alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10685]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Intergovernmental Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION:  Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee will meet on May 4, 
2000, at the Embassy Suites Portland Downtown, 319 SW Pine Street, 
Portland, Oregon 97204-2726. The purpose of the meeting is to continue 
discussions on the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. The 
meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 3:30 p.m. Agenda 
items to be discussed include, but are not limited to: briefings and 
discussion on Monitoring efforts, the President's Roadless Area 
initiative, continued discussion on integrating the forest plan into 
the management landscape, the Survey and Manage Draft Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement, and progress reports on ongoing 
implementation issues. The IAC meeting will be open to the public and 
is fully accessible for people with disabilities. Interpreters are 
available upon request in advance. Written comments may be submitted 
for the record at the meeting. Time will also be scheduled for oral 
public comments. Interested persons are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this meeting may 
be directed to Curt Loop, Acting Executive Director, Regional Ecosystem 
Office, 333 SW 1st Avenue, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208 (Phone: 
503-808-2180).

    Dated: April 21, 2000.
Curtis A. Loop,
Acting Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 00-10685 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
§ 121.351 Communication and navigation equipment for extended over-water operations and for certain other operations. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may conduct an extended over-water operation unless the airplane is equipped with at least two independent long-range navigation systems and at least two independent long-range communication systems necessary under normal operating conditions to fulfill the following functions— ( 1 ) Communicate with at least one appropriate station from any point on the route;
( 2 ) Receive meteorological information from any point on the route by either of two independent communication systems. One of the communication systems used to comply with this paragraph may be used to comply with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section; and
( 3 ) At least one of the communication systems must have two-way voice communication capability.
( b ) No certificate holder conducting a flag or supplemental operation or a domestic operation within the State of Alaska may conduct an operation without the equipment specified in paragraph (a) of this section, if the Administrator finds that equipment to be necessary for search and rescue operations because of the nature of the terrain to be flown over.
( c ) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, installation and use of a single LRNS and a single LRCS may be authorized by the Administrator and approved in the certificate holder's operations specifications for operations and routes in certain geographic areas. The following are among the operational factors the Administrator may consider in granting an authorization: ( 1 ) The ability of the flightcrew to navigate the airplane along the route within the degree of accuracy required for ATC,
( 2 ) The length of the route being flown, and
( 3 ) The duration of the very high frequency communications gap.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19205, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2611, Jan. 26, 1996; Amdt. 121-254, 61 FR 7191, Feb. 26, 1996; Amdt. 121-333, 72 FR 31682, June 7, 2007]
#### CAMPBELL v. COWDEN AND McCRACKEN.

Answer after demurrer overruled — demurrer virtually withdrawn — residence of parties.

After hearing on a demurrer which is overruled, leave is given to answer which is silent as to withdrawing the demurrer, if the answer is put in and the cause heard and appealed to the Supreme Court, the defendant cannot call up the demurrer in the Supreme Court; the putting in the answer virtually withdraws the demurrer.

The court will not notice the residence of the defendants to determine its jurisdiction, unless regularly brought before it.

Chancery. Appealed from the Common Pleas. It appeared by the entries certified from the Common Pleas under the law, that while the cause was in that Court a demurrer had been put in by McCracken and overruled. Leave to answer was then applied for and granted, the answer put in and a decree rendered upon the hearing, but no special leave appeared to have been given to withdraw the demurrer.

It appeared also, that the subpoena had issued against Cowden in Pike, which was returned not found, and against McCracken to Fairfield, returned served. . McCracken alone appeared. An order was made by the Common Pleas to advertise as to Cowden, but it did not appear to have been made.

*Bond,*for the defendant.

McCracken, moved to take up the demurrer for hearing, and urged that the court had no jurisdiction, because neither of the defendants resided in the *county*of Pike when the suit was instituted.

*Douglas,*contra.

By the Court.

The defendant, McCracken, had leave to answer after the hearing on the demurrer, and that leave in our opinion involves of course leave to withdraw the demurrer. You cannot demur and answer to the same part of a bill. Having availed himself of the benefit of that leave, he cannot now go back to the de*485murrer, that is in effect withdrawn, and as it regards the suit, as if never in. If he would have preserved a right to rest on his demurrer, he should have appealed from the decision- on that after it was followed by a decree dismissing the bill.

As to the second point, there is nothing before us showing that Cowden,.when the bill was filed, did not reside in Pike county; when that matter is before us, we will decide it. But enough is disclosed to show that the plaintiff cannot proceed now. Cowden is not in court, in fact, and there has been no advertisement or other step taken to authorize a proceeding against *him,pro confesso.*The complainant may take an order to advertise, and continue if he choose, or dismiss his bill. The case made is against both; the order of the Common Pleas, to take the bill as confessed by Cowden, was improvidently made, and is unavailable.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24946-24947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10560]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-1975-000]


American Energy Savings, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

April 24, 2000.

    American Energy Savings, Inc. (American Energy) submitted for 
filing a rate schedule under which American Energy will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. 
American Energy also requested waiver of various Commission 
regulations. In particular, American Energy requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by American 
Energy.
    On April 21, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by American Energy should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, American Energy is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of American Energy's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is May 22, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE.,

[[Page 24947]]

Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10560 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 121.905 Confidential commercial information. ( a ) Each certificate holder that claims that AQP information or data it is submitting to the FAA is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) because it constitutes confidential commercial information as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), and should be withheld from public disclosure, must include its request for confidentiality with each submission.
( b ) When requesting confidentiality for submitted information or data, the certificate holder must: ( 1 ) If the information or data is transmitted electronically, embed the claim of confidentiality within the electronic record so the portions claimed to be confidential are readily apparent when received and reviewed.
( 2 ) If the information or data is submitted in paper format, place the word “CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of each page containing information or data claimed to be confidential.
( 3 ) Justify the basis for a claim of confidentiality under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
**Exhibit 31.2****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**I, Juliet M. Reising, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006of Verso Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 12, 2006       /s/ Juliet M. Reising         Juliet M. Reising,    Executive Vice President and Chief    Financial Officer
§ 121.509 Flight time limitations: Four pilot crews: airplanes. ( a ) No certificate holder conducting supplemental operations may schedule a pilot— ( 1 ) For flight deck duty in an airplane that has a crew of four pilots for more than eight hours in any 24 consecutive hours; or
( 2 ) To be aloft in an airplane that has a crew of four pilots for more than 16 hours in any 24 consecutive hours.
( b ) No pilot of an airplane that has a crew of four pilots may be on duty for more than 20 hours in any 24 consecutive hours.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19218, Dec. 31, 1964; 30 FR 3639, Mar. 19, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2613, Jan. 26, 1996]
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned
officer of Modern Medical Modalities Corporation, a New Jersey corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:





1.
            The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Form
      10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:  March
      31, 2009
                
                /s/
      Baruh HayutBaruh
      Hayut, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer





This
certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
#### MALCOLM M. STECK ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN, APPELLANT.

Argued October 28, 1939

Decided January 25, 1940.

For the appellant, *Firmin Michel.*

For the respondents, *Meyer L. Sakin.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Perskie in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmanc*e—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Case, Donges, Heher, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
Exhibit 32.1Section 1350 CertificationsIn connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of PREMIER EXHIBITIONS, INC.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended May 31, 2006, Arnie Geller, the President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, and Stephen Couture, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, each certifies, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Dated: July 13, 2006   /s/ Arnie Geller         Arnie Geller
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-62243, 33-00020,333-94121, 333-38725, 333-02374, 333-107092, 333-107093, 333-125390 and 333-127580 on Form S-8,Registration Statement Nos. 33-81772, 333-47399, 333-80427, and 333-44722 on Form S-3 andRegistration Statement No. 333-139581 on Form S-3ASR of our report dated February 28, 2007,relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of PostProperties, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No.108, *Considering the Effectof Prior Year Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements*),and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearingin this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Post Properties, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.Deloitte & Touche LLP
An equal opportunity employer 1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White Washington, DC 20005-4070 Health Sciences Manager Tel 202-682-8344
Fax 202-682-8270 whiter@api.org

April 26, 2012

Byron J. Bunker, Acting Division Director Compliance Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US En vironmental Protection Agency 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation:
2 nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity Assessments and 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6130)

Dear Mr. Bunker:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

 2 nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity Assessments and 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study NO. 00-6130)

 The study director’s response to comments from EPA, the two peer-reviewers, an independent quality assurance (QA) auditor, and the RG (Checklist April 26, 2012)

The RG believes the 2 nd draft is ready for final review by EPA as all significant comments have been addressed by the study director in this version. However, the RG wants to point out the following issues.

1. Upon reviewing the study director’s response to QA comments, the auditor had the following additional comments; a. The QA Statements for Gentox and GFAP reports seem to be mixed up. GFAP necropsy listed in Genotoxicity QA Statement and vice versa. b. The Micronucleus report appears to contain a protocol page from an earlier version of this report. Page 1066 contains several question marks (?) for dates, lot numbers, and purity of the test material. The final protocol should be in the final report c. Table 7 is actually the Statistics Report from M. Nicolich and G. Bukhbinder. It needs a cover page to indicate this. Please verify that QA has reviewed this report. d. The QA Statement for CDC (GFAP) is blank. e. Experimental Termination and Study Co mpletion dates will need to be added to report.

The RG believes that none of these issues compromise the interpretation of the results and will confirm they are corrected in the final report.April 26, 2012 Page 2 of 2

If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please

contact me.

Regards,

Russell D. White

Enclosures on CD: 1) 2 nd Draft Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity
Assessments and 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study NO. 00-6130)2) The study director’s response to comments from EPA, the two peerreviewers, an independent quality assurance (QA) auditor, and the RG (Checklist April 26, 2012)

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
#### § 1204.1505 Federal interagency coordination.

The Administrator to the extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and the Agency regarding programs and activities covered under these regulations.
EXHIBIT 24
                                                 POWER OF ATTORNEY

        The undersigned officer and/or director of EMERGING BETA CORPORATION,  a
Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"),  hereby constitutes and appoints Jerry
W.  Jarrell  and  D.B.H.  Chaffe  III,  and each of  them,  with  full  power of
substitution and resubstitution,  as attorney to sign for the undersigned in any
and all capacities the  Corporation's  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended March 31, 1998 and any and all amendments thereto, with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission and with full power and authority to do and perform any and
all  acts  and  things  whatsoever  required  and  necessary  to be  done in the
premises,  as fully to all intents and purposes as the  undersigned  could do if
personally  present.  The undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said
attorney-in-fact  and  agent,  or any  of his  substitute  or  substitutes,  may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof and incorporate such changes as
any of the said attorneys-in-fact deems appropriate.


------------------------------
Burt H. Keenan

May 23, 1998