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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Wednesday, March 2, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

# PLACE:

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS: 

Closed to the Public.

# Matter To Be Considered:

 

## Compliance Status Report

The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of compliance matters.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: February 22, 2011.

Todd A Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-4400 Filed 2-23-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
# DATA BOOK LISTING

https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/docs/2013-PBGC-Data-Tables-Multiemployer-Supplement.pdf

# GLANCE

# S-1

# S-2

# S-3

# S-4

# S-5

# S-6

# S-7

# S-8

# S-9

# S-10

# S-11

# S-12

# S-13

# S-14

# S-15

# S-16

# S-17

# S-18

# S-19

# S-20

# S-21

# S-22

# S-23

# S-24

# S-25

# S-26

# S-27

# S-28

# S-29

# S-30

# S-31

# S-32

# S-33

# S-34

# S-35

# S-36

# S-37

# S-38

# S-39

# S-40

# S-41

# S-42

# S-43

# S-44

# S-45

# S-46

# S-47

# S-48

# S-49

# S-50

# S-51

# S-52

# S-53

# M-1

# M-2

# M-3

# M-4

# M-5

# M-6

# M-7

# M-8

# M-9

# M-10

# M-11

# M-12

# M-13

# M-14

# M-15

# M-16
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-2 

January 16, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(f). Termination by Plan Administrator. Application of Termination Procedures Upon Amendment to

Individual Account Plan

4044(d)(2) Allocation of Assets. Distribution of Residual Assets Attributable to Employee Contributions 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your inquiry of November 12, 1975. This will also serve to confirm your telephone

conversation on December 17, 1975, with * * * of our staff. Your letter raises the following questions: 

(1) What is the position of the Pensition Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") with respect to the amendment

of a covered plan (the "Plan") to change it to an ESOT (Profit Sharing type)? 

(2) If such change were considered a termination, would PBGC have any legal objection if after fully vesting all

benefits as of the date of termination and after providing those benefits by purchasing and distributing Single Premium

Immediate Annuities for those employees who are already retired and Single Premium Deferred Annuities for those

people who are currently employed, the residual assets remained in the ESOT pursuant to the amended terms of the Plan

and were allocated to the Plan participants? 

When a covered plan is amended so as to be changed to a [*2] defined contribution plan, such as an ESOT (Profit

Sharing type), that amendment is treated as a plan termination, pursuant to Section 4041(f) of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). Accordingly, the statutory provisions relating to a plan termination set forth

in Section 4041 of the Act apply. Section 4041(a) of the Act provides that the plan administrator shall file a notice of

intent to terminate with the PBGC not later than 10 days before the proposed date of termination, and that a plan

administrator who has filed such notice shall pay no amount pursuant to the termination procedure of the plan for a period

of 90 days after the proposed termination date, unless he receives a notice of sufficiency from the PBGC. Such a notice

will be issued after the PBGC finds that plan assets, when allocated in accordance with Section 4044 of the Act, are

sufficient to pay basic benefits. Section 4044(d) (2) regarding the distribution of residual assets attributable to employee

contributions is inapplicable inasmuch as you have advised us that there have been no employee contributions to the Plan.

With respect to your second question, assuming the Plan has terminated [*3] and has received a notice of sufficiency

from the PBGC we would have no legal objection to the retention of the excess assets in the ESOT and to the allocation

of those assets among Plan participants. However, we do not express any opinion as to the tax implications of this

transaction. 

I trust this answers your inquiry. 

George B. Driesen 

Deputy General Counsel
### Part C—Other Matters
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : Photos

slide show module

First Royal Australian Navy Enlisted Sailors Begin Training at U.S. Submarine School

Theodore Roosevelt Conducts Operations to Deter Threats

Valiant Shield Formation Flight

Abraham Lincoln conducts flight operations

Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 103 Conducts a Change of Command

George Washington Participates in Bilateral Exercises with Chile

JPMRC-X | 2-27th Infantry Regiment assaults simulated opposing forces

F-22s arrive in Guam for Valiant Shield 24

JPMRC-X | Philippine Army Special Forces engage simulated opposing forces

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) conducts night flight operations in support of Valiant Shield 2024
#### McDermott *v.*Allen, Receiver.

[No. 12,332.

Filed July 3, 1925.]

From Huntington Circuit Court; *Sumner Kenner,*Judge'.

Action between Charles H. McDermott and Eli E. Allen, Receiver. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*James E. Rocap*and *C. R. Haller,*for appellant.

