alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 35.5 Propeller ratings and operating limitations. ( a ) Propeller ratings and operating limitations must: ( 1 ) Be established by the applicant and approved by the Administrator.
( 2 ) Be included directly or by reference in the propeller type certificate data sheet, as specified in § 21.41 of this chapter.
( 3 ) Be based on the operating conditions demonstrated during the tests required by this part as well as any other information the Administrator requires as necessary for the safe operation of the propeller.
( b ) Propeller ratings and operating limitations must be established for the following, as applicable: ( 1 ) Power and rotational speed: ( i ) For takeoff.
( ii ) For maximum continuous.
( iii ) If requested by the applicant, other ratings may also be established.
( 2 ) Overspeed and overtorque limits.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63346, Oct. 24, 2008]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30410-30411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11879]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than May 26, 2000.

[[Page 30411]]

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc., Westerly, Rhode Island; to 
acquire Phoenix Investment Management Company, Inc., Providence, Rhode 
Island, and thereby engage in investment advisory services consistent 
with section 225.28(b)(6) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 8, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-11879 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
§ 292.11 Revocation of exemption. ( a ) The Department, upon complaint or upon its own initiative, may, immediately and without hearing, revoke, in whole or in part, the exemption granted by this part with respect to a carrier or carriers, when such action is in the public interest.
( b ) Any such action will be taken in an order issued by the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, and will identify: ( 1 ) The tariff matter to be filed; and
( 2 ) The deadline for carrier compliance.
( c ) Revocations under this section will have the effect of reinstating all applicable tariff requirements and procedures specified in the Department's regulations for the tariff material to be filed, unless otherwise specified by Department order.
§ 417.219 Data loss flight time and planned safe flight state analyses. ( a ) *General.* For each launch, a flight safety analysis must establish data loss flight times, as identified by paragraph (b) of this section, and a planned safe flight state to establish each flight termination rule that applies when launch vehicle tracking data is not available for use by the flight safety crew. Section 417.113(d) contains requirements for flight termination rules.
( b ) *Data loss flight times.* A flight safety analysis must establish the shortest elapsed thrusting time during which a launch vehicle can move from normal flight to a condition where the launch vehicle's hazardous debris impact dispersion extends to any protected area as a data loss flight time. The analysis must establish a data loss flight time for all times along the nominal trajectory from liftoff through that point during nominal flight when the minimum elapsed thrusting time is no greater than the time it would take for a normal vehicle to reach the overflight gate, or the planned safe flight state established under paragraph (c) of this section, whichever occurs earlier.
( c ) *Planned safe flight state.* For a launch vehicle that performs normally during all portions of flight, the planned safe flight state is the point during the nominal flight of a launch vehicle where: ( 1 ) No launch vehicle component, debris, or hazard can impact or affect a populated or otherwise protected area for the remainder of the launch;
( 2 ) The launch vehicle achieves orbital insertion; or
( 3 ) The launch vehicle's state vector reaches a state where the absence of a flight safety system would not significantly increase the accumulated risk from debris impacts and maintains positive flight safety system control to the maximum extent feasible.
#### Bradstreet *vs.*Clark.

On the death of the tenant in a *writ of right*after verdict in his favor, although a bill of exceptions was tendered, the suit abates, and the *heirs*or *devisees*will not be substituted.

Writ of right. Verdict for tenant and bill of exceptions in September, 1835. In November, of the same year, the tenant died. At a former term, the demand-ant obtained a rule to show cause why the heirs and devisees of the tenant should not be substituted. The heirs and devisees now showed cause.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

[621] The suit abated by the death of the tenant, and is gone forever. This was so at common law in all actions, real and personal-, oh the death of either party before judgment. *(Stokes*v. *Porter, Benl.*74, 5 *and*6 *Ph. and Ma. Mich. T.)*The statute has provided for a few cases of substitution or revivor. Among these are the death of the defendant after interlocutory judgment, where the cause of action would he good against his personal representatives. They may be brought in by *scire facias.*(1 *R. S.*387, § 3.) So in partition, where defendants die pending suit. *(Id.*§ 7.) Judgment, too, may be entered on verdict, notwithstanding the death of either party, within two terms after such verdict is rendered. *(Id.*§ 4. 17 *Car.*2, *ch.*8, *cited inside in connection with Smith*v. *Irish,*1 *Mod. 5, Leach's ed.)*These provisions have no application in terms; and none of them hRye ever, that I find, been extended so as to take in any *real action*which is out of their letter. .

Motion denied, (a)

(a)

 Decided at Oct. term, 1836.
#### [627] Jarvis *vs.*Blennerhasset & Trotter.

Where, in an action of *assault and. battery*against two defendants, one only is taken, and the plaintiff declares as against *joint debtors,*stating one to be *taken*and the other *not found,*the declaration, though perhaps the subject of *special demurrer,*will not be set aside as *irregular.*

in *tort,*a plaintiff may declare against one of several defendants, notwithstanding an order to hold to bail had been obtained; and *it seems*might do so, although both defendants had been taken, and given bail on the arrest.

Motion to set aside a declaration as irregular. A *capias*was issued in an action of *assault and battery,*and an order to hold to bail was obtained. Blennerhasset only was taken, and the plaintiff declared against *both*defendants, as in an action againstjowii *debtors,*stating Blennerhasset to be in custody, &c., and that the sheriff had returned Trotter not found, and then alleging the assault and battery to have been committed. The defendant who was arrested moved to set aside the declaration as irregular.

*By the*Court,

Cowen, J.

[628] The declaration follows the process. It admits that one of the original defendants is out of court; as to him it is void. It may be informal, and therefore the subject of special demurrer, but nothing more. *(Rose*v. *Oliver, 2 Johns. R.*365.) Such a declaration can work no substantial prejudice to the defendant taken. It is such a perfect nullity as to the other that nc might yet be a witness on the trial, against the plaintiff. *(Stockham*v. *Jones,*10 *Johns. R.*21.) On special demurrer, I suppose the plaintiff would amend, as lie might do, of course ; but irregularity cannot be alleged of a formal defect in ¡¡leading. It was said, the process being bailable, the plaintiff must declare against both. That is so as to *contracts,*but not as to *torts.*The distinction was held expressly in *Wilson*v. *Edwards,*(5 *Dowl. & Ryl.*622.) At most, this is an informal declaration against one, and that is the defendant taken. In *Wilson*v. *Edwards,*both defendants had given bail on arrest for the assault and battery, yet the plaintiff was allowed to declare against one only, taking no notice of the other. What difference can it make that the other is noticed in the declaration as absent ? The defendant here is answerable severally.

Motion denied.
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/30 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●

● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
§ 61.103 Eligibility requirements: General. To be eligible for a private pilot certificate, a person must: ( a ) Be at least 17 years of age for a rating in other than a glider or balloon.
( b ) Be at least 16 years of age for a rating in a glider or balloon.
( c ) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.
( d ) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who: ( 1 ) Conducted the training or reviewed the person's home study on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in § 61.105(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and
( 2 ) Certified that the person is prepared for the required knowledge test.
( e ) Pass the required knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed in § 61.105(b) of this part.
( f ) Receive flight training and a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who: ( 1 ) Conducted the training in the areas of operation listed in § 61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought; and
( 2 ) Certified that the person is prepared for the required practical test.
( g ) Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought before applying for the practical test.
( h ) Pass a practical test on the areas of operation listed in § 61.107(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft rating sought.
( i ) Comply with the appropriate sections of this part that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.
( j ) Hold a U.S. student pilot certificate, sport pilot certificate, or recreational pilot certificate.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61-124, 74 FR 42558, Aug. 21, 2009]
#### *The State *against*William Raborg. *(a)*

(a)

**See *State vs. Trumbull, 1 South. 139.*

*A*WRIT of *habeas corpus*was, issued, directed to the defendant, to bring up the bodies of *Walter Wilson*and others, persons of colour. The sheriff of *Somerset*sent up a copy of the writ, with a certificate of service endorsed upon it. The defendant did not appear, nor return the writ, and it was suggested that he intended to depart the state, taking with him the persons named in said writ. It was therefore moved that an attachment issue; but it was refused, because the return and evidence were not sufficient.

At a subsequent day, the affidavit of *William Hoagland*was read, proving the service of. the *habeas corpus:*and it appearing that the said writ had not been returned by said *Raborg;*it was on motion ordered, that an attachment do forthwith issue against him for contempt of the court, in disobeying the said writ of *habeas corpus.*
#### § 67.315 Discretionary issuance.

A person who does not meet the provisions of §§ 67.303 through 67.313 may apply for the discretionary issuance of a certificate under § 67.401.
#### § 431.27 Denial of policy approval.

The FAA notifies an applicant, in writing, if the FAA has denied policy approval for an RLV mission license application. The notice states the reasons for the FAA's determination. The applicant may respond to the reasons for the determination and request reconsideration.
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of iQ Power Technology Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Marco Graf von Matuschka, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

| | /s/ Marco Graf von Matuschka
Marco Graf von Matuschka, 
Chief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to iQ Power Technology Inc. and will
be retained by iQ Power Technology Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 437.89 Pre-flight reporting. ( a ) Not later than 30 days before each flight or series of flights conducted under an experimental permit, unless the Administrator agrees to a different time frame in accordance with § 404.15, a permittee must provide the FAA with the following information: ( 1 ) Any payload to be flown, including any payload operations during the flight,
( 2 ) When the flight or series of flights are planned,
( 3 ) The operating area for each flight, and
( 4 ) The planned maximum altitude for each flight.
( b ) Not later than 15 days before each permitted flight planned to reach greater than 150 km altitude, unless the Administrator agrees to a different time frame in accordance with § 404.15, a permittee must provide the FAA its planned trajectory for a collision avoidance analysis.
[Docket No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17019, Apr. 6, 2007, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 437-3, 85 FR 79718, Dec. 10, 2020]
§ 450.135 Debris risk analysis. ( a ) *General.* A flight safety analysis must include a debris risk analysis that demonstrates compliance with safety criteria in § 450.101, either— ( 1 ) Prior to the day of the operation, accounting for all foreseeable conditions within the flight commit criteria; or
( 2 ) During the countdown using the best available input data, including flight commit criteria and flight abort rules.
( b ) *Casualty area and consequence analysis.* A debris risk analysis must model the casualty area, and compute the predicted consequences of each reasonably foreseeable failure mode in any significant period of flight in terms of conditional expected casualties. The casualty area and consequence analysis must account for— ( 1 ) All relevant debris fragment characteristics and the characteristics of a representative person exposed to any potential debris hazard;
( 2 ) Statistically-valid debris impact probability distributions;
( 3 ) Any impact or effects of hazardous debris; and
( 4 ) The vulnerability of people to debris impact or effects, including: ( i ) Effects of buildings, ground vehicles, waterborne vessel, and aircraft upon the vulnerability of any occupants;
( ii ) Effect of atmospheric conditions on debris impact and effects;
( iii ) Impact speed and angle, accounting for motion of impacted vehicles;
( iv ) Uncertainty in input data, such as fragment impact parameters; and
( v ) Uncertainty in modeling methodology.
( c ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit: ( 1 ) A description of the methods used to demonstrate compliance with the safety criteria in § 450.101, in accordance with § 450.115(c), including a description of how the operator will account for the conditions immediately prior to enabling the flight of a launch vehicle or the reentry of a reentry vehicle, such as the final trajectory, atmospheric conditions, and the exposure of people;
( 2 ) A description of the atmospheric data used as input to the debris risk analysis;
( 3 ) The effective unsheltered casualty area for all fragment classes, assuming a representative impact vector;
( 4 ) The effective casualty area for all fragment classes for a representative type of building, ground vehicle, waterborne vessel, and aircraft, assuming a representative impact vector;
( 5 ) Collective and individual debris risk analysis outputs under representative conditions and the worst foreseeable conditions, including: ( i ) Total collective casualty expectation for the proposed operation;
( ii ) A list of the collective risk contribution for at least the top ten population centers and all centers with collective risk exceeding 1 percent of the collective risk criteria in § 450.101(a)(1) or (b)(1);
( iii ) A list of the maximum individual probability of casualty for the top ten population centers and all centers that exceed 10 percent of the individual risk criteria in § 450.101(a)(2) or (b)(2); and
( iv ) A list of the conditional collective casualty expectation for each failure mode for each significant period of flight under representative conditions and the worst foreseeable conditions.
§ 67.313 General medical condition. The general medical standards for a third-class airman medical certificate are: ( a ) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus that requires insulin or any other hypoglycemic drug for control.
( b ) No other organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or limitation that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds— ( 1 ) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
( 2 ) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
( c ) No medication or other treatment that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the medication or other treatment involved, finds— ( 1 ) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
( 2 ) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
#### In the Matter of Francisco Torres-Morales, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 802]

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of use of a controlled substance (former inmate rule 113.12 [7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [former (iii)]). Petitioner contends that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and that the hearing was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

The misbehavior report, together with the author’s testimony, that of another correction officer, and the EMIT test results, constitutes substantial evidence of drug use *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135, 138). Petitioner’s challenges to the testing procedure, including the challenge to the chain of custody and the timing of the tests, are without merit *(see generally, Matter of McGill v Coughlin,*182 AD2d 1103, 1103-1104). The record does not support the contention that the Hearing Officer prejudged the case or conducted the hearing in a manner unfair to petitioner *(see, Matter of Ortiz v Rourke,*241 AD2d 962, 963; *Matter of Barnhill v Coombe,*239 AD2d 719, 721). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Callahan, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the use of our report dated October 28, 2004, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Amdocs
Limited included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended September
30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and incorporated by
reference in the following registration statements:

                              COMMISSION FILE NO.

                            Form S-8, No. 333-91847
                            Form S-8, No. 333-92705
                            Form S-8, No. 333-31506
                            Form S-8, No. 333-34104
                            Form S-8, No. 333-58454
                            Form S-8, No. 333-114077
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-39278
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-44994
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-57036
                Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-67572
               Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-114079
               Form F-3 (and related Prospectus), No. 333-114344

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
December 28, 2004