alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Consumer Protection and

the Travel Agency Industry:

A View from the Front Lines

Presentation Before the Advisory Committee for Aviation 

Consumer Protection

Eben Peck, Vice President, Government Affairs, ASTA

June 28, 2012
About ASTA

•8,000 domestic members

•900 international members in 170 countries

•Members include:

–Traditional/brick and mortar travel agents

–Travel management companies

–Online travel agencies (Travelocity, Orbitz, etc.)

–“Allied” members
About the Industry

•Travel agents sell the majority of air travel, 2/3 of cruises and tours

•$136 billion/144 million trips sold in 2011

•$95 billion sold by “traditional” travel agents

–Air: $60 billion (45 percent of the market)

–Cruise: $9.6 billion (68 percent)

–Tours: $7.8 billion (67 percent)

•Three percent growth forecast for 2012

•83,000+ jobs / $5.6 billion in payroll / 98% of businesses SBA-eligible

•“Value Proposition” – Why do consumers use travel agents?
ASTA and Consumer Protection

•“Front lines” of consumer travel issues

•Long record of working with USDOT on consumer 

protection issues, including:

–Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections #1, 2 and 3

–Oversales and Denied Boarding Docket

–Antitrust Issues

–ASTA staff sat on DOT’s tarmac delay task force (2008)
ASTA and Airline Ancillary Fees

•Top consumer protection priority

•ASTA members encounter ancillary fee frustration 

when dealing with:

–Leisure Travelers/Families

–Business Travelers

–Small Businesses

•Travel agents and their customers cannot

effectively comparison-shop under current system
Ancillary Fees (Cont.)

• Example – A couple flying round trip from DCA to Fort 

Lauderdale with one checked and one carry-on bag each 

and want to make sure they can sit next to each other. 

Their search results today:
Ancillary Fees (Cont.)

• Same example, if the couple had true ancillary fee 

transparency and could see and purchase ancillaries at the 

point of sale. Under this scenario, the couple would have 

chosen option #3 and ultimately saved $209.96.
255 La. 286

#### L. C. CROCKETT et al. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY and Universal Underwriters Insurance Company.

No. 50331.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1970.

In re: Universal Underwriters Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 229 So.2d 169.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment complained of is correct.
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 259 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 261 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 262 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 264 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 265 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 267 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 268 of 420



EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 272 of 420


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 275 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 276 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 278 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 279 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 280 of 420


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 283 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 284 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 286 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 287 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 289 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 290 of 420


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 293 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 294 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 295 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 296 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 297 of 420


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 300 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 301 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 303 of 420



EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 307 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 309 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 310 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 311 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 313 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 314 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 316 of 420


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 319 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 320 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 321 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 323 of 420
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 324 of 420

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 4 0F 4) PAGE 326 of 420
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

S .R., FATHER OF L.R.

, A CHILD,

A ppellant,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2 749 LT Case No. 20 20

- DP

- 65 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee. ________________________________/

Decisio n filed March 2 8, 2 023
Appeal f rom the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Richard F. Jo y ce, Offic e of Cr iminal Co nflict and Ci vil Regional C ounsel, Cas selberry, for Appellant

. Stephanie C. Zimmerman, Deputy Director & Statewide Director of Appeals

, of Children’s Legal Services, Bradenton, and Rachel Batten, Children’s Legal Services, Brooksville, fo r Appellee

.
Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb , Statewide Director, and Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee
, and Christy Donovan Pemberton, of Defending Best Interests Project, Clearwater, for Guardian Ad Litem Program

.
PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE

, BO ATWRIGHT an d KILBANE
, JJ., c oncur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF PAA NATURAL GAS STORAGE, L.P.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
  (i)
    
    the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 and filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) by the Company
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ GREG L. ARMSTRONG

Name: Greg L. ArmstrongDate: March 2, 2011
#### Sandell Slim LENTZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-863.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 16, 1971.

Phillip A. Hobbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Alan M. Medof, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: State v. Young, Fla. 1968, 217 So.2d 567.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2065 

To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require that 

annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 

estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit and of the public debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. STEWART (for himself and Mr. CRENSHAW) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 

to require that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an estimate of the cost per 

taxpayer of the deficit and of the public debt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH 

4 RESPECT TO THE COST PER TAXPAYER OF 

5 THE DEFICIT. 

6 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2065 IH

1 ‘‘(40)(A) in the case of a fiscal year in which 

2 the budget is projected to result in a deficit, an esti3 mate of the pro rata cost of such deficit for tax4 payers who will file individual income tax returns for 

