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

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

# Inconsistency Rulings

1 Affirmed in National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v.Burke, 535 F. Supp. 509 (D.R.I. 1982), aff'd, 698 F.2d 559 (1st Cir. 1983)

2 Affirmed in #SouthernPac. Transp. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'nof Nevada, 909 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1990), reversing No. CV-N-86-444-BRT (D. Nev.1988)

3 Affirmed in *Colorado Pub.Utilities Comm'n v. Harmon, 951 F.2d 1571 (10th Cir. 1991), reversing No. 88-Z-1524 (D. Colo. 1989)
#### STATE v. MICHAELS

No. 95P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 334

Petition by defendant for writ of supersedeas and temporary stay denied 5 April 1990. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1990.
#### § 354.247 Table showing types of materials.

| Equipment, utensils, and facilities | Iron | Stainless steel and monel metal | Aluminum | Galvanized iron |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Holding pens | A | A | A | A |
| Overhead conveyors | A | A | A | A |
| Conveyor track | A | A | | A |
| Shackles | | A | | A |
| Shackle chain | A | A | | A |
| Eviscerating pans | | A | A | A |
| Inspection table | | A | A | A |
| Inside and outside washer | | A | A | A |
| Cooling tanks and racks | | A | A | A |
| Utensils for handling edible products | | A | A | A |
| Framework (of equipment) | A | | | |
| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Key: A—Acceptable. | | | | |
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5038]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Advanced Optics Electronics, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

March 2, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Advanced Optics Electronics, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended March 31, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in Advanced 
Optics Electronics, Inc. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 
12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 
9:30 a.m. EST on March 2, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 15, 
2011.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5038 Filed 3-2-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ johann dreyerJohann DreyerChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SOCIALWISE, INC.**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Socialwise, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Collas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
### §761. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §11, 39 Stat. 369; Apr. 20, 1920, ch. 154, §3, 41 Stat. 570; Ex. Ord. No. 6084 Mar. 27, 1933; Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §25(c), 50 Stat. 713; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(h), 73 Stat. 387, enumerated powers of Federal land bank associations. See section 2033 of this title.
§ 91.5 Tracts reserved from selection by individuals. The following described tracts, as shown on the plats of the three villages, are reserved from selection by individuals and are set aside for sepultural use or for public use by tribal members: ( a ) Grayhorse Indian Village: ( 1 ) Public Squares.
( 2 ) Parks, and
( 3 ) Cemetery.
( b ) Hominy Indian Village: ( 1 ) Public squares.
( 2 ) Cemetery, and
( 3 ) Lot 1 in block 1 set aside for religious and educational purposes to the Society of Friends, its Associate Executive Committee of Friends on Indian Affairs and its or their representative at Hominy, Okla., by Resolution of the Osage Tribal Council dated June 6, 1956, and approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, September 7, 1956.
( c ) Pawhuska Indian Village: ( 1 ) Wakon Iron Square.
( d ) Those individuals who have summer homes or dance arbors located on the Public Square of the Hominy Indian Village shall be permitted to retain said summer homes or dance arbors during their lifetimes if they are maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Hominy Indian Village Committee. Following the owner's death, the improvements shall be removed within ninety (90) days or become the property of the Hominy Indian Village.
[33 FR 8270, June 4, 1968. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]
# C_2006159EN.01008801.xml

| 8.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/88

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4251 — Berkshire/Iscar Metalworking Companies)

(2006/C 159/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 June 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 web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site 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 32006M4251. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4251. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
EX-10(A)(XXIII)






Exhibit 10(a)(xxiii) 





Named Executive Officer Salaries




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Name	 	 	Amount	 
	 	William R. Johnson

Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	$	1,250,000	 	 
	 	David C. Moran

Executive Vice President — President & Chief Executive Officer of Heinz North America
	 	 	$	651,000	 	 
	 	C.
Scott O’Hara

Executive Vice President and President and Chief Executive Officer
of Heinz Europe
	 	 	$	621,000	 	 
	 	Arthur B. Winkleblack

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	$	625,000
# C_2010195EN.01001402.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/14

---

Action brought on 19 May 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-253/10)

2010/C 195/21

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills in accordance with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills in accordance with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

| — | order Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC, ‘Member States shall set up a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills, not later than two years after the date laid down in Article 18(1) and notify the Commission of this strategy’, Article 18(1) providing that ‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than two years after its entry into force’. Pursuant to Article 19, the directive entered into force 16 July 1999. That directive thus had to be complied with by 16 July 2001 and the obligation to set up a national strategy, as laid down in Article 5(1), had to be fulfilled by 16 July 2003.

Since for new Member States no different time-limit was laid down in Article 54 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession, the Slovak Republic was to set up a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills pursuant to Article 5(1) by the date of accession, that is, by 1 May 2004.

The European Commission thus claims that the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

---
§ 354.160 General. Any rabbit inspection system may be deemed to be acceptable to the Administrator which: ( a ) Is conducted under the authority of laws, ordinances, or similar enactments of the State, county, city, or other political subdivision in which is located the official plant at which the ready-to-cook rabbits are prepared and
( b ) Imposes at least the requirements set forth in § 354.161: *Provided,* That no such inspection shall be deemed acceptable to the Administrator with respect to any official plant in which ready-to-cook rabbits are prepared if he finds at any time that such requirements are not adequately enforced.
# C_2007056EN.01003501.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/35

---

Action brought on 9 January 2007 — Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic v OHIM — PepsiCo (Designs)

(Case T-9/07)

(2007/C 56/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Promer Mon-Graphic, SA (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, USA)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal at OHIM of 27 October 2006 in Case R 1001/2005-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal at OHIM of 27 October 2006 in Case R 1001/2005-3;

| — | order the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) and the intervening party, Pepsico Inc., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the Court of First Instance, including those relating to the procedure before the Third Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) and the intervening party, Pepsico Inc., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the Court of First Instance, including those relating to the procedure before the Third Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for ‘promotional item[s] for games’ — Community Design No 74463-1

Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community design: PepsiCo, Inc.

Proprietor of the Community design:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for ‘metal plate[s] for games’ — Community Design No 53186-1

Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community design

Decision of the Invalidity Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Invalidity Division's decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the registered Community design

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The contested Community Design No 74463-1 lacks novelty and individual character compared to the registered Community Design No 53186-1, which has claimed priority of an earlier Spanish design.

Pleas in law:

---
### §3905. Accounting for fees on international loans

(a)(1) In order to avoid excessive debt service burdens on debtor countries, no banking institution shall charge, in connection with the restructuring of an international loan, any fee exceeding the administrative cost of the restructuring unless it amortizes such fee over the effective life of each such loan.

(2)(A) Each appropriate Federal banking agency shall promulgate such regulations as are necessary to further carry out the provisions of this subsection.

(B) The requirement of paragraph (1) shall take effect on November 30, 1983.

(b)(1) Subject to subsection (a), the appropriate Federal banking agencies shall promulgate regulations for accounting for agency, commitment, management and other fees charged by a banking institution in connection with an international loan.

(2) Such regulations shall establish the accounting treatment of such fees for regulatory, supervisory, and disclosure purposes to assure that the appropriate portion of such fees is accrued in income over the effective life of each such loan.

(3) The appropriate Federal banking agencies shall promulgate regulations or orders necessary to implement this subsection within one hundred and twenty days after November 30, 1983.

(Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IX, §906], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1279.)
### SERVED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF ARCTIC SLOPENATIVE ASSOCIATION, LTD. DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-2437 (Civil Penalty Action)


### ORDEROF CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

REASSIGNING AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING On September 5, 2015, Administrative 

### Law Judge Richard C. Goodwintransferredto the Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwinto the undersigned. OnNovember 2, 2015, Complainant's Counsel served a Withdrawal ofComplaint stating that ''the parties have reached a settlement." Accordingly, pursuantto 

### 14 C.P.R. 

### § 

### 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed withprejudice. Complainant shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or final order assessing civil penalty. 

### SO ORDERED.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Richard D. Monkman, Respondent's Counsel Sonosky, Chamber, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP 900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99501 Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AAL-7 Federal Aviation Administration 222 West 7ili Avenue, Box 14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5271 FAX: 907-271-2800 DocketNo. FAA-2015-2437 (Civil Penalty Action)

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative LawJudge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
# C_2006190EN.01003602.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/36

---

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

(Case F-71/06)

(2006/C 190/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004 — 31.12.2004 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004 — 31.12.2004

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:

| — | (1) infringement of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations on the statutory and trade union staff-representatives, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’, |
| --- | --- |

—

(1) infringement of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations on the statutory and trade union staff-representatives, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’,

patere legem quam ipse fecisti

| — | (2) infringement of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary process and of the principle of the prohibition of abuse of powers, and infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the rights of the defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

(2) infringement of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary process and of the principle of the prohibition of abuse of powers, and infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the rights of the defence;

| — | (3) infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials. |
| --- | --- |

—

(3) infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials.

---
# C_2010179EN.01002501.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet

(Case C-209/10)

(2010/C 179/40)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Intervener: Forbruger-Kontakt a-s

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that selective price reductions on the part of a dominant postal undertaking that has a universal service obligation to a level lower than the postal undertaking’s average overall costs, but higher than the provider’s average incremental costs, can constitute exclusionary abuse, if it is established that the prices are not set at that level for the purpose of eliminating a competitor? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that selective price reductions on the part of a dominant postal undertaking that has a universal service obligation to a level lower than the postal undertaking’s average overall costs, but higher than the provider’s average incremental costs, can constitute exclusionary abuse, if it is established that the prices are not set at that level for the purpose of eliminating a competitor?

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is that a selective price reduction in the circumstances outlined in question 1 can, in certain circumstances, constitute exclusionary abuse, what are the circumstances that the national court should take into account? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is that a selective price reduction in the circumstances outlined in question 1 can, in certain circumstances, constitute exclusionary abuse, what are the circumstances that the national court should take into account?

---