alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006008EN.01003401.xml

| 13.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 8/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 8/34

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 44/2006

of 12 January 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 10 January 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 10 January 2006.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 10 January 2006, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be 12,20 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 January 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/2005 (OJ L 200, 30.7.2005, p. 32).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1814/2005 (OJ L 292, 8.11.2005, p. 3).

3

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Principal Accounting Officer *

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 Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the Bank) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christina J. Gehrke, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Bank.

Date: November 13, 2007



|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Christina J. Gehrke                                                                                 
|Christina J. Gehrke Senior Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

---

|* | The Chief Administrative Officer for purposes of the Seattle Banks disclosure controls and procedures and internal control of financial reporting performs similar functions as
a principal financial officer.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5807]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Renew; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a reference in the text of the 30-day 
Notice of Intent to Renew an agency collection of information, 
Regulations Governing Bankruptcies of Commodity Brokers (OMB Control 
No. 3038-0021). The notice that is being corrected was published in the 
Federal Register of March 5, 2012, 77 FR 13101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin B. White, Office of the General 
Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5129; Fax: (202) 418-5567; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f598829d9c8190b596938196db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bad7cdd2d3cedffad9dcced994ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

Correction

    In the Notice of Intent to Renew, beginning on page 13101 in the 
issue of March 5, 2012, make the following correction. On page 13101 in 
the middle column in the third paragraph under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION replace the sentence ``The Federal Register notice with a 
60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of 
information was published on December 29, 2012 (73 FR 81916).'' with 
the sentence ``The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period 
soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on 
December 29, 2011 (76 FR 81916).''

    Dated: March 6, 2012.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-5807 Filed 3-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
31.1


CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT





I, Mr.
David Y. Chen, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Shine
Media Acquisition Corp.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. [Reserved];





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:





(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;





(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and





(d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:
      December 8, 2008
              By:
              /s/ David Y. ChenDavid
      Y. ChenChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.4**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002I, Karen M. Spaun, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K / A of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.; and  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;        Date: March 20, 2008 /s/ Karen M. Spaun   Karen M. Spaun    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2065 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2065

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on diisopropyl succinate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Carper introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on diisopropyl succinate.

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

SECTION 1. DIISOPROPYL SUCCINATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.22 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to diisopropyl succinate) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-81,114]


Plumchoice, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Balance 
Staffing, Insight Global Staffing, and Technisource, Scarborough, ME; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on February 3, 2012, applicable to workers of PlumChoice, Inc., 
including on-site leased workers from Balance Staffing, Insight Global 
Staffing, and Technisource, Scarborough, Maine. The workers are engaged 
in activities related to sales and technical support services. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2012 (76 
FR 9971).
    At the request of the Maine State agency, the Department reviewed 
the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information from 
the company shows that workers leased from Technisource were employed 
on-site at the Scarborough, Maine location of PlumChoice, Inc. The 
Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under 
the control of PlumChoice, Inc. to be considered leased workers.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased 
customer imports of sales and technical support services.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Technisource working on-
site at the Scarborough, Maine location of the subject firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-81,114 is hereby issued as 
follows:

``All workers from PlumChoice, Inc., including on-site leased 
workers from Balance Staffing, Insight Global Staffing, and 
Technisource, Scarborough, Maine, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after February 13, 2010, through 
February 3, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total 
or partial separation from employment on date of certification 
through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the 
Trade Act of 1074, as amended.''


    Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of February 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-5923 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
CRAY INC.
PARENT & SUBSIDIARIES LIST
 %Parent /Subsidiary Name
    
    Date Formed
    
    Country/State
    
    OwnershipCray Inc.
    
    12/07/87
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    ParentCray Australia Pty. Limited
    
    03/23/00
    
    Australia
    
    
    100
    %Cray Brazil, Inc.
    
    08/25/00
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    
    100
    %Cray Computadores do Brasil Ltda.
    
    11/17/00
    
    Brazil
    
    
    100
    %Cray Canada Corporation
    
    10/31/06
    
    Canada
    
    
    100
    %Cray China Limited
    
    08/07/00
    
    China
    
    
    100
    %Cray Computer Finland Oy
    
    06/20/00
    
    Finland
    
    
    100
    %Cray Computer SAS
    
    04/03/00
    
    France
    
    
    100
    %Cray Computer Deutschland GmbH
    
    03/31/00
    
    Germany
    
    
    100
    %Cray Supercomputers (India) Private Limited
    
    09/30/08
    
    India
    
    
    100
    %Cray Supercomputers (Israel) Ltd.
    
    09/16/01
    
    Israel
    
    
    100
    %Cray Italy S.r.l.
    
    07/12/00
    
    Italy
    
    
    100
    %Cray Japan, Inc.
    
    03/17/00
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    
    100
    %Cray Korea, Inc.
    
    03/17/00
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    
    100
    %Cray Netherlands B.V.
    