5 taxable years ending during such fiscal year; and 

6 ‘‘(B) in the case of any fiscal year, an estimate 

7 of the pro rata cost of the public debt for taxpayers 

8 who will file individual income tax returns for tax9 able years ending during such fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.4  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with this Annual Report of Sprott Physical Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on or about the date hereof (the Report), I,Steven Rostowsky, Principal Financial Officer of Sprott Asset Management LP, the Manager of the Trust, 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 results of operations of the Trust.  This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.  Date: March 11, 2011   /s/   Steven RostowskySteven   RostowskyPrincipal   Financial Officer
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

People of the MI v Kevin Robert Smith

Docket No. 334692

LC No. 15

- 001023

- FC Thom as C. Cameron

Presiding Judge

Patrick M. Meter

Stephen L. Borrello

Judges

The Court orders that the March 19, 2020 opinion is hereby AMENDED to correct a

clerical error: removing the full names of the sexual assault victims from pages 2, 3 and 4

.

In all other respects, the March 19, 2020 opinion remains unchanged.

______________________________ Presiding Judge
#### Florence Janice Craton BROCKWELL, Appellant, v. Emmett CRATON, Appellee.

No. 70-944.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Appeal from Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Palm Beach County; Lewis Kapner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2.2

Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Joan S. Freilich, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the "Company") certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, which this statement accompanies, (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|                        | /s/JOAN S. FREILICHJoan S. Freilich
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2003 |                                    

A signed original 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.

---

QuickLinks
### fill 

## j JU)' H-l v:(/)mf/l '

Street Address: 950West Basin Road New Cos"e, DE 19720 Mailing Address: 

### P.O. Box 15505 Wilmington, DE 19850 (302) 324-2500 (8001 235-9100

Fax Numbers:**Accoun~ng:** 324-2554**Circula~on:** 324-2945**Classi~ed:** 324-5511 t-I..nm Res<:uo!s: 324-2578 Info Systems: 324-2969 Marketing: 324-2557 News: 324-5509 Retail: 324-5518

# ~:.~~~~~~. Legal Desk 302-324-2676 Legal Fax 302-324-2249 

# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Delaware

Personally appeared before me this 

### 22"d day of December, 

### 2010. I, Kristin Segner, ofThe News Journal Company, a daily newspaper printed and published in the County of New Castle County, State of Delaware, who, being dUly sworn states that the advertisement of SID DNREC Division ofAir Quality - Legal Notice Public Hearing was published in The News Journal on December 

### 22, 2010 

### Legal Coordinator 

### Name Title

Sworn to before me this 

### 22"d day of December, 

### 2010 

### Wanda James Notary Public Notary Public State of Delaware

, "-,,,,:;sion expires 11/0212012
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06285**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 06285\06285_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06285\06285_Checklist_110510_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06285\06285_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 06285\06285_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06285\06285_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06285\06285_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06285\Certification Statement Plant ID_06285.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06285\Supporting Documents\06285_Morgan City Plant Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06285\Supporting Documents\06285_Morgan City Plant Site Plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-44-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Statements of Refunds Due

November 14, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 10, 1997, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(El Paso) tendered for filing its Statement of Refunds Due provided to 
Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc., successor-in-interest to Arco Oil & Gas 
Company, in accordance with the Commission's order issued September 10, 
1997 at Docket No. RP97-369-000, et al.
    The order directed first sellers of natural gas to refund, 
including interest, any revenues collected in excess of the maximum 
applicable lawful price established under the Natural Gas Policy Act of 
1978 as a result of the reimbursement of the Kansas ad valorem tax 
during the period October 3, 1983 through June 28, 1988. Ordering 
paragraph (B) requires pipelines to furnish first sellers a Statement 
of Refunds Due by November 10, 1997 and to file a copy of such 
Statement with the Commission.
    El Paso states that on November 10, 1997 it furnished Vastar Gas 
Marketing, Inc. the Statement of Refunds Due indicating a total refund 
due of $53,836.13, including interest through November 9, 1997.
    El Paso states that copies of this filing have been served upon all 
parties of record in this proceeding and all shippers on El Paso's 
system and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211). All such 
petitions or protests should be filed on or before November 21, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30434 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Order filed, January 24, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00031-CV

____________

PEDIATRICS COOL CARE, JOSE J. SALGUERO, M.D. PA, JOSE J. 

SALGUERO, MA, JENELLE ROBINSON, PA-C, AND ALLYN 

KAWALEK, RN, FNP-BC, Appellant

V.

GINGER THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AVERY WASHINGTON 

(DECEASED), AND BRAD WASHINGTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 88970

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 23, 2019. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Michele McManus, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### Union Bank of Mo., Appellant, *vs.*John McWharters, Respondent.

1, *Deed*— Judgment—Variance *not fatal, when,*— A Sheriff’s deed is not invalid because it recites a judgment against Smith & Haliburton, while the record in the cause shows a judgment against Jacob Smith and Wesley Haliburton.

*Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.*

*G. D.*Burgess, for Appellant.

*Jl. TV. Mullins fy G. TV.*Easley, for Respondent.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was ejectment for a tract of land in Linn County.

The plaintiff showed a perfect chain of title in itself.

The defendant claimed by mesne conveyances under a sheriff’s deed made under an execution sale of the land as the property of plaintiff.

The plaintiff objected to the sheriff’s deed on the ground of variance from the judgment, and on the ground that the judgment as recited in the execution and deed was void. The court overruled these objections and the plaintiff afterwards raised the same objections by way of instructions which were refused. The plaintiff then took a non-suit and by leave of Court moved to set it aside and this motion was overruled and exceptions duly saved.

*35Tlie plaintiff’s objection to tbe deed was, that it recited a judgment in tlie name of Smith and Haliburton against the plaintiff, whereas the record showed a judgment in favor of Jacob Smith and Wesley Haliburton against the plaintiff. The only difference in the record and the deed is the addition of the Christian names.

This in my judgment constitutes no variance at all. It merely shows that the Christian names were omitted by the clerk in issuing the execution, and if this omission was material the court would allow it to be supplied at any time by an amendment.

An objection was made to the introduction of the fee book or book in which costs are taxed up. The judgment in that case was in favor of Smith and Haliburton for costs in a suit that had been brought against them by the Bank, and this book was proper evidence to show the amount of the judgment.

The judgment as recited in the execution and Sheriff’s deed corresponded precisely with the amount of costs as taxed. I see no valid objection to this evidence.

The remaining objection is that before the judgment for costs was rendered against the Bank, Jacob Smith, one of the parties had died. The execution sale and Sheriff’s deed were good, notwithstanding the death of Smith. (See Coleman vs. McAnulty, 16 Mo., 173.)

let the judgment be affirmed.

The other Judges concur.
Page 4.0

Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Checklist Item #4

Does the application include a statement, signed by an authorized trustee on behalf of the board 

of trustees, acknowledging that the application and the application’s supporting material will be 

publicly disclosed on the Treasury Department’s website?

See section 2.04.

Yes. The required statement is attached as Document No. 4.1.
Document No. 4.1 

Section 2.04 Acknowledgement of Public Disclosure 

The Board of Trustees acknowledges that pursuant to section 432(e)(9)(G)(ii) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986, as amended, this application for approval of the proposed suspension ofbenefits, and the 

application's supporting material, will be publicly disclosed through publication on the Treasury 

Department website. 

<f/;~?/;G Date 

Authorized Trustee on behalf of the 

Board of Trustees of the Automotive 

Industries Pension Plan 

Page 4.1.1 

Redacted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63336-63337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31269]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5929-7]


Notice of Proposed Administrative De Minimis Settlement Under 
Section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, Regarding the Carroll & Dubies 
Superfund Site, Town of Deerpark, New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative agreement and opportunity for 
public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) Region II announces a proposed administrative de minimis 
settlement pursuant to section 122(g)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
9622(g)(4), relating to the Carroll & Dubies Superfund Site (the 
``Site''), Town of Deerpark, Orange County, New York. This Site is on 
the National Priorities List established pursuant to section 105(a) of 
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605(a). This document is being published to inform 
the public of the proposed settlement and of the public's opportunity 
to comment.
    This settlement, memorialized in an Administrative Order on Consent 
(Order), is being entered into by EPA and the Reynolds Metals Company 
(Respondent), and is the second and final de minimis settlement between 
these parties for this Site. The Respondent contributed a relatively 
minimal amount of hazardous substances to the Site and is eligible for 
a de minimis settlement under section 122(g) of CERCLA. Under the 
Order, the Respondent has agreed to pay EPA $14,154.03, toward the 
costs of certain past and future response actions at the Site. In 
exchange, Respondent will receive a covenant not to sue from EPA 
relating to liability for the Site under sections 106 or 107(a) of 
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 or 9607(a).


[[Page 63337]]


DATES: EPA will accept written comments relating to the proposed 
settlement until December 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Sharon E. Kivowitz, New 
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, 
New York 10007-1866 and should refer to: In Re: Carroll & Dubies 
Superfund Site, Town of Deerpark, New York, EPA Index No. II-CERCLA-97-
0211.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, 17th 
Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York, 10007-1866, (212) 637-3183, 
Attention: Sharon E. Kivowitz.

    Dated: November 18, 1997.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-31269 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit 32.2.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

I, Robert N. Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2007, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: November 1, 2007
#### Fred GREEN and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, a foreign corporation, Petitioners, v. Leo J. ALLISON and Mary E. Allison, his wife, Respondents.

No. 73-1209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.