alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000945372
<NAME> SIGCORP, INC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      738,916
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    175,138
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         175,942
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        54,146
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,144,142
<COMMON>                                        78,258
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            314,950
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 393,208
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,282
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           273,531
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             109,162
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   53,700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 295,259
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,144,142
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      604,491
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            25,718
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     515,679
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     541,397
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         88,812
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  88,812
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        11,037
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,057
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   52,057
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        31,302
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       18,722
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         107,040
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.19


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Align-Rite International, Inc. on Form S-8's (File Nos. 33-00232,
33-96400 and 33-96402) of our report dated May 28, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Align-Rite International, Inc. as of March 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each of
the three years in the period ended March 31, 1998, which report is included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Los Angeles, California
June 29, 1998
#### § 1002.42 Confidentiality of records furnished by dealers and distributors.

All information furnished to manufacturers by dealers and distributors pursuant to this part shall be treated by such manufacturers as confidential information which may be used only as necessary to notify persons pursuant to section 535 of the Act.

[75 FR 16353, Apr. 1, 2010]
#### § 1.1395 Under what circumstances may FDA revise or revoke modified requirements or an exemption?

FDA may revise or revoke modified requirements or an exemption if we determine that such revision or revocation is necessary to protect the public health.
#### § 3001.300 Who in DHS does a recipient who is an individual notify about a criminal drug conviction?

A recipient who is an individual and is required under 2 CFR 182.300(b) to notify Federal agencies about a conviction for a criminal drug offense must notify the DHS Office of Inspector General and each DHS office from which the recipient currently has an award.
#### Charles Brigando et al., Respondents, v Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of *866contract, defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 20,1980, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to serve and file a late demand for a jury trial *nunc pro tunc,*and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated July 7, 1980, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated May 20,1980, dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order granting reargument. Order dated July 7, 1980, reversed insofar as appealed from, order dated May 20,1980 vacated, and plaintiffs’ motion to file a late demand for a jury trial denied. Defendant is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. This case involves a controversy which would require testimony as to the alleged ill treatment of the plaintiffs by citizens of Iran while some of the plaintiffs were employed by the defendant and working in that country at a time when there were still friendly relations between Iran and the United States. Plaintiffs served and filed a note of issue which affirmatively stated that they did *not*wish a jury trial, although it is contended that that was done through inadvertence. Thereafter, the defendant demanded a jury trial, but that request has since been withdrawn. Clearly, the defendant was entitled to unilaterally withdraw its request for a jury trial (see *Gonzales v Concourse Plaza Syndicates,*41 NY2d 414). To allow the plaintiffs to obtain a jury trial at this juncture, after they had waived their right thereto and have offered only the summary conclusion that the failure to file a jury demand was due to “inadvertence and clerical error”, would be unjust to the defendant. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### SOUTHEAST CONTRACTORS, INC., Petitioner, v. John T. DUNLOP, Secretary of Labor, Respondent.

No. 74-2698.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 19, 1975.

Thomas R. Elliott, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner.

William S. McLaughlin, Executive Secretary, Occupational Safety & Review Commission, Washington, D. C., Norman K. Winston, Association Regional Sol., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Birmingham, Ala., Baruch A. Fellner, Counsel for Regional Litigation, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., Paul A. Brady, Occupational Safety & Review Commission, Atlanta, Ga., Stephen F. Eilperin, Karen K. Siegel, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

It is unnecessary that we decide the constitutionality of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and its enforcement procedures established by sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 17, which matter is also pending and under submission before another panel of this Court in Atlas Roofing Company, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, No. 73 — 2249. We are in agreement with the well-reasoned dissent of Chairman Moran of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in this matter, and especially with that portion pertaining to the general rule that a contractor is not responsible for the acts of his subcontractors or their employees; accordingly, that the tractor driver was not an employee of respondent. Therefore, respondent was not using the motor vehicle involved in this case at the time of the accident within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.-601(b)(4), and the majority ruling of the Commission is erroneous.

Reversed.
§ 1150.3 Definitions. The following definitions are applicable to this part: *Class of tobacco products* means each of the following types of tobacco products as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5702 and for which taxes are required to be paid for the removal of such into domestic commerce: Cigarettes, cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco.
*Domestic manufacturer* means a person who is required to obtain a permit from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of the Treasury with respect to the production of tobacco products under title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
*Fiscal year quarter* means a quarter in a fiscal year (the fiscal year is October 1 through September 30). The fiscal year quarters are October 1-December 31, January 1-March 31, April 1-June 30, and July 1-September 30.
*Importer* means a person who is required to obtain a permit from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of the Treasury with respect to the importation of tobacco products under title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
*Total assessment* means the total amount of user fees (in dollars) authorized to be assessed and collected for a specific fiscal year under section 919 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
*Units of product* means: ( 1 ) The number of sticks for cigarettes, or
( 2 ) The weight (measured in pounds) for snuff, chewing tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco.
*Units of product* means: ( 1 ) The number of sticks for cigarettes and cigars, or
( 2 ) The weight (measured in pounds) for snuff, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco.
*Yearly class allocation* means the amount of user fees (in dollars) assessed for a class of tobacco products for a particular fiscal year.
[79 FR 39310, July 10, 2014, as amended at 81 FR 28715, May 10, 2016]
# EUR-Lex - 31994D0972 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994D0972

