alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12316-12317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


El Dorado County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The El Dorado County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Placerville, California. The committee is meeting as authorized under 
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 
110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 
RAC will deliberate and recommend projects for the Forest Supervisor's 
approval.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 21, 2011 beginning at 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the El Dorado Center of Folsom 
Lake College, Community Room, 6699 Campus Drive, Placerville, CA 95667.
    Written comments should be sent to Frank Mosbacher; Forest 
Supervisor's Office; 100 Forni Road; Placerville, CA 95667. Comments 
may also be sent via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0868d8f93828183888592a08693ce868584ce9593"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aaccc7c5d9c8cbc9c2cfd8eaccd984cccfce84dfd9">[email protected]</span></a>, or via facsimile to 
530-621-5297.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received at 100 Forni Road; 
Placerville, CA 95667. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 530-
622-5061 to facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Mosbacher, Public Affairs 
Officer, Eldorado National Forest Supervisors Office, (530) 621-5268. 
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
following business will be conducted: The RAC will deliberate and 
recommend projects for the Forest Supervisor's approval. More 
information will be posted on the

[[Page 12317]]

Eldorado National Forest Web site @http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado. A 
public comment opportunity will be made available following the 
business activity. Future meetings will have a formal public imput 
period for those following the yet to be developed public imput 
process.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
John M. Sherman,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-5090 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §296. Standard of fineness of silver articles; deviation

In the case of articles of merchandise made in whole or in part of silver or any of its alloys so imported into or exported from the United States, or so deposited in the United States mails for transmission, or so delivered for transportation to any common carrier, or so transported or caused to be transported as specified in section 294 of this title, the actual fineness of the silver or alloy thereof of which such article is wholly or partly composed shall not be less by more than four one-thousandth parts than the actual fineness indicated by any mark (other than the word "sterling" or the word "coin") stamped, branded, engraved, or printed upon any part of such article, or upon any tag, card, or label attached thereto, or upon any box, package, cover, or wrapper in which such article is incased or inclosed; and that no such article or tag, card, or label attached thereto, or box, package, cover, or wrapper in which such article is incased or inclosed shall be marked, stamped, branded, engraved, or printed with the word "sterling" or "sterling silver" or any colorable imitation thereof, unless such article or parts thereof purporting to be silver contains nine hundred and twenty-five one-thousandth parts pure silver; and that no such article, tag, card, label, box, package, cover, or wrapper shall be marked, stamped, branded, engraved, or printed with the words "coin" or "coin silver" or colorable imitation thereof unless such article or parts thereof purporting to be silver contains nine hundred one-thousandth parts pure silver: Provided, That in the case of all such articles whose fineness is indicated by the word "sterling" or the word "coin" there shall be allowed a divergence in the fineness of four one-thousandth parts from the foregoing standards: Provided, That in any test for the ascertainment of the fineness of any such article mentioned in this section according to the foregoing standards the part of the article taken for the test, analysis, or assay shall be such part or portion as does not contain or have attached thereto any solder or alloy of inferior fineness used for brazing or uniting the parts of such article: Provided further, That in the case of any article mentioned in this section, in addition to the foregoing tests and standards, the actual fineness of the entire quantity of silver or of its alloys contained in such article, including all solder and alloy of inferior fineness used for brazing or uniting the parts of such article (all such silver, alloys, and solder being assayed as one piece), shall not be less by more than ten one-thousandth parts than the fineness indicated by the mark stamped, branded, engraved, or imprinted upon such article, or upon any tag, card, or label attached thereto, or upon any box, package, cover, or wrapper in which such article is incased or inclosed, it being intended that the standards of fineness and the tests or methods for ascertaining the same provided in this section for articles mentioned therein shall be concurrent and not alternative.

(June 13, 1906, ch. 3289, §3, 34 Stat. 261.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1997 10 Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         195,113
<SECURITIES>                                    76,871
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,967
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               289,280
<PP&E>                                          57,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 361,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,422
<BONDS>                                             80
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,179
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                     253,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   361,007
<SALES>                                         38,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,898
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   277
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,248
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,504)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
July 18,2011 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: CMS-1436-P 

P.O. Box 8013 

Baltimore, Maryland 21244-8013 

Dear SirlMadam: 

The American Association for Clinical Chemistly (AACC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) June 30,2011 proposed rule, which would "retract" 

the policy set forth in the November 29,2011 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) final rule requiring clinical 

laboratories to obtain the signature of a physician or qualified non-physician practitioner on a requisition 

form to get reimbursed under Medicare. If finalized, the agency would return to its earlier policy, 

whereby a signed requisition form was only one of a number of options available to cIinicallaboratories 

for documenting the order. 

As CMS details in the proposed rule, requiring a signed requisition form could: 

• Negatively impact beneficiary access to care; 

• Create unnecessary confusion among health care providers; 

• Inconvenience physicians and patients alike; and 

• Increase the administrative burden on many clinical laboratories. 

AACC shares CMS's opinion. We agree with the agency's decision to return to the 2001 policy 

developed through negotiated rulemaking, which stated that a physician signature is not required for 

Medicare reimbursement. AACC looks forward to working with CMS as it finalizes this rule. 

By way ofbackground, AACC is the principal association of professional laboratory scientists--including 

MDs, PhDs and medical technologists. AACC's members develop and use chemical concepts, 

procedures, techniques and instrumentation in health-related investigations and work in hospitals, 

independent laboratories and the diagnostics industry worldwide. The AACC provides international 

leadership in advancing the practice and profession of clinical laboratory science and its application to 

health care. Ifyou have any questions, please call me at (314) 362-0194, or Vince Stine, PhD, Director, 

Government Affairs, at (202) 835-8721. 

Sincerely, 

Ann 

+-~~~ M. Gronowski, PhD 

President, AACC
# C_2013164EN.01000202.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA

(Case C-103/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Articles 225(1) EC, 235 EC and 288, second paragraph, EC - Action in non-contractual liability against the European Community - Assessment of the non-contractual character of the dispute - Jurisdiction of the Community Courts)

2013/C 164/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, E. Montaguti and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Berenboom, avocaat, and M. Isgour, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Systran SA, Systran Luxembourg SA (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer and E. De Boissieu, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission, concerning an action for damages in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants at first instance as a result of unlawful conduct which occurred following a Commission invitation to tender concerning the maintenance and linguistic strengthening of its system of automatic translation — Erroneous assessment and contradictions concerning the non-contractual nature of the dispute — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Disregard of the rules concerning the taking of evidence — Manifest error of assessment regarding the sufficiently serious nature of the breach constituted by the Commission’s supposed fault — Failure to state reasons

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the action of Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA in Case T-19/07; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action of Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA in Case T-19/07;

| 3. | Orders Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Active IQ Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D.
Dacko the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                                 ACTIVE IQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



Dated: March 28, 2003                             By /s/ Mark D. Dacko
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Mark D. Dacko
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit  11.0   STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

    For the Nine Months and Three Months Ended December 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED)

Statement regarding computation of earnings per share for the nine months ended
December 31, 1999.

                           Income    Weighted Average Shares    Per-Share Amount
                           ------    -----------------------    ----------------

  Net Income              $29,829             $91,629                 $0.33
                          -------             -------                 -----

Statement regarding computation of earnings per share for the three months ended
December 31, 1999.

                           Income    Weighted Average Shares    Per-Share Amount
                           ------    -----------------------    ----------------

  Net Income              $11,868             $90,561                 $0.13
                          -------             -------                 -----

                  For the Three Months Ended December 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED)

Statement regarding computation of earnings per share for the three months ended
December 31, 1998.

                           Income    Weighted Average Shares    Per-Share Amount
                           ------    -----------------------    ----------------

  Net Income              $ 4,148             $91,345                 $0.05
                          -------             -------                 -----

Note: Net earnings per share are computed based upon the weighted average common
equivalent shares outstanding for periods subsequent to the Bank's conversion to
a stock savings bank on September 22, 1998. Net earnings per share for the three
and nine months ended December 31, 1997 and the nine months ended December 31,
1998 are not meaningful.
**Exhibit 23**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos.333-74704, 333-84548 and 333-82350) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69318, 333-71504, 333-76042, 333-82348and 333-112345) of Regent Communications, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2005 relating to thefinancial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 69 FR 32438, June 10, 2004.

§ 12.24 Review and updating of plans. ( a ) The emergency action plan must be continually updated to reflect any changes in the names or titles of project operators and attendants and other personnel with specified responsibilities for actions in an emergency and any changes in names of persons to call, telephone numbers, radio call signals, or other information critical to providing notification to affected persons, Federal, state, and local agencies, and medical units.
( b ) An applicant or licensee has continuing responsibility to review the adequacy of the emergency action plan in light of any significant changes in upstream or downstream circumstances which might affect water flows or the location or extent of the areas, persons, or property that might be harmed in a project emergency.
( c ) Promptly after an applicant or licensee learns of any change in circumstances described in paragraph (b) of this section, the applicant or licensee must: ( 1 ) Inform the Regional Engineer of that change in circumstances;
( 2 ) Consult and cooperate with appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies responsible for public health and safety to determine any advisable revisions to the emergency action plan; and
( 3 ) File with the Regional Engineer any revisions to the appropriate studies, maps, plans, procedures, or other information in the emergency action plan itself or its appendices that have changed as a result of that consultation.
( d ) An applicant or licensee must conduct a comprehensive review of the adequacy of the emergency action plan at least once each year.
[Order 122, 46 FR 9036, Jan. 28, 1981, as amended at 87 FR 1515, Jan. 11, 2022]
### §179. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–826, §3, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 953

Section, R.S. §339; acts Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 129, §1, 18 Stat. 352; Feb. 14, 1903, ch. 552, §10, 32 Stat. 829; Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, §1, 37 Stat. 407; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §1, 37 Stat. 736; Mar. 1, 1919, ch. 86, 40 Stat. 1256, required quarterly reports of exports and imports. See section 301 et seq. of Title 13, Census.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 180 days after Oct. 15, 1962, see section 4 of Pub. L. 87–826, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 13, Census.

#### Savings Provision

See section 3 of Pub. L. 87–826, set out as a note under sections 173 and 174 of this title.
# C_2011347EN.01002901.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Reisenthel v OHIM — Dynamic Promotion (Hampers, crates and baskets)

(Case T-53/10) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Invalidity Division - Notification of the Invalidity Division’s decision by fax - Appeal before the Board of Appeal - Written statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Period for submission - Admissibility of the appeal - Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Correction of a decision - Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - General principle of law authorising the withdrawal of an unlawful decision)

2011/C 347/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peter Reisenthel (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: E.A. Busse, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: initially by S. Schäffner, and subsequently by R. Manea and G. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2009, as corrected by the decision of 10 December 2009 (Case R 621/2009-3), and against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Peter Reisenthel and Dynamic Promotion Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3) insofar as it concerns Peter Reisenthel’s request for correction of 23 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 March 2010 (Case R 621/2009-3) insofar as it concerns Peter Reisenthel’s request for correction of 23 December 2009;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
§ 1309.11 What specific responsibilities do TVA and recipients have to ensure compliance with the Act? ( a ) *Written notice, technical assistance, and educational materials.* TVA shall: ( 1 ) Provide written notice to each recipient of its obligations under the Act. The notice shall include a requirement that where the recipient initially receiving funds makes the funds available to a subrecipient, the recipient must notify the subrecipient of its obligations under the Act. The notice may be made a part of the contract under which financial assistance is provided by TVA.
( 2 ) Provide technical assistance to recipients, where necessary, to aid them in complying with the Act.
( 3 ) Make available educational materials setting forth the rights and obligations of beneficiaries and recipients under the Act.
( b ) [Reserved]