IEI's and CEI's. Conduct of IEI's and CEI's will be as provided for in § 203.48. ( 1 ) Corps involvement with any non-Federal flood control work normally begins when the sponsor requests an IEI. The Corps will conduct an IEI to determine if the flood control work meets minimum engineering and maintenance standards and is capable of providing the intended degree of flood protection. An Acceptable or Minimally Acceptable rating (see § 203.48) on the IEI is required to allow the project to gain an Active status in the RIP.
( 2 ) CEI's are conducted periodically to ensure that projects Active in the RIP continue to meet Corps standards, and to determine if the sponsor's maintenance program is adequate. A rating of Acceptable or Minimally Acceptable (see § 203.48) on a CEI is required in order to retain an Active status in the RIP.
( b ) *Advice and reporting.* Information on the results of IEI and CEI inspections will be furnished in writing to non-Federal sponsors, and will be maintained in Corps district offices. ( 1 ) Non-Federal sponsors will be informed that an IEI rating of Unacceptable will cause the flood control work to remain in an Inactive status, and ineligible for Rehabilitation Assistance.
( 2 ) Non-Federal sponsors will be informed that a CEI rating of Unacceptable will cause the flood control work to be placed in an Inactive status, and ineligible for Rehabilitation Assistance.
( 3 ) Non-Federal sponsors will be informed that maintenance deficiencies found during CEI's may negatively impact on eligibility of future Rehabilitation Assistance, and the degree of local cost-sharing participation in any proposed work. Follow-up inspections can be made by the Corps to monitor progress in correcting deficiencies when warranted.
#### WHITE CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee.

No. 17347.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1958.

Theo Hamilton, Jacksonville, Fla., Hamilton & Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Martin Sacks, Chief Law Officer, Tampa, Fla., Thomas J. McDermott, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Jerome D. Fenton, General Counsel, Owsley Vose, Morris A. Solomon, Nancy M. Sherman, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before RIVES, TUTTLE and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from an order of the District Court requiring appellant’s compliance with the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum presents no substantial grounds for consideration by this Court. Especially in light of the interpretation solemnly placed on the court’s order in the brief of appellee as to the right of appellant to submit statements “in lieu of” the books and records described in subpoenaes, it is clear that appellant has suffered no prejudice from any of the alleged procedural defects leading up to the order of the district court or from the failure of the order expressly to include the “in lieu of” provision referred to by us in Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 785, 786.

The judgment is affirmed.
June 7

, 2012



### Linda Irokawa

- Otani, Regulations Coordinator Department of Pesticide Regulation
1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015
Sacramento, California 95812

- 4015

Dear Ms. Irokawa

- Otani:

I am writing in response to your proposed VOC regulations for Non

- Fumigant products. As a retailer located in the Central Valley , in Lodi California, I find several problems with your proposal.

GoalTender and other low VOC oxyfluorfen formulations are NOT viable substitutes for Goal 2XL and other EC oxyfluorfen products. I have 28 years’ experience in the pest control business working with

Goal 2XL and GoalTender during that time . When it comes to post emergence weed control,

GoalTender is not a substitu te. My experience in the field s is that Goal 2XL is the only formulation that controls hard to control weeds like malva, and helps with glyphosate resistant weeds

– marestail, flebain. panicle willowherb, fillare, etc.

I have reviewed your list of “ addit ives ” and their cost as it pertains to making GoalTender an effective post emergence product. Reliable data does not exist that supports your position that these are the answer to using GoalTender in place of Goal 2XL. Glyphosate is not an effective tank mix partner due to the fact that glyphosate is already the foundation of the spray mix. Adding a pint of glyphosate will do nothing for resistant weeds and hard to control weeds. Paraquat is a Restricted Use Pesticide due to acute toxicity. Human toxic ity and worker exposure concerns make paraquat an extremely poor choice. The most likely “kickers” to be added to GoalTender are Rely and Treevix. Rely costs $46/acre

and is in VERY short supply in 2012. Treevix costs $16/acre and the label recommends t he addition of Goal to broaden the spectrum. The label also recommends an “adjuvant system” for post emergent weed control. This “system” includes methylated seed oil (MSO) plus Ammonium Sulfate (AMS). With the additional costs of the adjuvant system, o ur growers cannot afford to add $20 to $50 per acre to their weed control programs.

