alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) - Information Collection Request (ICR) 

Change Worksheet 

1. Identification of the Information Collection

Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: 

Removal of Certain Vacated Elements

OMB control number: 2060-0003

2. Description of the Change in Requirements

In this good cause final rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V regulations to remove from the Code of 

Federal Regulations portions of those regulations that were initially promulgated in the 2010

Tailoring Rule and that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 

specifically identified as vacated in the April 10, 2015, amended judgment, Coalition for 

Responsible Regulation v. EPA. The rule removes from the PSD and title V regulations those 

vacated provisions that can be removed from the EPA regulations through a ministerial action. 

The removed regulations include portions of Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as applicable to the 

PSD program and the PSD and title V regulations that required EPA to consider further phasingin the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds. 

3. Description of the Burden

In the regulatory impact analysis for the Tailoring Rule, we estimated that the average annual 

burden on an industrial respondent submitting a part C (PSD) permit application is 1,006 hours 

and the average annual burden on a reviewing authority processing a part C (PSD) permit 

application is 336 hours. By removing portions of Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule from the PSD 

regulations, permit applicants and reviewing authorities would not incur these part C permitting 

burdens for Step 2 sources. In addition, not phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements for 

additional sources under the PSD and title V program will further reduce burden for both permit 

applicants and PSD and title V permitting authorities. These potential burdens were not 

estimated as part of the Tailoring Rule, but would have been estimated as part of the rulemaking 

that would have determined whether to phase-in the PSD and title V permitting requirements at 

lower GHG emissions thresholds.

Therefore, to the extent this rule has any substantive effect, it relieves regulatory burdens. The 

rule relieves regulatory burdens by removing regulations that (1) would have required permit 

applicants to request PSD permits if GHGs are the only pollutant emitted by the new source or 

modification to an existing source above the applicable major source thresholds; (2) required the 

EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission 

thresholds.
#### Ex parte SPIVEY.

No. 22302.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1942.

Florence, Florence & Meredith, of Gil-mer, for appellant.

Fred Erisman, Dist. Atty., of Longview, and Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

An indictment was returned into the District Court of Gregg County, Texas, on June 30, 1942, in which relator was charged with murder. On the same date that the indictment was returned the district judge fixed relator’s bail at the sum of $20,000. Later relator obtained a writ of habeas corpus from said judge in which he sought to have the amount of said bail reduced. Upon a hearing the court reduced the bail to $10,000. Relator excepted, complaining ■that it should have been reduced to not more than $5,000, and later filed a motion before said trial court setting up that he had not been able to make bond in the sum of $10,000, and asking for a still further reduction in said bond. After a hearing the ■court declined to reduce the bond below the $10,000, whereupon appellant appealed to this court.

This court is advised by the affidavit of •.the District Attorney of Gregg County that on the 10th day of' October, 1942, relator secured sureties on his bond in the sum of $10,000 and was released by the Sheriff of Gregg County, Texas, and that he is no longer confined in custody, and said District Attorney moves to dismiss the appeal because the question sought to be settled has now become moot.

The State’s motion is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1



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, David C. Nagel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of PalmSource, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of PalmSource, Inc.



By:

/s/    DAVID C.
NAGELName:

David C. NagelTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer




I, Albert J.
Wood, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of PalmSource, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
PalmSource, Inc.



By:

/s/    ALBERT J.
WOODName:

Albert J. WoodTitle:

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
##### 



ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING
CRITERIA
   Platform
 Applicable Servicing Criteria
 Period
  
    
    The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
 
    
    The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
 
    
    As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
 1




---



##### 



The Bank of New York
    
    The Bank of New YorkThe Bank of New York Trust
    
    The Bank of New York TrustCompany, N.A.
    
    Company, N.A.The Bank of New York (Delaware)
 /s/ Robert L. Griffin
    
    /s/ Patrick J. TadieRobert L. Griffin
    
    Patrick J. TadieAuthorized Signer
    
    Authorized Signer
  2
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 22453.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1943.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Possession of whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale is the offense; the punishment, confinement in the county jail for ninety days.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*231PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined, by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### In the Matter of Abraham H. Sobel, Petitioner, against Joseph D. McGoldrick, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

December 15, 1954.

*982
      *Abraham Sob el,*petitioner in person.

