alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 12, 2015 

Scott Faulk 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis, X-53 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

. ! 

Mayor and 

Council Members 

Efrain Silva 

Jason Jackson 

Sedalia Sanders 

Alex Cardenas 

Cheryl Viegas-Walker 

RE: Essential Air Service Eligibility - Imperial County Airport 

(California) 

Dear Mr. Faulk: 

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the 

U.S. Department of Transportation for not terminating the Essential Air Service 

(''EAS") Program at the Imperial County Airport (''IPL"). Back in April 2014, 

our community was notified that IPL was one of 13 airports that may lose its 

EAS eligibility because IPL served fewer than ten passengers per day during 

the year-ending December 31, 2013. 

Secondly, the purpose of this letter is to reiterate the need to continue having 

the EAS program in our community. The City of El Centro as the County seat 

is home to several federal and state government agencies, such as the Social 

Security Administration, Employment Development Department, Internal 

Revenue Service, Department of Homeland Security, and Bureau of Land 

Management. At the local level agencies, such as the County of Imperial, 

Imperial Irrigation District and the business community in general are being 

encouraged to make use of the carrier services being provided by SeaPort 

Airlines. SeaPort Airlines has been implementing a very aggressive five year 

marketing strategy to promote its carrier services in the community and is 

committed to continue offering its services. Should the community lose the 

EAS program the damage would be detrimental. 

We strongly urge you to continue the EAS Program in our community and 

approve SeaPort has the provider for Imperial County Airport. For a 

El Centro City Hall 

1275 Main Street, El Centro, CA 92243 (760) 337-4540 Fax (760) 352-6177 
Letter to Scott Faulk 

February 12, 2015 

Page 2 

community that has historically experienced a 20% unemployment rate and 

whose median household income is $38,297 compared to $61,632 statewide 

the loss of the EAS program is detrimental. Furthermore, our community is 

still trying to recover from one of the toughest economic recessions it has ever 

experienced. 

Once again, than you for not terminating the EAS program at the Imperial 

County Airport. We look forward as a community to continue increasing our 

enplanements in order to not lose the EAS program in El Centro, California.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 25
          - [IB Docket Nos. 22-411; 22-271; FCC 23-73; FR ID 190672]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the preamble to a final rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 6, 2023, regarding Expediting the Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications. This correction removes a sentence that erroneously stated that a proposed rule relating to further expediting satellite and earth station application processing was published elsewhere in the same issue of the                         **Federal Register**                        . The proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 8, 2023.                    

# DATES:

The correction is effective January 5, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Julia Malette, Attorney Advisor, Satellite Programs and Policy Division, Space                               ( print page 87724)                            Bureau, at 202-418-2453 or                         *julia.malette@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In final rule FR Doc. 2023-26699, in the issue of December 6, 2023, on page 84737 in the 3rd column, remove the sentence: “A proposed rule relating to further expediting satellite and earth station application processing is published elsewhere in this issue of the                     **Federal Register**                    .”                

Dated: December 12, 2023.

Federal Communications Commission

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-27812 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
# C_2009055EN.01001301.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 22 December 2008 — Simvoulio Apokhetevseon Levkosias v Anatheoretiki Arkhi Prosforon

(Case C-570/08)

(2009/C 55/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Supreme Court of Cyprus)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Simvoulio Apokhetevseon Levkosias (Nicosia Sewage Council)

Applicant:

Respondentt: Anatheoretiki Arkhi Prosforon (Tenders Review Authority)

Respondentt:

Question referred

Does Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665/EC recognise contracting authorities as having a right to judicial review of cancellation decisions by bodies responsible for review procedures which are not judicial bodies?

