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

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3843]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9118-1]

Notice of Settlement Agreement Pertaining to Construction of a 
Waste Repository on the Settlors' Property Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 
U.S.C. 9601 et seq., notice is hereby given of a Settlement Agreement 
pertaining to Construction of a Waste Repository on Settlor's Property 
located on the Tar Creek Superfund Site in Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
    The settlement requires a permanent waste repository on the 
property by resolving, liability the settling party might otherwise 
incur under CERCLA sections 106 or 107, 42 U.S.C. 9606 or 9607, for 
materials placed in the repository on the Property after the effective 
date of the Agreement. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue 
pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, 
or other applicable law, for liability for response actions and/or 
claims for natural resource damages arising from the disposal of 
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the Repository 
that is to be constructed on the Property.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this 
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Ursula Lennox, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-
6743. Comments should reference Tar Creek Superfund site in Ottawa 
County, Oklahoma, and EPA Docket Number 06-02-10, and should be 
addressed to Ursula Lennox at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Costello, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-8045.

    Dated: February 12, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator (6RA).
[FR Doc. 2010-3843 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
§ 358.703 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Coal tar.* The tar used for medicinal purposes that is obtained as a byproduct during the destructive distillation of bituminous coal at temperatures in the range of 900 °C to 1,100 °C. It may be further processed using either extraction with alcohol and suitable dispersing agents and maceration times or fractional distillation with or without the use of suitable organic solvents.
( b ) *Dandruff.* A condition involving an increased rate of shedding of dead epidermal cells of the scalp.
( c ) *Psoriasis.* A condition of the scalp or body characterized by irritation, itching, redness, and extreme excess shedding of dead epidermal cells.
( d ) *Seborrheic dermatitis.* A condition of the scalp or body characterized by irritation, itching, redness, and excess shedding of dead epidermal cells.
( e ) Selenium sulfide, micronized. Selenium sulfide that has been finely ground and that has a median particle size of approximately 5 micrometers (μm), with not more than 0.1 percent of the particles greater than 15 μm and not more than 0.1 percent of the particles less than 0.5 μm.
[56 FR 63568, Dec. 4, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 4001, Jan. 28, 1994]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                     SUBSIDIARIES OF WALL DATA INCORPORATED

                              AS OF APRIL 30, 1998


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              STATE OF INCORPORATION
                                                                OR COUNTRY IN WHICH
                        SUBSIDIARY                                   ORGANIZED
----------------------------------------------------------    ---------------------
<S>                                                           <C>
Wall Data (UK) Limited                                             United Kingdom
Wall Data (Canada) Limited                                         Canada
Wall Data (Barbados) Incorporated                                  Barbados
Wall Data France s.a.r.l                                           France
Wall Data GmbH                                                     Germany
Wall Data Australia Pty Ltd                                        Australia
Wall Data Japan K.K                                                Japan
Wall Data Mexico S.A. de C.V                                       Mexico
Wall Data Asia Pte. Ltd                                            Singapore
Wall Data Limited                                                  Ireland
Wall Data International                                            Delaware
Wall Data do Brasil Limitada                                       Brazil
Software Development Tools Limited                                 United Kingdom
Software Development Tools Inc. France                             France
Expert Edge Computer Systems Limited                               Ireland
Radisson Limited                                                   Ireland
First Service Computer Dienstleistungs-GmbH, Dietzenbach           Germany
First Service Computer Dienstleistungs-GmbH, Hattingen             Germany
First Service Computer Dienstleistungs-GmbH, Munchen               Germany
</TABLE>
#### The State, ex rel. Feldman, *v.*The City of South Bend.

[No. 18,775.

Filed March 14, 1900.]

From the St. Joseph Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*George Ford,*for appellant.

O. *M. Cunningham, J. F. L. Meyer*and *Wilbert Ward,*for appellee.

Hadley, C. J.

The common council of the city of South Bend, as organized after the general city election held in May, 1898, on the 27th day of June, 1898, at a regular meeting of the council, appointed, by a majority vote, the relator as city attorney for the term beginning on the first Monday in September following. On July, 29,1898, upon the receipt of official notification from the city clerk, the relator accepted said appointment, and took and filed with the clerk the required oath of office as city attorney. On August 12, 1898, the relator executed his official bond, as required by law, in the penalty and with sufficient freehold surety, as required by city ordinance, and filed the same with the city clerk. On September 2, 1898, the common council, by resolution, declared the relator removed from the office of city attorney without notice or trial. From the 12th of August to the date of the pretended removal from office, the common council failed and refused, though often requested, to act upon the approval of relator’s said bond. On the 27th of September, 1898, the relator brought mandamus against the mayor and common council, reciting in his petition the foregoing facts, and praying for a peremptory writ commanding the defendants to act upon and approve his official bond as city attorney. The defendants’ demurrer to the petition was sustained. The relator refused to amend, and from the judgment denying the writhe prosecutes this appeal.

The only question presented challenges the authority of the common council to remove the relator from office without notice and trial, under the provision of §3536 Burns 1894. It is contended that by the act of 1877 (Acts 1877, p. 12),.as amended by the act of February 21, 1893, §3476 Burns 1894, the power of removal of appointees by a city council, at pleasure, was revoked, and that, under the amended act, when the appointment of an attorney is regularly made and accepted, it is unassailable for the full term of appointment, except for cause under §3536.

The question propounded has been ruled against the relator in *State*v. *Wilson,*142 Ind. 102; *Goodwin v. State,*142 Ind. 117. Judgment affirmed.
Cuando comiencen los temblores de un terremoto . . .

Agáchese, cúbrase y espere.

FEMA 529S Spanish 9/2005

Refúgiese debajo de un escritorio o mesa resistente y agárrese de las 

patas de la mesa o del escritorio para que pueda mantenerse debajo 

del mueble. Deje la cabeza agachada hasta que cesen los temblores. 

FEMA
#### § 331.20 Determination of percent contribution of active ingredients.

To determine the percent contribution of an antacid active ingredient, place an accurately weighed amount of the antacid active ingredient equal to the amount present in a unit dose of the product into a 250-milliliter (mL) beaker. If wetting is desired, add not more than 5 mL of alcohol (neutralized to an apparent pH of 3.5), and mix to wet the sample thoroughly. Add 70 mL of water, and mix on a magnetic stirrer at 300 ±30 r.p.m. for 1 minute. Analyze the acid neutralizing capacity of the sample according to the procedure provided in the United States Pharmacopeia 23/National Formulary 18 and calculate the percent contribution of the antacid active ingredient in the total product as follows:

Percent contribution = (Total mEq. Antacid Active Ingredient × 100)/(Total mEq. Antacid Product).

[61 FR 4823, Feb. 8, 1996]
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Moore County Airport Authority to waive the requirement that a 27.7 acre parcel of surplus property, located at the Moore County Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.

# DATES:

                        Comments must be received on or before                         *February 12, 2010.*

# ADDRESSES:

Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address:  Atlanta Airports District Office,  1701 Columbia Ave.,  Campus Building, Suite 2-260,  College Park, GA 30337.

In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Ms. Carol Thomas, Interim Airport Director at the following address:  Airport Road,  P.O. Drawer 5809,  Pinehurst, NC 28374.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbus Ave, Campus Bldg., Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337, (404) 305-7142. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA is reviewing a request by the Moore County Airport Authority to release 27.7 acres of surplus property at the Moore County Airport. The surplus property will be used as right-of-way for the newly constructed roadway associated with recent airport development.

                    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under                     **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                    .                

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the Moore County Airport, 7825 Aviation Drive, Carthage, NC 28327.

Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on January 4, 2010.

Scott L. Seritt,

Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office,  Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 2010-397 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,798
<PP&E>                                          47,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,327
<SALES>                                         14,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,607
<CGS>                                            3,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,422
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,422
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.68
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE> 1
                                                               EXHIBIT 10.33B

                                   SCHEDULE 1.3

                           ALLOCATION OF PURCHASE PRICE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          Aggregate Consideration
<S>                                                             <C>
Cash at Closing                                                 $15,550,000
NHP Note                                                         $4,000,000
Seller Costs paid by Buyer                                         $750,000
Assumption of Goldberg/CDM Inc. debt.                              $741,000
Assumption of Goldberg/HH Inc. debt.                               $701,000
                                                                -----------
                                                                $21,742,000
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          Assets Purchased (recipient)

<S>                                                              <C>
Management rights (PRC, Inc.)                                    $4,922,000
Goldberg CDM Loans  (Stephen A. Goldberg)                        $4,739,000
Goldberg HH Loans  (Stephen A. Goldberg)                         $4,811,000
HH Funding Loan  (HHF LP)                                          $682,000
PHH Stock (Mainguys)                                             $2,573,000
PHH LP interest (Diana L. Goldberg)                              $2,573,000
CDM Inc. Stock (Stephen A. Goldberg)                               $741,000
HH Inc. Stock (Stephen A. Goldberg)                                $701,000
                                                                -----------
                                                                $21,742,000
</TABLE>

                                       - 1 -
EXHIBIT 32
----------




                       CERTIFICATIONS OF
      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
              PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      ---------------------------------------------------



     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of ALP Liquidating Trust.




                                   /s/  Gary Nickele
                                   ------------------------------
                                   Gary Nickele
                                   Chief Executive Officer




                                   /s/  Gailen J. Hull
                                   ------------------------------
                                   Gailen J. Hull
                                   Chief Financial Officer and
                                   Principal Accounting Officer
§ 520.531 Cythioate tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 30 or 90 milligrams (mg) cythioate.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsor numbers in § 510.600(c) of this chapter as follows: ( 1 ) No. 058198 for use of 30- and 90-mg tablets.
( 2 ) No. 054771 for use of the 30-mg tablet.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 30 milligrams cythioate per 20 pounds of body weight every third day or twice a week.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* Dogs, for control of fleas.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[49 FR 5615, Feb. 14, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 26942, May 25, 1994; 67 FR 78355, Dec. 24, 2002; 79 FR 28819, May 20, 2014; 86 FR 14818, Mar. 19, 2021]
§ 20.43 Multitrack processing. ( a ) Each Food and Drug Administration component is responsible for determining whether to use a multitrack system to process requests for records maintained by that component. A multitrack system provides two or more tracks for processing requests, based on the amount of work and/or time required for a request to be processed. The availability of multitrack processing does not affect expedited processing in accordance with § 20.44.
( b ) If multitrack processing is not adopted by a particular agency component, that component will process all requests in a single track, ordinarily on a first-in, first-out basis.
( c ) If a multitrack processing system is established by a particular agency component, that component may determine how many tracks to establish and the specific criteria for assigning requests to each track. Multiple tracks may be established for requests based on the amount of work and/or time required for a request to be processed.
( d ) Requests assigned to a given track will ordinarily be processed on a first-in, first-out basis within that track.
( e ) If a request does not qualify for the fastest processing track, the requester may be provided an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for faster processing.
[68 FR 25286, May 12, 2003]
38816.

#### JONES v. MOOREHEAD.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

The instant case was an appeal to the superior court from the Court of Ordinary of Hall County, Georgia. The defendant in error applied to the ordinary to have set aside to him a private way over the lands of the plaintiff in error. The defendant in that action filed a plea in abatement in which he alleged that the plaintiff had instituted another action in the superior court to enjoin the obstruction of an existing private way; that the two actions were for the same purpose; that the plaintiff had dismissed the case in the superior court without paying the costs thereof, and that the action in the ordinary’s court should for *618that reason be abated. The ordinary overruled that plea and appointed commissioners to lay out the private way sought by the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the superior court- The judge of the superior court entered an order on the appeal which recited that “the within plea in abatement is overruled and the prayers [of the appellant] denied.” The assignment here is to “the action of the court in dismissing the plea in abatement.”

Decided May 2, 1961.

*Robert J. Reed,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. Winfred Smith,*contra.

“No cause shall be carried to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals upon any bill of exceptions while the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or' judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would -have been a final disposition of the cause or final as to some material party thereto : . .” *Code Ann.*§ 6-701. The assignment of error in this case presents the sole question as to the propriety of the judgment overruling the plea in abatement, and there is no assignment of error on any final judgment. The judgment excepted to was not a final judgment in the case, and it would not have been final if it had been rendered as contended by the plaintiff in error. *Lynch v. Nations,*48 Ga. App. 549 (173 S. E. 203); *Commercial Nat. Bank of Cedartown v. Chapman,*209 Ga. 152 (71 S. E. 2d 425). The writ of error is, therefore,' premature and must be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Nichols and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*