*Walter S. Fried*and *Robert Schwarts*for respondent.

Miles F. McDonald, J.

This is a proceeding by petitioner tenant pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review the determination of the Temporary State Housing Rent Administrator and for an order directing thé respondent to reinstate the maximum rent for petitioner’s apartment.

The basic issue presented is whether at the time petitioner rented his apartment, the premises were decontrolled pursuant to paragraph (i) of subdivision 2 of section 2 of the State Residential Rent Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and subdivision 12 of section 9 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. The record reveals that the subject building contains two floors and a finished basement. The certificate of occupancy provides for a two-family house. However, prior to petitioner renting his second floor apartment on October 1, 1953, the basement had been occupied by other tenants, though vacant at the time of the renting to petitioner, and rented again to another family after petitioner took possession. Thereafter, as a result of a violation placed against the premises for the illegal occupancy of the basement apartment, the basement tenant vacated from the premises. The record fails to reveal whether the landlord has complied with the order of the Department of Housing and Buildings to restore the premises to its original use.

Subdivision 12 of section 9 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations, pertaining to premises not subject to rent control, provides that ‘ ‘ Housing accommodations in one- or two-family houses which are or become vacant on or after April 1, 1953 ” are decontrolled. While it is true that the certificate of occupancy issued is for a two-family house, nevertheless physically it had been illegally converted into a three-family house. It has been held that under such circumstances it may not be considered as a two-family house in a proceeding of this nature *(Matter of Levy*v. *McGoldrick,*279 App. Div. 940; *Matter of Jaffe*v. *McGoldrick,*116 N. Y. S. 2d 901). The premises did not remain a two-family house after the illegal conversion. When the Legislature decontrolled one- and two-family homes, it intended not only premises occupied by two families but those *983which were intended to be occupied as such. It could not have been the intention to favor those owners who disregard the law and rent legal two-family dwellings as multiple dwellings by decontrolling such buildings and retain control over bona fide multiple dwellings. To do so would be in effect rewarding an illegal act. The landlord here clearly established his lack of good faith by his subsequent renting of the basement apartment to a third family and creating an illegal condition.

Accordingly, the petition is granted and the respondent directed to reinstate the proper registered rent.

Settle order on notice.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 570 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 570

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the roles of dentists 
     and allied dental personnel in the Nation's disaster response 
                   framework, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dental Emergency Responder Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. DENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONDERS: PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL 
              RESPONSE.

    (a) National Health Security Strategy.--Section 2802(b)(3) of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300hh-1(b)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
        ``and which may include dental health facilities'' after 
        ``mental health facilities''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``(which may include 
        such dental health assets)'' after ``medical assets''.
    (b) All-Hazards Public Health and Medical Response Curricula and 
Training.--Section 319F(a)(5)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 247d-6(a)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ``public health or 
medical'' and inserting ``public health, medical, or dental''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 8, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 570

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the roles of dentists 
     and allied dental personnel in the Nation's disaster response 
                   framework, and for other purposes.
```
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**Annual Servicer Compliance Certificate**

**pursuant to**

**Section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement**

**and**

**Item 1123 ofRegulation AB**

 

 

USAA AUTO OWNER TRUST 2017-1

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer ofUSAA Federal Savings Bank, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 20, 2017 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time totime, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), by and among USAA Auto Owner Trust 2017-1, USAA Acceptance, LLC, the Servicer and U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee, does herebycertify that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 throughDecember 31, 2018, and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was conducted under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in allmaterial respects under the Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executedthis Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this 27th day of March, 2019. 

 
/s/ Brett Seybold
Name: Brett Seybold

Title:  Senior Vice President-Treasurer and

           Senior Officer in Charge ofSecuritization
**
Prepared by R. Huntley , EMB EMC TID-009

Technical Support Division, OAQPS, EPA September 9, 1991 EMISSION MEASUREMENT CENTER TECHNICAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT BACKGROUND The metho ds for measuring PM emissions, Methods 201 and 201A, wer e 10 promulgated on April 17, 1990 (55 FR 14246). The Environmental Protection Agency(EP A) stated in the preamble that "The PM methods are no t 10 recommended for stacks with entrained moisture droplets because water drop s larger tha n PM , which are captured by the PM cyclone, may contai n 10 10 particles which normally would be counted as PM ." 10 Sincepromulgation, there have been many questions on how to measure PM 10 emissions in the presence of water droplets, such as after a wet scrubber. RECOMMENDATION Method s 201 and 201A are not applicable for in-stack PM measurement i n 10 stack gases con taining water droplets. Where water droplets are known to exist in the emissions and when PM measurement i s desired, EPA recommends 10 tha t Method 5 (or a comparable method) be used and its particulate catc h be considered as PM emissions. 10
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Orrie Earl Macomb, Appellant.

County Court, Niagara County,

March 13, 1958.

*1028
      *John J. Callahan*for appellant.

*John B. Phelps*for respondent.

Frank J. Kronenberg, J.

Defendant was convicted September 9, 1957, by Casey Zygmont, Justice of the Peace of the Town of Niagara, of violating subdivision 8 of section 14 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law by operating a truck with an overload of 7,300 pounds on the rear axle. Trial was by the court without a jury. The defendant rested without producing any evidence, and the evidence is silent as to whether he was or was not the owner of the truck.

Defendant has appealed to this court and one of the grounds of his appeal is that there was no opening statement made on behalf of the prosecution.

Section 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that, after a jury is impaneled and sworn, the prosecution open the case. The purpose of the opening statement is believed to be to give the jury a preview of the issues to further their understanding. In this case trial was by the Justice of the Peace without a jury, and so the requirement of section 388 of an opening statement to the jury had no application. Doubtless, the Justice could in his discretion have required an opening statement, but he did not do so, nor did defendant request it.

Defendant contends that there was no evidence that the truck was operated on a highway. However, it appears at page ti of the testimony that the weighing took place ‘ ‘ at Military Road,” which the court judicially knows is a highway. It is a fair reading of this statement to take it as meaning that the vehicle was being operated on Militai'y Road.

*1029Defendant comments that section 14 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, if read as making the offense *malum prohibitum,*casts a great burden on the driver. If so, that matter is one for legislative consideration. The wording of the section is clear — “No person shall operate” etc. It has been held constitutional *(People*v. *Rodenbach,*307 N. Y. 614) and this court cannot see clear its way to approve the construction referred to by way of obiter in *People*v. *Cubiotti*(4 Misc 2d 44).

The scales used were tested in June, 1957, two months before defendant was arrested. While it has been held *(People*v. *Haselton,*10 Misc 2d 361) that three months is too long an interval, the evidence here does not justify a holding that two months is excessive.

The conviction is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1000

KENRICK HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION - GENERAL COUNSEL

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:13-cv-01311-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenrick Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenrick Hamilton appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed 

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. Hamilton v. 

Transp. Sec. Admin., No. 1:13-cv-01311-JCC-TRJ (E.D. Va. 

Nov. 22, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-33-000]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Questar Pipeline Company 
(Questar) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 79, Second Revised 
Sheet No. 80 and Fourth Revised Sheet No. 80A, to be effective November 
1, 2000.
    Questar states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
Order No. 587-L issued June 30, 2000, in Docket No. RM96-1-014, which 
established November 1, 2000, as the implementation date for interstate 
pipeline companies to include, in their FERC Gas Tariff, a provision to 
permit shippers to net and trade imbalances.
    Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its 
customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service 
Commission of Wyoming.
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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 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 in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26689 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2819 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

275 Front Street in Marietta, Ohio, as the ‘‘Veterans Memorial Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2013 

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. TURNER, Mr. RENACCI, 

Mr. JOYCE, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. LATTA, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, 

Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. TIBERI, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. KAPTUR, 

and Mr. GIBBS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 275 Front Street in Marietta, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 275 Front Street in Marietta, 

6 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Veterans Me7 morial Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2819 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Veterans Memorial 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Transportation

###### Maritime Administration 

          - [Docket No. MARAD-2000-7798] 

# AGENCY:

Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. 

# ACTION:

Extension of comment period. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is hereby giving notice that the closing date for comments in Docket No. MARAD-2000-7798, proposed policy revision relating to the criteria for granting waivers of requirement for exclusive U.S.-flag vessel carriage of certain export cargoes, has been extended to close of business (5:00 p.m. est) November 13, 2000. The notice of application in Docket No. MARAD-2000-7798 was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 21, 2000 (65 FR 50732-50740).                     

Dated: October 16, 2000. 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 00-26890 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-81-P