alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6864]



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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731-TA-718 (Final)]


Glycine From the People's Republic of China

Determination

    On the basis of the record<SUP>1 developed in the subject 
investigation, the Commission determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry 
in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports from the People's Republic of China (China) of glycine,<SUP>2 
provided for in subheading 2922.49.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States, that have been found by the Department of 
Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (LTFV).<SUP>3

    \1\The record is defined in Sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
rules of practice and procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\The product covered by this investigation is glycine which is 
a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is 
produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/
taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical 
intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. The scope of this 
investigation includes glycine of all purity levels.
    \3\Commissioner Crawford and Commissioner Bragg determine that 
an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of 
imports of glycine from China that Commerce has found to be sold in 
the United States at LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this investigation effective November 15, 
1994, following a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of 
glycine from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of 
section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the 
institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing 
to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the 
notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade 
Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal 
Register of December 8, 1994 (59 FR 63378). The hearing was held in 
Washington, DC, on February 9, 1995, and all persons who requested the 
opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation 
to the Secretary of Commerce on March 14, 1995. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 2863 (March 1995), 
entitled ``Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Investigation 
No. 731-TA-718 (Final).''

    Issued: March 15, 1995.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6864 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Unassociated Document


AMENDMENT NO. 2





TO


LOAN AGREEMENT







           This Amendment No. 2 to Loan Agreement (the “Amendment”) is dated as of the 23rd  day of June 2011, and is by and between RHI MINERAÇÃO LTDA. (formerly MINERAL – PARCEIROS EM MINERAÇÃO LTDA.), a Brazilian limited liability company (the “Creditor”) and REGINALDO LUIZ DE ALMEIDA FERREIRA – ME, a Brazilian sole proprietorship company (the “Borrower”).







           WHEREAS, the Creditor and the Borrower are parties to that certain Loan Agreement dated April 4, 2011 (the “Loan Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Loan Agreement); and







           WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the Disbursement Date of the Loan Agreement should be extended from thirty (30) days from the date of the Loan Agreement to July 15, 2011.







           NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment, each intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:







1. Amendment to Loan Agreement.  Section 2.3 of the Loan Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“2.3           For the purposes under this Agreement, CREDITOR shall make available to BORROWER, the first LOAN installment equivalent in Reais to US$ 4,131,176.00 (four million one hundred thirty-one thousand one hundred seventy-six US dollars) in only one disbursement to be made on or before July 15, 2011 (hereinafter simply referred to as "DISBURSEMENT DATE").”







“2.3.1           For the purposes under this Agreement, CREDITOR shall make available to BORROWER, a late fee of US $300,000 (three hundred thousand US dollars), which is being paid to extend the loan agreement an additional thirty (30) days past the date due on Amendment # 1 and will be paid at the same time that the first LOAN installment above is made to the BORROWER.”







2. Full Force and Effect. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all of the terms, covenants, agreements, conditions and other provisions of the Loan Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms.


 







[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]









  





 











  











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of, and is effective as of, the day and year first written above.







 


 



	 	 
MINERAL – PARCEIROS EM MINERAÇÃO LTDA., as Creditor












 
By:  /s/ Michael Campbell                                                




 
Name:  Michael Campbell




 
Title:    President














REGINALDO LUIZ DE ALMEIDA FERREIRA – 


ME, as Borrower












 
By:  /s/ Reginaldo Luiz De Almeida Ferreira                 




 
Name:  Reginaldo Luiz De Almeida Ferreira




 
Title:    Owner
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1757

Northern Tool & Equipment:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-62402) pertaining to the 1991 Incentive Stock Option Plan,
Stock Grants and Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements, the
RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 (No. 33-93546) pertaining to the 1994 Stock
Option Plan, 1994 Director Stock Option Plan and the Written Compensation
Agreement with R. David Ridgeway, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-21699)pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement
on Form S-8 (No. 333-21701) pertaining to the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements, the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No. 333-06865) pertaining to the registration of 1,614,802 shares of common
stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-14483) pertaining to
theregistration of 1,125,580 shares of common stock, the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 333-21117) pertaining to the registration of 493,895 shares of
common stock, the Registration statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-28315) pertaining
to the registration of 318,607 shares of common stock, the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-18575) pertaining to the registration of
5,000,000 shares of common stock and $5,000,000 of debt securities, the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-53327) pertaining to the
registration of 421,528 shares of common stock, the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-60637) pertaining to the registration of 1,580,500 shares of
common stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-67381) pertaining
to the registration of 150,000 shares of common stock, the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-86867) pertaining to the registration of 425,000
shares of common stock, the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-38474)
pertaining to the registration of 244,880 shares of common stock, the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-40008) pertaining to the 2000 Stock
Option Plan, the 1999 Broad-Based Stock Incentive Plan and a Non-Qualified Stock
Option Agreement, and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-43778)
pertaining to the 1994 Director Stock Option Plan, of iNTELEFILM Corporation of
our report dated February 15, 2002, except for notes 11 and 16 as to which the
date is February 28, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.




