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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the Optional Peg Rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted                           ( print page 79328)                        average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.38 percent for the October-December quarter of FY 2025.                

Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any Third Party Lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.

David Parrish,

Chief, Secondary Market Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-22164 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the quarterly report of Wilhelmina International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John P. Murray, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




August
      18, 2009
            
            /s/
      John
      P. MurrayName:
            John
      P. MurrayTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting Officer)
# CE2004084EN.01048702.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/487 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/487

---

(2004/C 84 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2350/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Protection of the Darwin Mounds

Subject:

Further to its reply to Written Question P-0213/03 (1) concerning the protection of the Darwin Mounds, will the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by the UK Government with a request or with justification for the use of emergency powers by the Commission as provided by Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (2) in respect of this area? If so, will the Commission also confirm the date on which this approach was first made by the UK Government, given the implication that this had not occurred at the time of the Commission's response to Question P-0213/03?

1

2

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

(4 August 2003)

The Commission can confirm that it has been contacted by United Kingdom authorities about the protection of the Darwin Mounds further to its reply to Written Question P-0213/03.

The United Kingdom authorities put the issue to Directorate General Fisheries in March 2003 and asked about the possibility of emergency measures. On 24 June 2003, the Commission received a letter from the United Kingdom authorities asking it to take action to close the Darwin Mounds to methods of fishing likely to cause further irreparable damage to them. The Mounds already show signs of damage caused by bottom trawling. As fishing of the kind is still taking place in the area, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asks the Commission to consider its emergency powers under Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, to address the problem immediately.

Our services have already started to prepare a proposal for a Council Regulation to prohibit the use of bottom trawls and other towed gear in the Darwin Mounds. This will be done by way of an amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (3) and, therefore, the Parliament will be duly consulted.

3

As far as the emergency procedure is concerned, we are now considering whether this case meets the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. If there is a case for using such procedure the Commission will swiftly adopt legislation similar to the one mentioned above, which will be valid for six months and which can be extended for another six months.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 195.

1

(2)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

2

(3)  OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

3

---
```

[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Notices]               
[Page 6249-6250]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-104]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6895]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Fiery Pool: The Maya and the Mythic Sea,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Peabody Essex 
Museum, Salem, MA, from on or about March 27, 2010, until on or about 
July 18, 2010; the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, TX, from on or about 
August 29, 2010, until on or about January 2, 2011; the Saint Louis Art 
Museum, St. Louis, MO, from on or about February 13, 2011, until on or 
about May 8, 2011, and possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

[[Page 6250]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 0522-0505.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Maura M. Pally,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-2692 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### BLACKMAN v. STATE.

No. 14647.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1932.

• • J. Earle Kuntz, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. •

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. -

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for operating motortruck of excess weight; punishment, a fine of $50.

We find no brief filed in behalf of appellant calling attention to any matter of complaint. The record contains five bills of exception, in four of which complaint is made of the refusal of special charges relating to arguments of the state’s attorney. The bills of exception are defective in that they do not show when said special charges were presented to the tri*701al court. Unless it appears from the bill of exception that the instruction was presented to the court at a proper time, we cannot say that the court was in error in refusing to give such instruction. We further observe that said bills of exception nowhere certify that the arguments were in fact made. Nor is there anything in any of the hills showing the settings or surroundings leading up to or connected with such arguments. None of said bills presents error.

Appellant’s fifth bill of exception complains apparently of practically all the cross-examination of appellant’s wife who was offered as a witness for the defense. This bili is qualified by the court, and as qualified shows no error.

The facts seem ample to support the finding of the jury.

The judgment will be affirmed.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022243EN.01005401.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/54 |

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 24 June 2022 to 24 June 2022

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022243EN.01005401-E0001)
or Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022243EN.01005401-E0002))

(2022/C 243/07)

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | Issuing of a marketing authorisation (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Date of the decision | | | | | --- | --- | | | Name of the medicinal product | | INN (International Non-Proprietary Name) | Holder of the marketing authorisation | Number of the entry in the Community Register | Pharmaceutical form | ATC code (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code) | Date of notification | | 24.6.2022 | COVID-19 Vaccine (inactivated, adjuvanted) Valneva | COVID-19 vaccine (inactivated, adjuvanted, adsorbed) | Valneva Austria GmbH Campus Vienna Biocenter 3, 1030 Wien, Österreich | EU/1/21/1624 | Suspension for injection | J07BX03 | 24.6.2022 | |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022243EN.01005401-E0001)  [OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_136_R_TOC).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022243EN.01005401-E0002)  [OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2019_004_R_TOC).

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3149 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a limit on checked 

baggage fees imposed by air carriers on passengers in air transportation, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2015 

Mr. MICA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a limit 

on checked baggage fees imposed by air carriers on passengers in air transportation, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Baggage Fee Fairness 

5 Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CHECKED BAGGAGE FEES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter I of chapter 417 of 

8 title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3149 IH

1 ‘‘§ 41725. Limitation on checked baggage fees 

2 ‘‘Beginning on the 180th day following the date of 

3 enactment of this section, an air carrier or foreign air car4 rier may not collect from a passenger a fee for an item 

5 of checked baggage on a flight in passenger air transpor6 tation if the amount of the fee exceeds the total amount 

7 of passenger facility charges that could be imposed (with8 out regard to whether the charges are actually imposed) 

9 on the passenger by eligible agencies for boardings associ10 ated with that flight under paragraphs (1) and (4) of sec11 tion 40117(b).’’. 

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for such 

13 chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating 

14 to section 41724 the following: 

‘‘41725. Limitation on checked baggage fees.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Wood Stoves 126,527 80,851 77,617 79,169 80,752 82,367 84,015 85,695 87,409 89,157

Single Burn Rate Stoves 40,000 25,560 24,538 25,028 25,529 26,039 26,560 27,091 27,633 28,186

Pellet Stoves 130,381 83,313 79,981 81,581 83,212 84,876 86,574 88,305 90,072 91,873

Furnace: indoor, 

cordwood 41,000 26,199 25,151 25,654 26,167 26,690 27,224 27,769 28,324 28,891

Hydronic Heating 

Systems 13,385 8,553 8,211 8,375 13,100 13,362 13,629 13,902 14,180 14,463

R&D 

Annualized 

Cost ($)* ** # Models

Certification 

Testing 

($)*

Baseline 

Unit Cost 

($)*

Add'tl 

mnfctrng 

cost ($)*

Adjustable Burn Rate 

Wood Stoves 32,702 125 10,000 1,259

Single Burn Rate 

Stoves 39,206 20 10,000 271 110

Pellet Stoves 32,702 125 10,000 1,384

Forced Air Furnaces 306,232 50 20,000 974 1700

Hydronic Heating 

Systems 250,706 120 20,000 4,923 3200

Estimated Annual Shipped Units

*Cost estimates are in 2013$.

** Total R&D cost estimates correspond to an average annual R&D cost amortized 

over 6 years at a 7% interest rate. See Manufacturer's Cost Memo for details.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

100,000 102,000 104,040 106,121 108,243 110,408 112,616 114,869 117,166 119,509 121,899 124,337

28,750 29,325 29,911 30,509 31,120 31,742 32,377 33,024 33,685 34,359 35,046 35,747

93,710 95,585 97,496 99,446 101,435 103,464 105,533 107,644 109,797 111,993 114,232 116,517

29,468 30,058 30,659 31,272 31,898 32,536 33,186 33,850 34,527 35,218 35,922 36,640

14,753 15,048 15,349 15,656 15,969 16,288 16,614 16,946 17,285 17,631 17,983 18,343

2008* ... 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Adjustable Burn 