**94/972/EC: Commission Decision of 28 December 1994 amending Decision 93/52/EEC to take account of the situation in Sweden with regard to brucellosis (B. melitensis) **

*
Official Journal L 371 , 31/12/1994 P. 0048 - 0048 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 65 P. 0275 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 65 P. 0275 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 28 December 1994 amending Decision 93/52/EEC to take account of the situation in Sweden with regard to brucellosis (B. melitensis) (94/972/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Decision 93/52/EEC recording the compliance by certain Member States or regions with the requirements relating to brucellosis (B. melitensis) and according them the status of a Member State or region officially free of the disease (1), as amended by Annex I (V) (E) (2) (35) of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and in particular Article 2a thereof,

Whereas, with a view to its accession, the status of Sweden with regard to brucellosis (B. melitensis) should be assessed and fixed;

Whereas brucellosis has been compulsorily notifiable in Sweden for at least five years; whereas there have been no officially confirmed cases for at least five years and vaccination has been prohibited for at least three years; whereas it should therefore be recorded that Sweden complies with the requirements laid down in Annex A (1) (II) (1) (b) of Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals (2);

Whereas, therefore, the status of Sweden as a Member State officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis) should be recognized from 1 January 1995;

Whereas, with respect to the obligations regarding serological checks to be carried out, the provisions of Annex A (1) (II) (2) (i) of Directive 91/68/EEC are to be reviewed before 1 January 1995; whereas the maintenance of Sweden's status must take account of the results of that review,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Commission Decision 93/52/EEC the following line is hereby added to Annex I under 'Member State':

'- Sweden'.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 December 1994.

For the Commission

René STEICHEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 13, 21. 1. 1993, p. 14.(2) OJ No L 46, 19. 2. 1991, p. 19.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of National Datacomputer, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 18, 2005               /s/  John P. Ward
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       John P. Ward
                                       Chairman of the the Board, President and
                                       Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 18, 2005               /s/ Bruna Bucacci
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Bruna Bucacci
                                       Chief Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 901.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435?

To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by subpart C of this part, and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.
1

King, Melanie

From: Jed R. Mandel <jmandel@clpchicago.com>

Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:26 PM

To: King, Melanie

Cc: Spears, Matthew

Subject: Nonroad Engines Used In Emergencies

Importance: High

Melanie: 

 As I think you know, I have been working closely with OTAQ staff on the implementation of important 

regulations that will assure that nonroad engines with SCR technology can be used in emergencies (especially 

long term emergencies like Katrina and Superstorm Sandy) without undue concern that those engines will be 

shut down if DEF is not readily available or if some other engine condition occurs that might otherwise trigger 

an inducement. Some of the affected nonroad engines are used in pumps and gensets; some of which, in 

turn, qualify as stationary sources. 

 I would appreciate having the opportunity to discuss OAQPS’s interests and concerns regarding the 

OTAQ rule. Is there a time on Thursday or Friday when I might be able to touch base with you? I look forward 

to talking to you. Regards. 

 Jed 

Jed R. Mandel

President

Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association  

333 West Wacker Drive ▪ Suite 810

Chicago, Illinois ▪ 60606

(312) 929‐1960 direct ▪ (312) 572‐6684 fax

jmandel@emamail.org

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Confidentiality Notice:  This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information.  If you have received

it in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail and immediately delete it and any attachments without copying or

further transmitting the same.
§ 1.663 How do I request an FDA waiver or waiver extension for the 13-month limit for audit agents conducting regulatory audits? ( a ) An accredited third-party certification body may submit a request to FDA to waive the requirements of § 1.650(c) preventing an audit agent from conducting a regulatory audit of an eligible entity if the audit agent (or, in the case that the third-party certification body is an individual, the third-party certification body) has conducted a food safety audit of such entity during the previous 13 months. The accredited third-party certification body seeking a waiver or waiver extension must demonstrate there is insufficient access to audit agents and any third-party certification bodies that are comprised of an individual in the country or region where the eligible entity is located.
( b ) Requests for a waiver or waiver extension and all documents provided in support of the request must be submitted to FDA electronically, in English. The requestor must provide such translation and interpretation services as are needed by FDA to process the request.
( c ) The request must be signed by the requestor or by any individual authorized to act on behalf of the requestor for purposes of seeking such waiver or waiver extension.
( d ) FDA will review requests for waivers and waiver extensions on a first in, first out basis according to the date on which the completed submission is received; however, FDA may prioritize the review of specific requests to meet the needs of the program. FDA will evaluate any completed waiver request to determine whether the criteria for waiver have been met.
( e ) FDA will notify the requestor whether the request for a waiver or waiver extension is approved or denied.
( f ) If FDA approves the request, issuance of the waiver will state the duration of the waiver and list any limitations associated with it. If FDA denies the request, the issuance of a denial of a waiver request will state the basis for denial and will provide the address and procedures for requesting reconsideration of the request under § 1.691.
( g ) Unless FDA notifies a requestor that its waiver request has been approved, an accredited third-party certification body must not use the audit agent to conduct a regulatory audit of such eligible entity until the 13-month limit in § 1.650(c) has elapsed.
#### § 382.400 What method do I use as an agency awarding official to obtain a recipient's agreement to comply with the OMB guidance?

To obtain a recipient's agreement to comply with applicable requirements in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 182, you must include the following term or condition in the award:

*Drug-free workplace.* You as the recipient must comply with drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B (or Subpart C, if the recipient is an individual) of part 382, which adopts the Governmentwide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of sec. 5152-5158 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D; 41 U.S.C. 701-707).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 85 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 85

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 28, 2006.
Whereas mucopolysaccharidoses and mucolipidoses (commonly known as ``MPS 
        disorders'') are genetically determined lysosomal storage disorders that 
        result in the inability of the body to produce certain enzymes needed to 
        break down complex carbohydrates;
Whereas in individuals with MPS disorders, complex carbohydrates are stored in 
        virtually every cell in the body and progressively cause damage to the 
        cells, affecting multiple systems, including the bones, heart and other 
        internal organs, respiratory system, and central nervous system;
Whereas the cellular damage caused by MPS disorders results in mental 
        retardation, short stature, corneal damage, joint stiffness, loss of 
        mobility, speech and hearing impairment, heart disease, hyperactivity, 
        chronic respiratory problems, and, most importantly, drastically 
        shortened life span;
Whereas the nature of MPS disorders is usually not apparent at birth, and, 
        without treatment, life expectancy is usually very short;
Whereas the multisystemic damage that is caused by MPS disorders makes the 
        disorders ideal models for many other degenerative genetic disorders;
Whereas recent research developments have resulted in limited treatments for 
        some MPS disorders, and promising advancements are underway in pursuit 
        of treatments for additional MPS disorders;
Whereas treatments and research advancements for MPS disorders are limited by 
        lack of awareness about the disorders, even within the medical 
        community;
Whereas the development of early detection and intervention techniques, 
        effective treatments, and a potential cure for MPS disorders can be 
        accomplished by research, data collection, and information distribution;
Whereas increased public and professional awareness and continued public funding 
        will assist in the development of new techniques, treatments, and cures 
        for MPS disorders, which will greatly enhance the quality of life for 
        individuals with MPS disorders;
Whereas the National MPS Society, Inc., a group ultimately dedicated to finding 
        a cure for MPS disorders, has designated February 25 of each year as 
        ``National MPS Day''; and
Whereas the designation of ``National MPS Day'' provides an opportunity to 
        increase public and professional awareness about mucopolysaccharidoses 
        and mucolipidoses, and to encourage research for early diagnosis, 
        effective treatments, and a potential cure for MPS disorders: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the goals and ideals of 
``National MPS Day''.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 1.1147 What are the impartiality and conflict of interest requirements for a LAAF-accredited laboratory? ( a ) In addition to the impartiality and conflict of interest requirements in § 1.1138(a)(1), a LAAF-accredited laboratory must, subject to the exceptions in paragraph (b) of this section, prohibit the LAAF-accredited laboratory's employees, contractors, and agents involved in food testing under this subpart and related activities from accepting any money, gift, gratuity, or other item of value from the owner or consignee of the food that is being tested or will be tested by the LAAF-accredited laboratory.
( b ) The prohibited items of value in paragraph (a) of this section do not include: ( 1 ) Payment of fees for food testing under this subpart and related services;
( 2 ) Reimbursement of direct costs associated with the food testing by the LAAF-accredited laboratory; and
( 3 ) With respect to a LAAF-accredited laboratory that is owned by the owner or consignee of the food that is or will be tested, payment of the officer's, employee's, contractor's, or agent's compensation in the normal course of business.
( c ) The LAAF-accredited laboratory must require the owner's or consignee's payment to the LAAF-accredited laboratory of fees for food testing services and reimbursement of direct costs associated with food testing to be independent of the outcome of the test results.