*Lucas & Spencer*and *Eben Lesh,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 518.9 When will a certificate of self-regulation become effective?

A certificate of self-regulation shall become effective on January 1 of the year following the year in which the Commission determines that a certificate will issue. Petitions will be reviewed in chronological order based on the date of receipt of a complete petition.
**MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION****EXHIBIT 11****STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE**           Three Months Ended   September 30,   2005  2004 Net Income $273,849  $239,665                 Weighted average common shares outstandingfor basic computation  372,600   372,600                 Basic earnings per share $0.73  $0.64                 Weighted average common shares outstandingfor basic computation  372,600   372,600          Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effectof stock options  —   —                 Weighted average common shares and equivalentsOutstanding for diluted computation  372,600   372,600                 Diluted earnings per share $0.73  $.64
### [§2448a. Renumbered §4271]
**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**

|   | (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/ David                Liu |
|   | David                Liu                                                       |
|   | Chairman                and Chief Executive                Officer   |

----
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.105 How may a person or entity obtain copies of Tribal laws, regulations, or procedures that would permit an allegation of noncompliance with a TERA? ( a ) A person or entity that may be an interested party may obtain copies of Tribal laws, regulations, or procedures that establish Tribal remedies that permit a person or entity to allege that the Tribe is not complying with its TERA by making a request to the Tribe in accordance with the TERA and § 224.63(g).
( b ) Upon obtaining copies of Tribal laws, regulations, or procedures under subsection (a), a person or entity that may be an interested party may file a petition with the Tribe under those Tribal laws, regulations, or procedures.
( c ) If the person or entity that may be an interested party files a petition alleging noncompliance with a TERA, the person or entity becomes a petitioner, and the Tribe must respond according to § 224.106.
§ 700.725 Livestock trespass. The following acts are prohibited: ( a ) The grazing of livestock upon, or driving of livestock across, any of the New Lands without a current approved grazing or crossing permit.
( b ) The grazing of livestock upon an area specifically rested from the grazing of livestock according to the range unit Range Management Plan.
( c ) The grazing of livestock upon any land withdrawn from use for grazing to protect it from damage after receipt of appropriate notice from the Commissioner.
( d ) The grazing of livestock in excess of those numbers authorized on the livestock grazing permit approved by the Commissioner.
( e ) Grazing of livestock whose brand is not recorded in the range unit Range Management Plan.
The owner of any livestock grazing in trespass on the New Lands is liable to a civil penalty of $1 and 3¢ per head per day for each cow, bull, horse, mule or donkey and 26¢ per head per day for each sheep or goat in trespass and a reasonable value for damages to property injured or destroyed. The Commissioner may take appropriate action to collect all such penalties and damages and seek injunctive relief when appropriate. All payments for such penalties and damages shall be paid to the Commissioner for use as a range improvement fund. [56 FR 13397, Apr. 2, 1991, as amended at 89 FR 18363, Mar. 13, 2024]
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

y1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143832

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143832 COA: 305253 Clinton CC: 08-008278-FH MICHAEL CHARLES RINEHART, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 24, 2011 and September 15, 2011 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the ques tion presented should be reviewed by this

Court.
# C_2006291EN.01004501.xml

| 30.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/45

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4421 — OJSC Novolipetsk Steel/Duferco/JV)

(2006/C 291/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 November 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4421. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4421. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  /s/ Vaughn M. Kailian

Vaughn M. Kailian
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ James R. Sulat

James R. Sulat
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)August 13, 2008
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and will be retained by Memory
Pharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by reference into any
filing of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
### §14. Report of Comptroller

The Comptroller of the Currency shall make an annual report to Congress. The report required under this section shall include the report required under section 57a(f)(7) 1 of title 15.

(R.S. §333; Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, §1, 18 Stat. 317; Aug. 7, 1946, ch. 770, §1(39), 60 Stat. 869; Pub. L. 106–569, title XI, §1103(c), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 3031.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 57a(f)(7) of title 15, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1092(3), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2095.

#### Codification

R.S. §333 derived from acts June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §61, 13 Stat. 117, and Feb. 19, 1873, ch. 166, 17 Stat. 466. Act June 3, 1864, was the National Bank Act. See section 38 of this title.

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–569 inserted at end "The report required under this section shall include the report required under section 57a(f)(7) of title 15."