Rate Wood Stoves $1,259 $1,259 $1,259 $1,307 $1,307 $1,307 $1,307 $1,307 $1,307 $1,261 $1,261 $1,261 $1,261

Single Burn Rate 

Stoves $271 $271 $271 $410 $410 $410 $410 $410 $410 $382 $382 $382 $382

Pellet Stoves $1,384 $1,384 $1,384 $1,430 $1,430 $1,430 $1,430 $1,430 $1,430 $1,387 $1,387 $1,387 $1,387

Forced-Air Furnaces $974 $974 $974 $3,225 $3,225 $3,225 $3,225 $3,225 $3,225 $2,680 $2,680 $2,680 $2,680

Hydronic Heating 

Systems $4,923 $4,923 $4,923 $10,287 $10,287 $10,287 $10,287 $10,287 $10,287 $8,154 $8,154 $8,154 $8,154

Table 2. Unit Costs of Certified Stoves under Final NSPS (2013$)*

Step 1 (2015)

Step 2 (2020)

*Note: The average 2008 base year cost per appliance was converted to 2013$ for this analysis. 
... 2029

$1,261 $1,261

$382 $382

$1,387 $1,387

$2,680 $2,680

$8,154 $8,154
STATISTICAL APPROACHES USED TO ASSESS THE VARIABILITY OF DATAAUGUST 6, 2010ApproachFormulaInterpretationUse/applicationUCL=Upper confidencelimit of a 99%confidence intervalfor the mean( )20.99,sUCL x t dfn=+ ×1df n= −n= the topNsourcesdft= the 99thpercentile of the tdistribution withdfdegrees of freedom2s= variancex=mean•The upper confidence limit (UCL)represents the value which we can expectthe truemeanof the population to fall below99% of the time in repeated sampling.•In other words, if we were to obtain anotherset of emission observations from the samesources, we can be 99% confident that themean of the new sample will fall below theUCL•Assume that the mean of futureobservations is a an estimate ofthe population mean, therefore itshouldn’t exceed the UCL99% UTL with 99%confidence = 99 percentupper tolerance limitwith 99% confidence( )( )saabnptnptxUTL×−−−+−−+=21,11,1wherex=mean( )12)1,1(12−−γ−−=nnta( )nntnptb22)1,1(1,1−γ−−−−=n=number of observations



# γ=99% (confidence level)p= proportion of population contained in interval(99%)s=standard deviation•We can conclude with 99%certainty (confidence) that at least99% (population coverage) of thefuture population elements liebelow the Upper Tolerance Limit(UTL•Statistical tolerancelimits are limits withinwhich we expect a statedproportion of thepopulation to lie.•Contrast the futuremeasures (usually themaximum value) with theUTLUpper predictionlimit (UPL) with 99confidenceUPL = ...11iNT TiXxN==∑TX= the average total emissions rate overthe best performing sources11iNT TiXxN==∑iTx= total emission rate of i-th source1iiMT ijjxx==∑ijx= unit average of jth unit within the ithsource11ijnijijkkijxxn==∑2is= variance of i-facilityin= number of elements in i-facilitym= number of future runsdft= the 99thpercentile of the t-distributionwithdfdegrees of freedom1 1( 1)iMNiji jdf n= == −∑∑21 11 11iMNT dfiji jijXt sN Nn m= =⎛ ⎞+ +⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠∑∑•A prediction interval for a future observation is aninterval that will, with a specified degree of confidence,contain the next (or some other pre-specified) randomlyselected observation from a population.•In other words, the prediction interval estimates whatfuture values will be, based upon present or pastbackground samples taken.•The UPL has a 99% probability of not being exceed bythe sample mean ofmfuture observations•To infer to futurevalues of mean ofnew data•Contrast thefuture measures(with the UPL)99percentileThe p-th percentile of N ordered values is obtained by firstcalculating the rank11100Nnp+, rounding to the nearest integer, and then takingthe value that corresponds to that rank (n)−= ×•99% of the population values liebelow the 99 percentile•Creates a cut-off for futuresingle observations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        5,045
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        538
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,213
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         6,189
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,120
<COMMON>                                         3,576
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            1
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              (103)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               56
<PREFERRED>                                        138
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             5,969
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 163
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                     125
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      128
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   4,893
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   13,120
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        5,437
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               358
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       3,670
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       4,028
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          1,409
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (15)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   1,394
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           396
<NET-INCOME>                                       582<F1>
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         12
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      570
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           196
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          396
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             899
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.89
<FN>
<F1>
(1) Net Income includes an extraordinry item of $37 million (net of income
taxes) related to prepayment premiums and the write-off of unamortized debt
costs associated with repayment related to the First Mortgage Bonds and
refinancing of pollution control notes.
</FN>



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the quarterly report of PHOENIX MEDICAL SOFTWARE,INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuantto 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 

Dated: August 15, 2011

 

/s/ Paul McCune

 

Name: Paul McCune

Title: Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

Dated: August 15, 2011

 

/s/ Paul McCune

 

Name: Paul McCune

Title: Chief Financial Officer
KCS Energy, Inc.










EXHIBIT 10.4  



Effective Date:  August 1, 2004  








Re:  Amendment No. 1 to Change in
Control Agreement  




Dear Mr. Leary:  



When countersigned by you, this
letter will serve as an amendment (referred to here as “Amendment No. 1”) to your
existing change in control agreement with KCS Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) dated August
1, 2004 (the “Original Agreement”).   



          1.
Effectiveness of Agreement Provision. Section 5 of the Original Agreement is
amended by deleting the words “August 1, 2004” and substituting therefor the words
“August 1, 2006”.   



          2.
Original Agreement Ratified. In all other respects, the Original Agreement
remains in effect, and is ratified by you and by the Company.   



* * *  



Please sign below and return a
signed copy to the Company to confirm your agreement with this Amendment No. 1.  





Very truly yours,  



KCS Energy, Inc.   




/s/ James Christmas 
Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer  




Accepted and agreed to:   



/s/ Joseph T. Leary