/s/ Silverman Olson Thorvilson & Kaufmann LTD
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 28, 2002
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2979

National Presto Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3655 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3655

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018 to 
extend the termination date of the Civil Rights Cold Case Records Review 
                                 Board.

    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 ``Civil Rights Cold Case 
Investigations Support Act of 2022''.
SEC. 2. CIVIL RIGHTS COLD CASE RECORDS REVIEW BOARD EXTENSION OF 
TENURE.
    Section 5(n)(1) of Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 
2018 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note; Public Law 115-426) is amended--
        (1) by striking ``4 years'' and inserting ``7 years''; and
        (2) by striking ``4-year period'' and inserting ``7-year 
    period''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2448

Mabuchi Motor America Corp:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,620
<SECURITIES>                                     3,408
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                       639
<INVENTORY>                                        451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,206
<PP&E>                                           3,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,772
<SALES>                                         25,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,881
<CGS>                                            3,335
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    28
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,284
<INCOME-TAX>                                       687
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12(a),2**

*** ***

*** ***

**Consent of Independent CertifiedPublic Accountants**

*** ***

M-Systems, Inc.

Newark, California

* *

* *

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-54356) ofM-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Ltd. (the "Company") of our report dated January8, 2003, relating to the financial statements of M-Systems, Inc. (a whollyowned subsidiary of the Company) appearing in the Company`s Annual Report onForm 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2002.

* *

* *

BDO Seidman, LLP

* *

San Jose, California

January 20, 2004

* *

****
#### THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF RALEIGH TOWNSHIP, WAKE COUNTY, v. EACH AND ALL THE OWNERS OF TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN RALEIGH TOWNSHIP, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND EACH AND ALL THE CITIZENS RESIDING IN RALEIGH TOWNSHIP, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

( Filed 16 March, 1932.)

Taxation A a — Where local school district is not administrative agency of the State it may not issue bonds without a vote.

Whether a local school district is an administrative agency of the State for the purpose of providing the constitutional six months term of school, Art. IX, or whether it is a local municipal corporation organized for the purpose of operating and maintaining public schools within the district is a determinative factor of its right to issue bonds for school purposes without a vote of the people, and where, in an action brought by the local district to declare a proposed bond issue to be valid, it does not appear from a construction of the statutes creating it that it was an administrative agency of the State, a judgment in its favor is erroneous.

*383Appeal bj defendants from *Harris, J.,*at Chambers in Raleigh, 5 March, 1932. From Wake.

Proceeding under chap. 186, Public Laws 1931, to determine the validity of certain bonds proposed to be issued under authority of chap. 180, Public Laws 1931.

From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

*Caldwell & Raymond and Bunn & Arendell for plaintiff.*

*A. A. Aronson for answering defendants.*

*W. Y. Bickett for defendants appearing specially.*

Stacy, ,C. J.

This is the same case heretofore considered at the present term, *ante,*297, opinion filed 24 February, 1932. The only difference in the record previously considered and -the one now before the Court consists of an amendment to the agreed statement of facts, setting out the statutes, under which it is contended that, by proper construction, the plaintiff operates and maintains the schools of Raleigh Township, Wake County, not as a local municipal corporation, organized expressly for that purpose, but as an administrative agency pf the State so designated by the General Assembly in the discharge of the State’s duty under Article IX of the Constitution. We do not so interpret the statutes. Compare *Glenn v. Commissioners,*201 N. C., 233.

Having heretofore named Wake County as its agency for certain school purposes, *Owens v. Wake County,*195 N. C., 132, 141 S. E., 546, it is not to be presumed, in the absence of definite designation, that the General Assembly intended to name another agency within the same territory. The parties agree that “the General Assembly has not, in express terms, designated the plaintiff as said administrative agency, and, if it has been so designated, it has been impliedly done.”

This renders it unnecessary to consider again the procedural questions, debated on brief, and heretofore adverted to, if not decided.

Error.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2476

Xylem, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn