alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2

was also determined that for the currently registered uses, no Habitat Modification was likely for 

designated critical habitats. 

The Preliminary Work Plan requested public comment on the ecological risk assessment/ endangered 

species effects determination and comments were received from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water 

Quality Control Board (8/26/2013), the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(8/26/2013), and the California Stormwater Quality Association (8/23/2013). Comments from all three 

organizations were similar and are summarized below. Overall, the commenters felt that the data and 

modeling required of other pyrethroids undergoing registration review should also be required for 

metofluthrin, metofluthrin’s environmental risk assessment should include a quantitative assessment of 

the same level of rigor as the risk assessments for all other pyrethroids, and that all pyrethroids should 

be reviewed together as a group.

Summary of Comments

 Request that the de minimis environmental risk determination be rescinded and a full risk 

assessment be conducted. 

 Based on experience with other pesticides, the outdoor misters and indoor bedbug treatments 

are likely to cause and/or add to the pyrethroid toxicity in urban waterways.

 Metofluthrin should be considered cumulatively with the other pyrethroids because toxicity is 

additive within the class.

 The environmental risk assessment should consider that some fraction of the mist will deposit 

on outdoor surfaces where it can then be transported to storm drains or directly to water 

bodies.

 Environmentally significant amounts of metofluthrin will be released to indoor drains during 

washing of linens that have covered treated mattresses and of clothes worn by people using the 

mister and the clip-on vaporizer.

 Aquatic toxicity data for known sensitive species, i.e., Hyalella Azteca, Americamysis bahia, 

Chironomus dilutes, and Leptocheirus plumulosus should be required and incorporated into the 

risk assessment.

 Experimental photodegradation rates for air and surfaces are needed.

 An anaerobic sediment degradation rate is needed.

 Modeling of urban runoff from impervious surfaces and turf should be completed.

 Modeling down-the-drain pathways to wastewater treatment plants should be completed.

 Analytical methods for water and sediment matrices that detect metofluthrin at 

environmentally relevant concentrations should be required from the pesticide manufacturer.

 Water quality monitoring data should be required.

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division plans to review and respond to these comments at the 

same time that the Health Effects Division responds to comments received on the human health risk 

assessment during the next phase of registration review, currently scheduled for June 2014.
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

Via email and post 

May 18,2012 

Mr. Roy Koster, P.E. 

Central Maine Power Company 

Environmental Services 

83 Edison Drive 

Augusta, Maine 04336 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Re: Certification of Completion of Work 

O'Connor Superfund Site 

Dear Mr. Koster: 

Thank you for arranging the April26, 2012 site inspection for the upcoming five-year review. 

During the inspection, we discussed in general terms the process for deletion of the site from the 

NPL list. 

In reviewing the relevant site documents, including the 1990 Consent Decree, it appears the first 

step is certification of completion of Work (as that term is defined in the Consent Decree). Per 

paragraph 51 ofthe Consent Decree, the Settling Defendants are to notify EPA and Maine DEP 

in writing that they have concluded the Work has been fully performed and schedule a precertification inspection. In as much as we have just conducted the inspection for the five-year 

review, I would recommend that the pre-certification inspection be performed when the soil 

sampling for the five-year review occurs. Within thirty days after that inspection, the Settling 

Defendants are to submit a report to EPA and Maine DEP certifying that all activities have been 

completed in full satisfaction of the requirements of the Consent Decree. 

I look forward to working with you to remove the Site from the NPL list. It is gratifying to be 

involved with moving a site to the end phase of the Superfund process. Please contact me at 

connelly.terry@epa.gov or (617) 918-1373 so that we can select a mutually acceptable date for 

the pre-certification inspection. 

~incerely

: lfJJM_(L-

, ~ 

Terrence Connelly 

ME, VT, and CT Superfund Section 

Cc: Claudia Sait, Maine DEP 

Lori Moreau, Woodard & Curran
Exhibit
32.1













CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Community Properties Trust (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen
K. Griessel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), 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
      Company.














By: /s/ Stephen K.
  GriesselStephen
      K. GriesselChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      21,
2009
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of DigitalTown, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for
the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 135)), 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;
and
 
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
  
 Date:
July 11, 2008
 
 
 
 Richard
A. Pomije
 Chief
Executive Officer
    20
No. 10-1113.

#### John Fredy Ospina Hernandez and Paula Andrea Velez Yepez, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 814, 132 S. Ct. 92,

181 L. Ed. 2d 21,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6781.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 404 Fed. Appx. 387.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2963 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require States to provide notification of the use of automated traffic enforcement systems under highway 

safety programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2019 

Mr. WRIGHT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require States 

to provide notification of the use of automated traffic 

enforcement systems under highway safety programs. 

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 ‘‘Traffic Camera Notifi5 cation Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRED NOTIFICATION IN ADVANCE OF AUTO7 MATED TRAFFIC SYSTEMS. 

8 Section 402(b)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2963 IH

1 (1) by redesignating paragraph (F) as para2 graph (G); and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (E) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(F) require that a law enforcement entity 

6 using an automated traffic enforcement system 

7 within the State displays notification signs to 

8 alert vehicle operators of such system in ad9 vance of the system; and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP91-143-044]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Revenue Sharing Report; November 1996--Octover 1997

January 21, 1998.
    Take notice that on January 15, 1998, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed its Interruptible/Overrun (I/O) 
Revenue Sharing Report with the Commission in accordance with the 
Stipulation and Agreement (Settlement) filed on September 24, 1992, and 
approved by the Commission's February 3, 1993 order issued in Docket 
No. RP91-143-000, et al.
    Great Lakes states that this report reflects application of the 
revenue sharing mechanism and remittances made to firm shippers for I/O 
revenue collected for the November 1, 1996 through October 31, 1997 
period, in accordance with Article IV of the Settlement. Great Lakes 
states that such remittances, totaling $21,147, were made to Great 
Lakes' firm shippers on December 16, 1997.
    Great Lakes further states the amounts remitted are based on 
implementation of the Commission's orders in Docket Nos. RP91-143, 
RS92-63 and RP95-422, et al. The amounts remitted may be adjusted at a 
future date in accordance with the provisions of Articles III and V of 
the Settlement, as certain of the Commission's orders referenced above 
are under Petitions for Review in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit in Southeastern Michigan Gas Company and Michigan 
Gas Company, et al. v. FERC, Nos. 96-1200, et al. Great Lakes states it 
will adjust the amounts remitted to comply with any further Commission 
action or judicial review resulting from disposition of the 
aforementioned court proceeding.
    Great Lakes states that copies of the report were sent to its firms 
customers, parties to this proceeding and the Public Service 
Commissions of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before January 28, 1998. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1874 Filed 1-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-11146.

#### Reginald K. Cantly, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 869, 132 S. Ct. 220,

181 L. Ed. 2d 121,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7142.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

*122Same case below, 422 Fed. Appx. 369.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2010** 

**- NM** 
**- 149** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# pennsylvania
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SECRETARY 

### February 21, 2014
Mr. ShawnM. Garvin Regional Administrator · U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 DearMr. Garvin: TheU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III, has requested Pennsylvania's concurrence to list the Baghurst Alley Site located 

### in Upper Salford Township, Montgomery County, on the CERCLA (Superfund) National Priorities List (NPL). The Department of Environmental Protection staffbas evaluated the Baghutst Alley Site 

### in accordance with the Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields Program policy and supports EPA's proposal to 

### list the site on the NPL. The continued cooperation ofthe federal and state governmentto implement the CERCLA program is an essential element ofits success. Pennsylvania's commitment to this partnership and implementation ofthe Commonwealth's Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields Program will assure the goals ofbothprograms are achieved. Ifyou have any questions regarding this issue or Pennsylvania's participation 

### inthe CERCLA program, please contact Vince Brisini, Deputy Secretary for Waste, Air, Radiation and Remediation, by e-mail atvbrisini@pa.gov or bytelephone at 717.772.2725, or Walter Harner,

....... ChiefoftheSiteRemediation.Di:visio:n,
..b:ye,maiLatwharner@pa
..gov_or.:by.telephoneat::. 717.787.1915. Sincerely,

# 2'-dU~~ E. Christopher Abruzzo Secretary

Rachel Carson State Office Building 1 P.O. Box 2063 I Harrisburg, PA**17105~2063** 717.787.2814 www.depweb.state.pa.us
Skip to main content


Home


Analysis


Interactivity


Interface & Navigation


Content


Learning Assessment


Quality E-learning





Examples of Quality E-learning


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA; 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY: (888) 232-6348, 8AM-8PM ET, Monday-Friday, Closed Holidays - cdcinfo@cdc.gov





Interactivity


Screen-based 
Controls


Exploring Content


Engagement


Screen-based Controls


Screen-based controls allow learners to interact with content and access activities.  Ensure that all interactions work within the 
organization’s web architecture and meet the organization’s accessibility requirements, such as Section 508.
AP3.24 APPENDIX 3.24 

Field Leaend 

Document Identifier 

PllN 

SPIIN: 

CallIOrder or Last 

Modification Number 

Reserved 

ldentity Code: 

Administered By 

Identity Code: 

Purchasing Office 

Identity Code Contractor 

Record 

 position!^] 

1-3 

4-16 

17-22 

23-24 

25-30 

31-36 

37-42 

Entry and Instructions 

Enter code PKX. 

Enter the number assigned to the contract 

against which the unclosed contract status is 

being reported. See appendix API .48. An 

X-overpunch in rp 10 indicates a cancellation, 

in which case rp 37-80 is left blank. 