Providing written information on the VOC regulations, tracking the intended use period, providing written recommendations and maintaining records for two years adds costs to my business. I will in turn be forced to pass these costs on to our grower customers. This is addition to the $20 to $50 per

acre calculated above.

I need Goal 2XL in my summer post emergent weed control programs. Its elimination will result in significant cost increases and decreased weed control in orchards and vineyards. This decreased weed control could even result in additional trips across the field with a tractor and sprayer. Have you considered the effect of additional VOC loading from additional spray trips?

I respectfully request that you find a way to keep Goal 2XL and other EC formulations available during the post emergent market months of May through Oct ober.

Reguards,

Bradley Schrenk Crop Advisor/PCA/CCA 76 Applewood Drive
Lodi, CA 95242
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4935

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the size of the estate

an incompetent veteran being furnished institutional care by the Department of Veterans Affairs may have without being subject to suspension

of benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 24, 2000

Mr. MINGE (for himself, Mr. EVANS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. FILNER,

Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mr.

HOLDEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the

size of the estate an incompetent veteran being furnished

institutional care by the Department of Veterans Affairs

may have without being subject to suspension of benefits.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4935 IH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN ESTATE SIZE FOR INCOMPETENT

2 INSTITUTIONALIZED VETERANS BEFORE SUS3 PENSION OF BENEFITS.

4 (a) INCREASE IN ESTATE SIZE.—Section

5 5503(b)(1)(A) of title 38, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘$1,500’’ and inserting ‘‘the

8 amount of $6,000 (as increased from time to time

9 under section 5312 of this title)’’; and

10 (2) by striking ‘‘$500’’ and inserting ‘‘such

11 amount’’.

12 (b) INDEXING ESTATE SIZE AMOUNT.—Section 5312

13 of such title is amended—

14 (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub15 section (d);

16 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol17 lowing new subsection (c):

18 ‘‘(c) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts

19 payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42

20 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) as a result of a determination made

21 under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)), the

22 Secretary shall, effective on the date of such increase in

23 benefit amounts, increase the estate size limitation under

24 section 5503(b)(1)(A) of this title, as that limitation was

25 in effect immediately before the date of such increase in

26 benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Secu-
3

•HR 4935 IH

1 rity Act, by the same percentage as the percentage by

2 which such benefit amounts are increased.’’; and

3 (3) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph

4 (1)—

5 (A) in paragraph (1)—

6 (i) by striking ‘‘and an increase’’ and in7 serting ‘‘, an increase’’; and

8 (ii) by inserting ‘‘, and an increase under

9 subsection (c) in the estate size limitation under

10 section 5503(b)(1)(A) of this title,’’ after ‘‘sec11 tion 1315 of this title’’; and

12 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and estate

13 size’’ after ‘‘income’’ both places it appears.

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

15 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to benefit pay16 ments for months beginning on or after the date of the

17 enactment of this Act. The amendments made by sub18 section (b) shall take effect on January 1, 2001.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of: J. C. C., a Juvenile

Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 306

- C V

Appeal from the

65 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 1300999 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until May 26 , 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jo Anne Bernal

, attorney for Appellant ’s , prepare

the brief for Appellant ’s and forward the same to this Court on or before May 26 , 2017

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of April , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Validian Corporation (the Corporation), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operation of the Corporation as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  Date:  May 18, 2007  By:  /s/ Bruce Benn Bruce Benn Chief Executive Officer
From: Thomas Finseth 

To: Nguyen, Dan-Tam 

Date: 1/17/2014 12:05 PM 

Subject: Fwd: FW: Follow up to comments on proposed Steam Electric effluent guidelines 

Attachments: Ltr to We Energies_Pleasant Prairie_Jan 17 2014.pdf 

Please log into the steam record. 