    06/23/00
    
    Netherlands
    
    
    100
    %Cray Computer South Africa (Proprietary) Limited
    
    02/23/00
    
    South Africa
    
    
    100
    %Cray Computer Spain, S.L.
    
    03/30/00
    
    Spain
    
    
    100
    %Cray-Tera Sweden AB
    
    03/03/99
    
    Sweden
    
    
    100
    %Cray Computer GmbH
    
    04/05/00
    
    Switzerland
    
    
    100
    %Cray Taiwan, Inc.
    
    04/05/01
    
    U.S./Washington State
    
    
    100
    %Cray U.K. Limited
    
    03/07/00
    
    United Kingdom
    
    
    100
    %
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1947 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1947

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Aminothiophenol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

  Mr. Isakson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Aminothiophenol.

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

SECTION 1. 2-AMINOTHIOPHENOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.57 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2-Aminothiophenol) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Louis H. HOLT and Lisa K. Parkinson, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Ronald D. BIGGS, BLI Trailer Park and Sales, and Garth Nuttall, dba Basin Nickel Ads, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 19529.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 23, 1986.

John L. McCoy, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Robert McRae, Vernal, David Schwobe, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant BLI Trailer Park and Sales (“BLI”) appeals from an order granting partial summary judgment. After careful review of the proceedings below, we conclude that the appeal is not taken from a final order that disposes of all the issues between all the parties. Utah R.App.P. 3. Because jurisdiction is absent, we dismiss the appeal. *Pate v. Marathon Steel,*Utah, 692 P.2d 765 (1984).

Plaintiffs (“Holt”) claim to be the assign-ee of a sublessee under a real property sublease for the operation of a supermarket. After the lessee-sublessor filed for bankruptcy, Holt brought this action against the property owner (BLI), BLI’s new lessee, and Holt’s assignor (Biggs) in an effort to establish Holt’s right to possession of the leasehold premises under Biggs’ assignment to Holt. 11 U.S.C. § 365. Holt’s complaint also alleges that defendant BLI converted rents paid to it by the other defendants which should have been paid to Holt. BLI counterclaimed against Holt for a determination that Holt’s leasehold interest had terminated and for an accounting and damages insofar as past rental payments were concerned.

Holt and BLI separately moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of the validity of any lease or sublease and whether Holt was entitled to possession of the leasehold premises. The lower court granted Holt partial summary judgment allowed Holt to remain in possession, but required the payment of rent pending this action.1

Various other claims and issues raised by the pleadings, including the *644claims for accounting and damages, remain unresolved by the lower court. The order is not a final appealable order and was not so intended below. A party may appeal as of right only from a final order or from a ruling properly certified under Rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Otherwise, an appellant must seek interlocutory review. *General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Martinez,*24 Utah Adv.Rep. 18, 712 P.2d 243 (1985). An order granting only partial summary judgment and denying the appellant summary judgment is not appealable.

The appeal is dismissed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

1

. It is unclear whether the lower court’s ruling is premised upon "undisputed material facts” alleged in the affidavits of both parties, an interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 365(h), as it regards the original lease and sublease or upon some new oral agreement. *See Price Transfer, Inc. v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.,*20 B.R. 766 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.1982).
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A),


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jeffrey H. Burbank, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NxStage Medical, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2014 (this “report”); and





2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.








/s/ Jeffrey H. Burbank


Jeffrey H. Burbank





Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 15, 2014
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Final Rulemaking “Regulation 

of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule Approving Renewable Fuel Pathways for Giant Reed (Arundo 

Donax) and Napier Grass (Pennisetum Purpureum),” RIN 2060-AR85

 Pg.5 – EPA uses the term “minimize the potential spread”. Might “prevent” be a better term?

 Comment A21 sentence edits are a bit confusing. Suggest clarifying the sentence with the 

phrase “even without the measures that would have otherwise be identified in a Risk 

Mitigation Plan.” 

 Pg. 27 – Are the requirements for 80.1450(b)(2) in the redline text new recordkeeping 

requirements even for when no RMP is required? Is this also required in the context of 

international developers? Please clarify.

 Pg. 32 - EPA says “may” require the financial mechanism for producer if an RMP is 

required. Would a financial mechanism ever be needed if no RMP is required? 

 Pg. 34 – Is $25,000 the current amount for daily violations? 

 P 54, 80.1450(2) - states that USDA’s letter goes to the feedstock grower. Is that accurate? 

We thought the letter would go to EPA. The first sentence also states ‘bases’ when it should 

be ‘basis’?

 Regarding the cases where no risk mitigation plan would be needed, the EPA rule now 

provides that the information submitted to demonstrate that no risk mitigation plan is needed 

must result in the same on the ground effect that would occur if a risk mitigation plan were in 

place. Wouldn't the fuel producer have to come up with a mitigation plan to show that one is 

not needed or is it written this way for foreign growers where the plants may not be invasive? 

Why not just require one in all cases and vary what is required given the circumstances?