Enter the call or order number in rp 17-20 for 

which unclosed status is being reported. If 

applicable, enter the last modification number 

for the call or order in rp 21-22. If this is not a 

call or order, enter the number of the 

modification with the latest effective date in rp 

17-22. See appendix API .49. Leave this 

field blank if not applicable. 

Leave blank. 

Enter the identity code, as reflected in the 

contract, of the office assigned primary 

contract administration responsibility. See 

appendix API .4. 

Enter the identity code, as reflected in the 

contract, of the office issuing the contract. 

See appendix API .4. 

Enter the identity code, as reflected in the 

contract, of the contractor. See appendix 

API .4. Right justify. 
Field Leaend 

Date Physically 

Completed 

Date of Final Payment 

Estimated Completion 

Date 

Reserved 

Reason For Delayed 

Closing of Contract File 

Reason for Delayed 

Closing of Contract File 

Reason for Delayed 

Closing of Contract File 

Transaction Date 

Reserved 

Record 

Positionfs) 

45-51 

52-58 

59-65 

66-71 

72 

73 

74 

75-79 

80 

Entry and Instructions 

Enter the date that the contract was 

physically completed in accordance with 

chapter 11, subparagraph C11.4.2.1. This 

date is expressed as year-month-day in 

accordance with appendix AP1.2. 

If final payment has been made, enter the 

date of the voucher reflecting final payment 

of the contract. Otherwise, leave blank. This 

date is expressed as year-month-day in 

accordance with appendix API .2. 

Enter the best estimate of the date by which 

the contract will be completed in accordance 

with the contract closing criteria. This date is 

expressed as year-month-day in accordance 

with appendix API .2. 

Leave blank. 

Enter the appropriate code, in accordance 

with appendix API .38, that indicates the most 

significant reason the contract has not been 

closed. 

Enter the appropriate code, in accordance 

with appendix API .38, for the second most 

significant reason that the contract has not 

been closed, if applicable. Otherwise, leave 

blank. 

Enter the appropriate code, in accordance 

with appendix API .38, for the third most 

significant reason that the contract has not 

been closed, if applicable. Otherwise, leave 

blank. 

Enter the date of preparation of this 

transaction. The date is expressed as 

month-day (see appendix API .2). 

Leave blank.
# C_2016287EN.01000701.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu -Poland) — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

(Case C-418/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2003/96/EC - Differentiated rates of excise duty for motor fuels and heating fuels - Condition for the application of the rate for heating fuels - Submission of a monthly list of statements that the products purchased are for heating purposes - Application of the rate of excise duty laid down for motor fuels where that list is not submitted - Principle of proportionality))

(2016/C 287/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as:

| — | not precluding national legislation under which sellers of heating fuel are required to submit, within a prescribed time limit, a monthly list of statements from purchasers that the products purchased are for heating purposes, and |
| --- | --- |

—

not precluding national legislation under which sellers of heating fuel are required to submit, within a prescribed time limit, a monthly list of statements from purchasers that the products purchased are for heating purposes, and

| — | precluding national legislation under which, if a list of statements from purchasers is not submitted within a prescribed time limit, the excise duty applicable for motor fuels is applied to the heating fuel sold, even though it has been found that the intended use of that product for heating purposes is not in doubt. |
| --- | --- |

—

precluding national legislation under which, if a list of statements from purchasers is not submitted within a prescribed time limit, the excise duty applicable for motor fuels is applied to the heating fuel sold, even though it has been found that the intended use of that product for heating purposes is not in doubt.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-122576-CV

JACKIE COLLINSMiItTxX, LtTdD., WhHiItTeE ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD., 	APPELLANTS

AND WeElLlLsS ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD.	APPELLANT

	V.

TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICTGoOrRdDoOnN S. SwWiIfFtT CoOnNsSuUlLtTiInNgG EnNgGiInNeEeErR, InNcC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 236thTH236TH  DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------NO. 2-09-223   -        -CV

HoOwWaArRdD RoOsSeEnNsStTeEiInN	APPELLANT	

	V.

BeEtThH PoOuUlLoOsS	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 231ST         DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT            COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On aUGUST aUGUSTAugust 11, 2009                          August 9July 5, 2006, we notified appellant[s] that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed theis court that arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2).  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant[s], within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellant[s] [hasves /have] not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

	Appellant[s] shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.   MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DELIVERED:   August 3 0, 1, 20062006July 27, 2006September 23810, 2009
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Falcon Ridge Development Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'),
I, Fred M. Montano, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 USC ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2004, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 Company.


                                 /s/ Fred M. Montano
                                 ----------------------------------------
                                 Fred M. Montano, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 21, 2005


<PAGE>
No. 11-5033.

#### Paul Peter Tjandra, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 886, 132 S. Ct. 261,

181 L. Ed. 2d 152,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5520.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.