---
EXHIBIT 31.1
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Harry P. Beugelink, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of MASTER  DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEMS, INC.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 8, 2004
/s/ Harry P. Beugelink
------------------------
By: Harry P. Beugelink
Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dennis P. Calvert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 15, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ DENNIS P. CALVERT
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Dennis P. Calvert                    
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

I, Charles K. Dargan II, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 15, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ CHARLES K. DARGAN II
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Charles K. Dargan II   
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88705-88706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Pricing for the 2024 Harriet Tubman and Greatest Generation 
Commemorative Coin Programs

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the 2024 
Harriet Tubman and Greatest Generation Commemorative Coin Programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Bailey, Sr. Program Manager for 
Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, 
DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pricing for the 2024 Harriet Tubman and 
Greatest Generation Commemorative Coin Programs is as follows:

[[Page 88706]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Coin               Introductory price       Regular price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Proof (both programs)                $82.00                $87.00
Silver Uncirculated (both                    77.00                 82.00
 programs)..................
Clad Proof (both programs)..                 49.00                 54.00
Clad Uncirculated (both                      47.00                 52.00
 programs)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Products containing gold coins will be priced according to the 
Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products Grid 
posted at www.usmint.gov.

(Authority: Public Laws 117-162, 117-163)

Eric Anderson,
Executive Secretary, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2023-28191 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 – Commission v Luxembourg**

**(Case C‐567/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. RUNYAN:
       H.R. 6266.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8
```
# Appalachian Entrepreneurship Academy - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Krystina Burton Program Analyst.The post Krystina Burton appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Gloria Baca The post Gloria Baca appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Jessica Mosley Program Manager.The post Jessica Mosley appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2012366EN.01002801.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-426/08) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Sugar - Processing of citrus fruits - Milk - Arable crops - Flat-rate financial correction - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - No error of assessment)

2012/C 366/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and F. Jimeno, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/582/EC of 8 July 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 186, p. 39), in so far as it excludes from Community financing EUR 174 704 912,66 of expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 February 2012 —
Dow Chemical v Commission

(Case T‐77/08)**

Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for chloroprene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Joint venture — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation

1.                     *Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria
for assessment (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 73‐77)*

2.                     *Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence —
Clear indication of the parties liable to be fined and the capacity in which they are to be penalised (Council Regulation
No 1/2003, Art. 27(1)) (see para. 110)*

3.                     *Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Judicial review — Assessment of the duration of the infringement by progressive
six-month thresholds — Period longer than that of the actual participation in the infringement — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council
Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see paras 92‐145)*

4.                     *Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Reduction of the amount of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking
concerned — Conditions — Discretion of the Commission (Commission Notice 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 157‐164, 167)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38629 — Chloroprene Rubber), as amended by Commission Decision C(2008) 2974 final of 23 June 2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders The Dow Chemical Company to pay the costs. |
From: Peterson, Richard - AMS [mailto:Richard.Peterson@ams.usda.gov] 

Sent: July-21-14 12:08 PM

To: Dave Chapeskie

Cc: Shorter, Chere - AMS; Chilton, Robin - AMS

Subject: RE: U.S. Standards for Grades of Maple Syrup- Follow-Up 

Good day Dave:

Thank you for your email of July 20, 2014, inquiring on the status of the proposed maple syrup revision, 

and your offer of assistance in addressing any questions.

We are currently carefully reviewing, and evaluating, the public comments we received. The public 

comments received may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov. Search maple syrup, then open 

docket folder, and then view all comments. Based on the comments we received and accompanying 

data, we will determine what, if any, revisions to the standards are warranted. As we evaluate these 

comments, we have a couple of questions we hope you may be able to clarify. 

1. How did IMSI arrive at a maximum brix of 68.9o for Grade A?

Concensus decision among maple syrup producer & packer stakeholders was that we require an upper 

limit on Brix . 68.9 % Brix is already the upper limit on Brix in Maple Regulations in Vermont and New 

Hampshire. There is absolutely no advantage to going higher than this on Brix ... resultant product is 

uncharacteristically thick and the cost of production increases significantly beyond this Brix point. 

2. Are you aware of any States or companies developing maple syrup grading kits based on the 

IMSI proposed color designations other than the Vermont temporary kits with the new color 

designations?

Yes . Lovibond International has developed a permanent colour classification kit aligned with the new 

grade & classification standard. Other parties have been awaiting government approval of the 

new grading and classification standard. 

 

Also, for your information, I am registered for the 2014 Maple Syrup Grading school to be held in 

Wolfville, NS on October 20, 21, 2014. I would be also be interested in attending the NAMSC & IMSI 

Annual Meeting, as an observer, if that is possible.

You would be very welcome to attend these meetings as an observer. 

Sincere regards,

Richard