alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10739]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Proposed New Appendix to Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), 
Chapter 19, ``Use of Probablistic Risk Assessment in Plant-Specific, 
Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: General Guidance''

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will host a public 
workshop to discuss the proposed new appendix to Chapter 19 of the 
Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), entitled ``Appendix D--Use of Risk 
Information in Review of Non-Risk Informed License Amendment 
Requests.'' The appendix is being developed to provide guidance to the 
NRC staff on the use of risk information in those rare instances where 
license amendment requests appear to meet regulatory requirements but 
raise significant risk concerns due to some special circumstances 
associated with the request. The workshop is open to the public.

DATES: The workshop will be held on May 16, 2000, from 9 am to 12 noon.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Room T-8A1, Two White 
Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Egan Y. Wang, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone (301) 415-1076, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#70150907301e02135e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="583d212f18362a3b763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed new appendix and a Notice of 
Opportunity for Public Comment on the appendix was issued in the 
Federal Register on April 10, 2000 (FR, Vol. 65, No. 69, 19030-19034). 
This workshop will provide an opportunity to discuss topics related to 
the appendix. Anyone interested in providing a presentation on this 
topic should contact Egan Wang at (301) 415-1076.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of April 2000.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Steven K. West,
Acting Chief, Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking 
Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-10739 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Project DeepLook

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 13, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Project DeepLook has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Aramco Services 
Company, Houston, TX; CiDRA Corporation, Houston, TX; Gas Research 
Institute, Chicago, IL; and Baker Hughes, Houston, TX have been added 
as parties to this venture. Also, Mobil Technology Company, Dallas, TX; 
and Western Atlas International, Inc., Houston, TX have been dropped as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Project DeepLook intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership. 
Information regarding participation in the group research project, may 
be obtained from Edward T. Stoessel, BP Exploration & Oil Co., 200 
Westlake Park Blvd., Houston, TX 77079 and Richard J. Goetsch, Esq., BP 
Amoco Corporation, 200 East Randolph Drive, MC-1907B, Chicago, IL 
60601.
    On September 18, 1997, Project DeepLook filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on October 31, 1997 (62 FR 58983).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-10619 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# Official Journal C 76A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.076.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 76A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5515 March 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.076.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 76A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5515 March 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2012/C 076A/01 | Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/230/12 (AD 5) and EPSO/AD/231/12 (AD 7) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2012/C 076A/01

Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/230/12 (AD 5) and EPSO/AD/231/12 (AD 7)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |
| 46 | |
| 53 | |
| 55 | |
| 59 | |
| 69 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 70 | (EL) |
| 71 | (ES) |
| 74 | (HU) |
| 75 | (NL) |
| 76 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

46

53

55

59

69

(DE/EN/FR)

70

(EL)

71

(ES)

74

(HU)

75

(NL)

76

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### LUCY ARMSTRONG MOLTZ, EXECUTRIX; FRANK D. M. STRACHAN AND ROBERT W. GROVES, EXECUTORS, OF THE WILL OF GEORGE F. ARMSTRONG, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. M-317.

Decided December 5, 1932]

*532
      *Mr. Francis R. Lash*for the plaintiffs.

*Mr. John A.*Rees, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugg,*for the defendant.

LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a new trial in this case and stress the point that the demurrer should be overruled for the reason that the additional tax for 1916, upon which the interest involved in this case was collected, was assessed before January 1, 1921, the effective date of the revenue act of 1921 and more than three years after the return for 1916 was filed, and that the claim in abatement filed May 6, 1920, was also before the effective date of the 1921 act and cannot, therefore, be held to be within the purview of section 611 of the revenue act of 1928. This point was not specifically discussed in the original opinion, but it was considered and it was concluded that in view of the provisions of section 250 (d) of the revenue act of 1921, providing for collection of the tax for 1916 within five years after the return was filed, and since the assessment was made and the claim in abatement was filed within that time, the provisions of section 611 were applicable.

It is argued that the limitation provided in section 250 (d) of the revenue act of 1921 could have no effect upon the assessment for 1916, which had already been made, or the abatement claim which had been filed, and it is urged that since no new assessment was made within five years allowed by the revenue act of 1921, the assessment remained invalid, the claim in abatement of no effect, and collection of the tax and interest on May 1, 1923, was illegal.

We cannot agree with this contention. Section 250 (d) of the revenue act of 1921 gave the Commissioner until *533March 1, 1922, to assess and collect any tax due for 1916. This section rendered valid the assessment for 1916 which had already been made and it was not necessary for the Commissioner to reassess the tax. Upon the enactment of the revenue act of 1921 on November 23, 1921, the Commissioner had three months within which to make collection. Although collection of the tax was barred by the provisions of the revenue act of 1916 at the time the claim for abatement was filed May 6, 1920, that bar was removed by the revenue act of 1921 and the claim for abatement operated to stay collection of the tax until after the expiration of limitation on collection provided in that act. This, we think, brings the case within the purview of section 611 of the revenue act of 1928 and the demurrer was properly sustained.

The motion for a new trial is therefore overruled.

Whaley, *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*Green, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
§ 1201.103 Administration. ( a ) NASA is headed by an Administrator, who is appointed from civilian life by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Administrator is responsible, under the supervision and direction of the President, for exercising all powers and discharging all duties of NASA.
( b ) The Deputy Administrator of NASA is also appointed by the President from civilian life by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Deputy Administrator acts with or for the Administrator within the full scope of the Administrator's responsibilities. In the Administrator's absence, the Deputy Administrator serves as Acting Administrator.
§ 1250.103-4 Illustrative applications. ( a ) In training grant services discrimination is forbidden in the selection or eligibility of individuals to be trained and in their treatment by the grantee during their training. In any case where selection is made from a predetermined group, such as the students in an institution, the group must have been selected without discrimination.
( b ) In a research or training grant to a university for activities to be conducted in a graduate school, discrimination in the admission and treatment of students in the graduate school is prohibited and the prohibition extends to the entire university.
( c ) Discrimination in the treatment of students or other trainees includes the prohibition of discrimination among the students or trainees in the availability or use of any academic, dormitory, eating, recreational, or other facilities of the grantee or other recipient.
( d ) In a research or training grant, discrimination is prohibited with respect to the availability of any educational activity and any provision of medical or other services and any financial aid to individuals incident to the grant.
( e ) Upon transfers of real or personal property for research or educational uses, discrimination is forbidden to the same extent as in the case of grants for the construction of facilities or the provision of equipment for like purposes.
( f ) In some situations even though past discriminatory practices have been abandoned, the consequences of such practices continue to impede the full availability of a benefit. If the efforts required of the applicant or recipient under § 1250.105 to provide information as to the availability of the program or activity, and the rights of beneficiaries under this regulation, have failed to overcome these consequences, it will become necessary for such applicant or recipient to take additional steps to make the benefits fully available to racial and nationality groups previously subjected to discrimination. This action might take the form, for example, of special arrangements for obtaining referrals or making selections which will insure that groups previously subjected to discrimination are adequately served.
( g ) Even though an applicant or recipient has never used discriminatory policies, the services and benefits of the program or activity it administers may not in fact be equally available to some racial or nationality groups. In such circumstances an applicant or recipient may properly give special consideration to race, color, or national origin to make the benefits of its program more widely available to such groups, not then being adequately served. For example, where a university is not adequately serving members of a particular racial or nationality group, it may establish special recruitment policies to make its program better known and more readily available to such group, and take other steps to provide that group with more adequate service.
[30 FR 301, Jan. 9, 1965, as amended at 38 FR 17937, July 5, 1973; 68 FR 51350, Aug. 26, 2003]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 **Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 of TSFG (the “Report”): 

 

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

 

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

 

 

| /s/ Mack I. Whittle, Jr. |
|--------------------------|

Mack I. Whittle, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

The South Financial Group, Inc.

August 8, 2008

 

  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TABLE 40. HORSE FRESH MANURE CHARACTERISTICS *

======================================================================================= Parameter Units a Total Parameter Concentration Parameter Mass No of ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------lb/day/----------- Observ minimum maximum median mean std dev head 1000 lb

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Manure b lb/1000 lb/day 17 39 69 49 50 8.0 50 50 Urine %manure 6 18 23 20 20 1.5 10 10 Density lb/ft 3 5 59 63 62 61 1.5 - - TS %wb 33 20 45 26 30 7.8 15 15 TSS %db 1 83 83 83 83 - 12 12 VS %db 8 46 93 85 77 18 12 12 BOD 5 mg/kg 4 11312 38945 30583 27856 10306 1.4 1.4 COD mg/kg est c - - - 187722 - 9.4 9.4 pH 1 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 - - - TKN lb/ton 32 6.2 18 12 12 2.4 0.30 0.30 NH 3 N %tkn est - - - 9.7 - 0.030 0.030 P 2 O 5 lb/ton 32 2.5 11 5.4 6.3 2.3 0.16 0.16 PO 4 %p 2 o 5 2 16 36 26 26 10 0.041 0.041 K2 O lb/ton 31 5.3 26 11 12 4.2 0.30 0.30 Al lb/ton 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - 0.028 0.028 B lb/ton 2 0.030 0.068 0.049 0.049 0.019 0.0012 0.0012 Ca lb/ton 7 4.6 16 11 11 4.2 0.29 0.29 Cd lb/ton 1 0.00020 0.0002 0.00020 0.00020 - 0.0000050 0.0000050 Cl lb/ton est - - - 6.3 - 0.16 0.16 Co lb/ton 1 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 - 0.000063 0.000063 Cu lb/ton 5 0.010 0.051 0.011 0.021 0.016 0.00053 0.00053 Fe lb/ton 5 0.27 1.1 0.62 0.62 0.32 0.015 0.015 Mg lb/ton 6 1.1 2.8 2.5 2.2 0.63 0.057 0.057 Mn lb/ton 4 0.020 0.23 0.10 0.11 0.084 0.0028 0.0028 Mo lb/ton 2 0.0020 0.0046 0.0033 0.0033 0.0013 0.000083 0.000083 Na lb/ton 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 - 0.036 0.036 Ni lb/ton 1 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 - 0.00062 0.00062 Pb lb/ton est - - - 0.018 - 0.00046 0.00046 S lb/ton 6 0.68 3.2 1.4 1.7 0.85 0.044 0.044 Zn lb/ton 5 0.030 0.25 0.052 0.087 0.083 0.0022 0.0022 EE %db 1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 - 0.28 0.28 FC cols/100 gm 2 1.30E+06 2.40E+06 1.83E+06 1.83E+06 5.70E+05 4.18E+08 4.18E+08 FS cols/100 gm 3 5.80E+07 2.80E+09 6.30E+08 1.15E+09 1.16E+09 2.62E+11 2.62E+11 TC cols/100 gm 2 2.60E+06 2.00E+10 9.76E+09 9.76E+09 9.75E+09 2.23E+12 2.23E+12

======================================================================================= * References:Biological & Agricultural Engineering Dept, North Carolina State University, Jan 1994. Agronomic Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services.

aAll concentrations as is or wet basis (wb) except as noted dry matter basis (db); all mass values wb. b Feces and urine as voided.

cMean value extrapolated from other data; measured values not available. 

### Horse-Fresh Manure file:///G:/Share/EMRAD 2007-2011/2011/4-30/References/Biomass - M...

1 of 1 1/13/2011 11:55 A M
§ 121.1001 Applicability and definitions. ( a ) This subpart prescribes the requirements applicable to each certificate holder for training each crewmember and person performing or directly supervising any of the following job functions involving any item for transport on board an aircraft: ( 1 ) Acceptance;
( 2 ) Rejection;
( 3 ) Handling;
( 4 ) Storage incidental to transport;
( 5 ) Packaging of company material; or
( 6 ) Loading.
( b ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply: ( 1 ) *Company material (COMAT)* —Material owned or used by a certificate holder.
( 2 ) *Initial hazardous materials training* —The basic training required for each newly hired person, or each person changing job functions, who performs or directly supervises any of the job functions specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 3 ) *Recurrent hazardous materials training* —The training required every 24 months for each person who has satisfactorily completed the certificate holder's approved initial hazardous materials training program and performs or directly supervises any of the job functions specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Exhibit 1 – Schedule of Resolved Claims

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23214-1 Filed:01/09/23 Entered:01/09/23 14:11:14 Desc:

Exhibit 1 Schedule of Resolved Claims Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 1 – Schedule of Resolved Claims

Claimant Claim Number Debtor(s) Asserted Claim

Amount

Settled Amount Stipulation Ex.

No.

Mercado Guzmán,

Carlos Miguel

73421 Puerto Rico

Electric Power

Authority

$250,000.00 $16,000.00 1-A

N.L.M., UN

MENOR

(BARBARA

MALDONADO,

MADRE, HCO2

BOX 5023, PR

00669)

9516 Puerto Rico

Electric Power

Authority

$118,750.00 $59,375.00. 1-B

Y.L.M., in menor

(Barbara

Maldonado, madre)

8864 Puerto Rico

Electric Power

Authority

$118,750.00 $59,375.00 1-C

GUTIERREZ

ARROYO, JEAN

CARLOS

167862 Puerto Rico

Electric Power

Authority

$700,000.00 $40,000.00 1-D

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23214-1 Filed:01/09/23 Entered:01/09/23 14:11:14 Desc:

Exhibit 1 Schedule of Resolved Claims Page 2 of 2
427373 © -57 (In pocket)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOI
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1030 PLATE 36

a A
| \
th Me
t\
\
N4400 i i N { ‘
(ay t
| fet ‘ \
Fe ig \
8
| - {
| > MY i
s I s 4
& & t 4
\ \
lwss00 - ag \ ‘
t 4 \
! \
| t \
| i ie {
| ig \
| | t |
| | 200-16 | { \
| | } } %:
| 4200 4,
+
te
) 360-evl
fe,
Ne,
stoo wyaioo
470- wel
Teel evel
14000 14000
530-Iew
600-teve
13900 3200
EXPLANATION
ie a x
oa" ‘Shaft going above and below levels 670-level
oe oO ees on, Foot Since
: Te as
| Fa ce LEVEL FLOOR ELEVATION AT SHAFT
R= 300 ooaree!
N 3800 eal sees.a7’ 740-level
aro oreeae
00 768.26
530 orn.2e
00 o6se.39
670 9897.00 eee
140 9528.24
200 94672
260 9408.78) t
= ee esrenalall, a 320 o34a.es
| 980 9278.45 “caste "
1040 225.46 AN \
t
C/ wie a \ \
L
“4 40 ° 80 Feet '
ey Fe eee ia i
Rg | g2o-tevet
ee) | 3
3600 fagtes thy a } 8
EF %
Z | \
‘i
980-level + ‘
8 Hy 8 3 3 3 E 8 3 q 3 3 E 2 3
_— 3 MH H H 3 a z y q | | E bi e Eure
ase urished bythe Conalned Caribou Ser Wise

COMPOSITE MAP OF THE CARIBOU MINE, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO, SHOWING SECTION A-A’ THROUGH THE CARIBOU AND POORMAN VEINS

Geology by F. B. Moore and W. S. Cavender, 1951
#### MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. v. CURTIS.

No. 31635.

Jan. 23, 1945.

*155 P. 2d 248.*

Brown Moore and Guy Horton, both of Stillwater, and Johnson & Jones, of Bristow, for plaintiff in error.

Speakman & Speakman, of Sapulpa, for defendant in error.

CORN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court granting a new trial. On the 28th day of August, 1942, the plaintiff, Ruby Curtis, began an action in the district court of Creek county against the defendant in which she alleged that on the 31st of January, 1942, she slipped and fell while going into the defendant’s store in the city of Cushing, Okla., to do some trading; that she slipped upon some ice which the defendant had negligently permitted to freeze upon the entrance to defendant’s store.

Defendant filed a general demurrer to plantiff’s petition. Said demurrer was overruled by the court, and exceptions saved, and thereafter the defendant filed an answer. The case was tried on the 30th day of December, 1942, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. On the 31st day of December, 1942, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and on the 3rd day of March, 1943, she filed a petition for a new trial.

After a hearing on the motion and petition for a new trial, the court made the following finding in part, to wit:

> *“ . . .*and the court being well and duly advised in the premises, finds that both the motion for a new trial, and the petition for a new trial hereinabove mentioned should be sustained and granted; ...”

The petition for a new trial is based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. Not that alone, however, for the petition for a new trial states, among other things, as follows:

> “ . . . that a motion for a new trial was filed by the plaintiff which is now pending; that supplementing such motion for a new trial, the plaintiff alleges that she has discovered new evidence material to the issue ...”

Therefore, it will readily be seen that the petition for a new trial ties in with the motion for a new trial and contains an additional reason why a new trial should be granted.

The original motion for a new trial, filed within three days succeeding the trial, submitted to the trial court the question of approval or disapproval of the verdict. No request was made by *49opposing counsel that the trial court set forth the specific grounds upon which the order granting a new trial was based. The court granted the motion for a new trial in its entirety. Therefore, he exercised his judicial discretion by disapproving the verdict, and that action is controlling upon appeal.

The function of the trial court in considering a motion for a new trial is well stated in W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Cate et al., 170 Okla. 38, 38 P. 2d 940, and cases cited therein.

See, also, A. & A. Taxicab Co. v. McCain, 179 Okla. 492, 66 P. 2d 17.

Judgment of the trial court affirmed.

GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.