>>> "Jordan, Ronald" <Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov> 1/17/2014 11:54 AM >>> 

From: Jordan, Ronald 

Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:53 AM 

To: David.Lee@we-energies.com 

Cc: Alicea, Jezebele; Flanders, Phillip; Schroeder, Cuc; Shriner, Paul 

Subject: Follow up to comments on proposed Steam Electric effluent guidelines 

 

Good morning Dave, 

 

I hope all is well with you. It’s been quite some time since we last spoke. 

 

As you are aware, on June 7, 2013, EPA published proposed revisions to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for 

the steam electric power generating point source category. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on September 20. 

Based on our review of comments submitted by your company and other comments relating to the proposed ELGs, we have 

concluded that additional information is either needed or would be useful in evaluating comments with respect to FGD wastewater

characterization and treatment performance. Please see the attached letter for a description of the information that EPA is asking 

you to provide. 

 

We appreciate the information you’ve provided to date, as well as the cooperation your company provided as EPA collected 

information for the proposed rule. Should you have any questions regarding this request for additional information related to the 

comments we received, please contact me at jordan.ronald@epa.gov or by phone at (202) 566-1003. 

 

Regards, 

Ron 

 

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

Ron Jordan 

EPA Office of Water 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

(202) 566-1003
§ 401.26 Security for tolls. ( a ) Before transit by a vessel to which the requirement of preclearance applies, security for the payment of tolls in accordance with the “St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls” as well as security for any other charges, shall be provided by the representative by means of: ( 1 ) A deposit of money with the Manager;
( 2 ) A letter of guarantee to the Manager given by a financial institution approved by the Manager; or
( 3 ) A letter of guarantee given to the Manager by an acceptable Bonding Company. Bonding Companies may be accepted if they:
( 4 ) A letter of guarantee to the Manager given by an institution referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( 5 ) A letter of guarantee or bond given to the Manager by an acceptable Bonding Company. Bonding companies may be accepted if they: ( i ) Appear on the list of acceptable bonding companies as issued by the Treasury Board of Canada; and
( ii ) Meet financial soundness requirements as may be defined by the Manager at the time of the request.
( b ) The security for the tolls of a vessel shall be sufficient to cover the tolls established in the “St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls” for the gross registered tonnage of the vessel, cargo carried, and lockage tolls as well as security for any other charges estimated by the Manager.
( c ) ( 1 ) Where a number of vessels: ( i ) For each of which a preclearance has been given;
( ii ) Are owned or controlled by the same individual or company; and
( iii ) Have the same representative,
( 2 ) The security for the tolls may not be required if the individual, company or representative has paid every toll invoice received in the preceding five years within the period set out in § 401.75(a).
( d ) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, where a number of vessels, for each of which a preclearance has been given, are owned or controlled by the same individual or company and have the same representative, the security for the tolls may be reduced or eliminated provided the representative has paid every toll invoice received in the preceding five (5) years within the period set out in § 401.75(a). Upon request from the Manager, the representative must provide the Manager with a financial statement that meets the requirements established by the Manager.
( e ) Where, in the opinion of the Manager, the security provided by the representative is insufficient to secure the tolls and charges incurred or likely to be incurred by a vessel, the Manager may suspend the preclearance of the vessel.
[65 FR 52914, Aug. 31, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 5606, Feb. 2, 2006; 79 FR 12660, Mar. 6, 2014]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Alexanders,
Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|               |  |        |  |                        
|-------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|August 7, 2003 |  | /s/    |  | Steven Roth            
|               |  |       
|               |  | Name:  |  | Steven Roth            
|               |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TOWN CENTER AT BOCA RATON TRUST,

Appellant,

v.

DOROTHY JACKS,

as Palm Beach County Property Appraiser,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2572

[May 6, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Scott R. Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-CA-005792-

XXXX-MB.

Paul S. Figg and Mitchell W. Berger of Berger Singerman LLP, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Jay R. Jacknin and Neil B. Jagolinzer of Jacknin & Jagolinzer, P.A., 

West Palm Beach, for appellee Dorothy Jacks.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert P. Elson, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General of the Office of the Attorney General, Revenue Litigation 

Bureau, Tallahassee, for appellee Intervenor Florida Department of 

Revenue.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.