1946—Act Aug. 7, 1946, repealed in the opening clause, the requirement that the report to Congress shall be submitted at the commencement of its session, and repealed all provisions prescribing contents of the exhibits in the report.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exception as to Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by any provision of law in Comptroller of the Currency, referred to in this section, not included in transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 1 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Perceptron, Inc., Respondent, and Thomas S. Vogelsong, Respondent. Photon Vision Systems, Inc., Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 521]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered March 29, 2005 in a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order, among other things, dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner, Perceptron, Inc. (Perceptron), obtained an arbitration award against respondent Photon Vision Systems, Inc. (PVS) and commenced an action to enforce it in the courts of the State of Michigan. After that action had been pending for nearly a year, PVS commenced this special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 seeking to vacate the arbitration award and to enjoin Perceptron from enforcing the award. Supreme Court declined to enjoin the Michigan proceedings and dismissed the petition under the first-to-file rule *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [4]).

“As a matter of New York [State] policy, the rule has been stated that ‘ “proceedings begun in another State should not be interfered with unless there is some necessity clearly shown .... Generally the court which has first taken jurisdiction is the one in which the matter should be determined and it is a violation of the rules of comity to interfere” ’ ” *(White Light Prods. v On The Scene Prods.,*231 AD2d 90, 96 [1997], quoting *City Trade & Indus., Ltd. v New Cent. Jute Mills Co.,*25 NY2d 49, 58 [1969]). PVS failed to establish the existence of special circumstances that would warrant restraining the foreign action *(cf. San Ysidro Corp. v Robinow,*1 AD3d 185, 186 [2003]). Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to interfere with the Michigan action and dismissing the petition *(see generally Whitney v Whitney,*57 NY2d 731 [1982]).

We reject the further contention of PVS that Perceptron’s use of an attorney’s affidavit, in response to the petition of PVS, did not constitute a valid opposition to the petition. “The affidavit or affirmation of an attorney, even if he has no personal knowledge of the facts, may, of course, serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which do provide ‘evidentiary proof in admissible form,’ e.g., documents [and] transcripts” *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]). Consequently, the court correctly considered the materials submitted by means of the attorney’s affidavit. Present— Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
§ 700.331 Application for life estate leases. The following standards and procedures shall govern the application for life estate leases: ( a ) *Filing of application.* Applications for life estate leases shall be filed at the Commission's office in Flagstaff, AZ, not later than July 1, 1981, unless extended for good cause. Application should be made on an approved Commission form known as “Application for Life Estate Lease” and should contain the following information: ( 1 ) Name, address, birthdate, social security number, census number, spouse, and date of marriage, if married. The head of household who applies for a life estate lease shall be known as the “applicant”.
( 2 ) Applicant's Quad Map location in the Former Joint Use Area.
( 3 ) Information listing any other places of Applicant's residence since December 22, 1974.
( 4 ) Name, birthdate, census number, and social security number, if any, of the applicant's minor dependent children.
( 5 ) A statement by the applicant setting forth the nature of the applicant's disability, if any.
( 6 ) Applications should be accompanied, wherever possible, with documentation such as Birth Certificates, Baptismal Records, Tribal Records, Family Census Cards, Marriage Certificates, Tax Returns, and such other documentation required by the Commission.
( b ) *Extensions of time for filing of applications for life estate leases.* Extensions of time for filing of applications for life estate leases shall be governed by the following procedures: ( 1 ) The Commission shall, on a case-by-case basis, determine whether good cause exists to warrent a time extension for the receipt of applications.
( 2 ) Initial Commission determinations concerning the time extension for receipt of applications shall be made by the Certification Officer. Any extensions granted shall be in writing and shall state the length of the extensions and the reasons therefore.
( 3 ) In no event shall an extension be granted for more than eighty-nine (89) days after July 1, 1981.
( 4 ) In the event an extension of time is denied or an application is refused for filing, the Certification Officer shall state the reasons therefore and such determination shall be communicated to the applicant by certified letter or in person by Commission staff.
( 5 ) All persons aggrieved by initial Commission determination may have a hearing to present evidence and argument concerning the determination. Such hearings shall be requested and governed by the Commission's Hearings and Administrative Review Procedures contained in § 700.8 of the Commission's Operations and Relocation Procedures.
( 6 ) For purpose of this subsection, “good cause” shall be defined as follows: ( i ) Lack of actual notice.
( ii ) Lack of transportation or physical incapacity preventing timely filing.
( iii ) Acts of God.
( iv ) Such other facts or reasons deemed sufficient in the discretion of the Commission.
### SUBCHAPTER V—FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION