alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11832]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. 00-043-1]


National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: We are giving notice of a meeting of the National Wildlife 
Services Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 14-15, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 5 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Wildlife Research 
Center in the Longs Peak Room, 4101 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Joanne Garrett, Acting Director, 
Operational Support Staff, WS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 87, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 734-7921.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Services Advisory 
Committee (Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture concerning 
policies, program issues, and research needed to conduct the Wildlife 
Services (WS) program. The Committee also serves as a public forum 
enabling those affected by the WS program to have a voice in the 
program's policies.
    The meeting will focus on operational and research activities and 
will be open to the public. Due to time constraints, the public will 
not be able to participate in the Committee's discussions. However, 
written statements concerning meeting topics may be filed with the 
Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to Ms. Joanne 
Garrett at the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or 
may be filed at the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. 00-043-1 when 
submitting your statements.
    This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2000.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 00-11832 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U
Exhibit 32.2

                              CERTIFICATION OF THE

              EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report on Form  10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2005 of KeySpan Corporation (the "Corporation"),  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Gerald
Luterman,   Executive  Vice  President  and  Chief  Financial   Officer  of  the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 the Company.



Date:     April 28, 2006


                                                    /s/ Gerald Luterman
                                                    -------------------
                                                    Gerald Luterman
                                                    Executive Vice President
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 144 ) IV-C-11 0 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:59 AM Sheet 144 of 232P. 2

y" 08 *- * 

# V-sses y -XZ.-c.-liQ

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON
. D.C
. 2046 0 

### APR 

### I 9 1988 TH E ADMINISTRATO R

Mr . Roge r B . Smit h Chairman , Genera l Motor s Corp . 304 4 Wes t Gran

d Blvd . Detroit , M I 4820 2 Dea r Mr . Smith : I' msur e yo u ar e awar e o f the debat e surrounding EPA' s proposa l t o requir e tha t al l ne wgasoline-powere d vehicle s instal l system s tha t captur e vapor s tha t currentl yescap e int o the atmospher e during refueling . On e o f the mos t controversia l issue s i n th e debat e i s th e safet yimplication s o f thes e potentia l "onboard " vehicl e systems . EPAha s bee n awar e o f th e safet yissu e fo r a lon g tim e an d ha s attempte d t o stud yi t i n a straightforward , technica l manner . A t the tim e we announce d the detail s o f ou r onboar d proposa l (Jul

y1987) , we mad e availabl e t o intereste d ..partie s an EPAtechnica l repor t o n th e safet yo f onboar d systems . W e requeste d comment s on our analysi s a s wel l a s additiona l informatio n tha t woul d hel p u s full yunderstan d thi s safet y issue . W e hav e subsequentl yreceive d man ycomment s fro

m moto r vehicl e manufacturer s an d other s during ou r publi c hearing i n Octobe r 198 7 an

d mor e recentl yi n writte n comment s submitte d t o the publi c docket . I n ligh t o f the.". ? comment s w e hav e underwaya serie s o f efforts . On e o f th e mos t successfu l ha s bee n a staf f projec t t o design an

d assembl e a prototyp e onboar d systemwhic h woul d no t increas e the complexit ybeyon d tha t o f fue l system s in us e o n today' s car s an

d trucks . Tha t effor t i s no

wcomplete . I have see n th e prototyp e an d wa s ver yimpresse d b

yit s simplicit ycompare d t o curren t fue l evaporativ e contro l systems . Notably , the prototyp e system exclusivel yuse s curren t productio n part s wit h ver yfew modifications . Test s conducte d o n the prototyp e sho wtha t i t consistentl ycomplie s wit h the performanc e standard we hav e propose d fo r onboar d systems .*% '*0 A 'O/ v P. 3 

# v5"' VP. 4

\--4 *

- 2 -

M y staf f ha s bee n i n contac t wit h you r staf f t o offe r t o mee t an

dpresent ou r prototyp e hardware . W e ar e very intereste d i n GM' s comment s o n ou r work . I n particular , I woul d lik e t o encourag e yo u an d othe r senio r G

M manager s t o carefull yevaluat e thes e ne wdevelopments . Than k yo u fo r your consideratio n o f thi s matter .

Sincerel yyours , •te e M« . Thoma s Le e M . Thoma s
# EUR-Lex - 31995H0216 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995H0216

**95/216/EC: Commission Recommendation of 8 June 1995 concerning improvement of safety of existing lifts **

*
Official Journal L 134 , 20/06/1995 P. 0037 - 0038 *

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 8 June 1995 concerning improvement of safety of existing lifts (Text with the EEA relevance) (95/216/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 155, second indent, thereof,

Whereas it is incumbent upon the Member States to provide for the safety of persons on their territory;

Whereas the Member States have not all enacted regulations on the safety of lifts;

Whereas despite the differences in design and age of such lifts, it is possible to identify a minimum number of points to be checked in all such forms of equipment;

Whereas that modernization, in the interest of safety, may be spread over several years,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT THE MEMBER STATES:

1. Take all necessary action, where existing laws are as yet inadequate to meet the requirements of this recommendation:

- ensure a satisfactory level of maintenance for existing lifts,

- improve the safety of these lifts based on the principles in the Annex to this recommendation.

2. Take measures beyond those mentioned in the Annex, if safety demands.

This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 June 1995.

For the Commission

Martin BANGEMANN

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

PRINCIPLES RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT OF THE SAFETY OF EXISTING LIFTS

Preliminary remark

European standards EN 81-1 and EN 81-2 may be applied, whenever possible, in order to obtain numerical values relating, in particular, to dimensions, tolerances, speeds or acceleration rates.

1. Car doors to be fitted and a floor-level indicator to be fitted inside the car.

2. The car suspension cables to be inspected and possibly replaced.

3. The stop controls to be modified in order to achieve a high degree of precision in the stopping level of the car and a gradual deceleration.

4. Make the controls in both the cars and lift wells intelligible and usable by unaccompanied disabled persons.

5. Fit human- or animal-presence detectors to the automatic doors.

6. For lifts which travel faster than 0,6 m/s, fit a parachute system allowing them to decelerate smoothly when stopping.

7. Modify the alarm systems to establish a permanent link with a high-speed breakdown service.

8. Eliminate any asbestos in the braking systems, where this exists.

9. Fit a device preventing uncontrolled movements towards the top of the car.

10. Provide cars with emergency lighting that operates in the event of a main power supply failure. It must operate for long enough to enable the rescue services to intervene in a normal manner. The installation must also enable the alarm system provided for in item 7 to function.
[No. 26227-4-II.

Division Two.

December 31, 2002.]

#### James J. O’Hagan, et al., *Appellants,*v. Kenyon Kelley, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pacific County, No. 94-2-00298-0, Joel M. Penoyar, J., entered July 28, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per QuinnBrintnall, A.C. J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### § 420.49 Compliance monitoring.

A licensee shall allow access by and cooperate with federal officers or employees or other individuals authorized by the FAA to observe any activities of the licensee, its customers, its contractors, or subcontractors, associated with licensed operation of the licensee's launch site.
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0588
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Ruiz, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 504]

—Appeal by the defen*320dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered October 6, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court erred in allowing into evidence money that was recovered from his person at the time of his arrest is without merit. The evidence was probative of the defendant’s intent to sell the narcotics in question *(see, People v Jones,*138 AD2d 405; *People v Mayas,*137 AD2d 836).

The defendant also argues that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to elicit evidence regarding prior narcotics-related activity in the area of the defendant’s arrest. Assuming that the court erred in that respect, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, S. Miller and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
### Faulk, Scott (OST) From: 

### Sent: 

### To: Subject: Jputnam <jputnam@midrivers.com> Wednesday, AprillO, 2013 11:31 AM EAS (OST) EAS service to miles city mt.
Iwould urge you to consider the need ofair service to miles city. Some ofthe older citizens are unable to drive long distances and are basically home bound without awayto travel. Drs and other professionals look attransportation and schools as being very importantwhen considering acommunity. Iwould hope there would be an option to continue air service and improve use.Changing routes or hubs? Sent from my iPadh

1
§ 303.40 Determination of compliance. ( a ) Within 10 days after an application is filed pursuant to § 303.03, the Assistant Secretary will determine whether the application complies with the requirements of §§ 303.04 and 303.05.
( b ) If the Assistant Secretary determines that the application is incomplete, he or she may issue a notice dismissing the application without prejudice. If the application is dismissed, and statutory time period for completion of proceedings will not begin to run until a completed application is filed.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor



## Ex Parte Meeting Report

Date: June 19, 2012 Time: 2:00 pm EST Location: U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC, 20585 (Room 7A-219) Organizers: Grant Mack, Executive Fellow to Chair Robert B. Weisenmiller, and Brian Turner, Deputy Director at Washingt on, DC Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Purpose: Provide information about California’ s standards for battery charger systems.



## Attendees

Name Affiliation Robert B. Weisenmiller Chair, California Energy Commission David B. Sandalow Acting Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy


## Meeting Summary

 Cost-effectiveness analysis used in California

The California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) expressed concern about the differences in the stringency of Californi a standards and the pr oposed DOE standards. The Energy Commission requested that DOE revise its cost-effectiveness analysis based on technical comments provided by t he Energy Commission during the public comment period.

The Energy Commission discussed how the in cremental costs that DOE used werebased on maximum technology pathways, and how its analysis failed to consider leastcost technologies with significantly lower incremental costs.

 Projected energy savings in California and nationwide

The Energy Commission expressed its concern that the proposed DOE rule, relative to no DOE action at all, would lead to incr eased energy consumption nationally and for California through preemption which would r eplace California standards and its effects on the nation with less st ringent standards. The Energy Commission provided information on the cost savings that the Ca lifornia rule would have compared with the CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

1516 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512 www.energy.ca.go vDOE rule. The Energy Commission noted that California’s standards were supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council and several California utilities.

 Documentation

The Energy Commission provided the followi ng documents to DOE at the meeting and attaches them to this memo:

 Copy of Technical Comments on the Department of Energy’s Notice of Proposed Rule for Battery Charger Systems and External Power Supplies (originally provided during public comment period).

 Copy of Letter from Robert P. Oglesby, Executive Director of the California Energy Commission, to Brenda Edwards, U.S. DOE (May 29, 2012) (originally provided during public comment period).

 Table showing difference in approaches to se tting battery charger standards (June 8, 2012)

 Energy Efficiency Standards for Battery Charger Systems Frequently Asked Questions (January 2012) and available since January 2012 at the Energy Commission’s website: http://energy.ca.gov/appliances/batte ry_chargers/documents/Chargers_FAQ.pdf

.

 Copy of Letter from Robert B. Weisenmille r, Chair of the California Energy Commission, to Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy (June 11, 2012).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001072702
<NAME>                        Fortune Entertainment Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         30,765
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  923,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,765
<PP&E>                                         73,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,701,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,411,079
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    10
<COMMON>                                       2,583
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,288,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,701,700
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,436
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  515,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (346,290)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (346,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (346,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)




</TABLE>
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v WASHINGTON

Case No. 89-088AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

March 20, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Mark S. Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Alan E. Weinstein, Esquire, for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, LEVINE, GREEN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GREEN, J.

The State of Florida (“STATE”) filed an information against appellee EARL WASHINGTON (“WASHINGTON”) on November 9, 1988 charging him with knowingly and willfully neglecting or exploiting an aged person in violation of § 415.111(4) Florida Statutes during the time period July, 1986 through January 31, 1987. The effective date *29of § 415.111(4) was October 1, 1986. Appellee WASHINGTON filed a motion to dismiss the information bn the grounds that the application of this statute against him for any activity preceding October 1, 1986 constituted an *ex post facto*prosecution in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution and that this action was time barred by the statute of limitations, § 775.15(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The trial court granted this motion and the State took the instant appeal.

We reverse the trial court’s order because we first find that the application of §415.111(4) to the offenses allegedly committed by WASHINGTON prior to October 1, 1986 would not constitute an ex post facto violation. Prior to October 1, 1986, §410.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981) was in effect as follows:

> Any person who knowingly or willfully abuses, neglects, exploits or maltreats an individual suffering from the infirmities of aging, and in so doing, causes great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement, or permanent disability to such person is guilty of a felony in the third degree ....

This criminal statute, like § 415.111(4) seeks to protect the elderly from the willful abuse, neglect or exploitation by others, although its scope is broader than §415.111(4) and its penal consequence is more severe than § 415.111(4).

Clearly, the application of § 415.111(4) to WASHINGTON’S alleged acts cannot be an *ex post facto*violation since those acts were criminal prior to October 1, 1986. *See State v Gale Distributors, Inc.,*349 So.2d 150, 154 (Fla. 1977).

We also reverse the trial court’s finding that this action is barred by the statute of limitations. We concur with the State’s argument that not all of the prohibited acts under §415.111(4) have to occur within the statute of limitations as long as the last act of a continuing series of acts of above, neglect or exploitation of an aged person occurs during the statute of limitation.

Accordingly, the Order Granting the Motion to Dismiss is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11632]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-518-013]


PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Change in FERC Gas Tariff

May 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2000, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest 
Corporation (PG&E GT-NW) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets with 
an effective date of May 1, 2000:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 7
Original Sheet No. 7.01
Original Sheet No. 7C

    PG&E GT-NW states that these sheets are being filed to reflect the 
implementation of three negotiated rate agreements.
    PG&E GT-NW further states that a copy of this filing has been 
served on PG&E GT-NW's jurisdictional customers, and interested state 
regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Section 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11632 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 87 (Thursday, May 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11282]

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

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, May 12, 2000, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, N.W., Room 
540, Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS:  

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of April 14, 2000 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York City Report
VI. Future Agenda Items

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: David Aronson, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.

Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-11282 Filed 5-2-00; 2:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
```
§ 382.35 May carriers require passengers with a disability to sign waivers or releases? ( a ) As a carrier, you must not require passengers with a disability to sign a release or waiver of liability in order to receive transportation or to receive services or accommodations for a disability.
( b ) You must not require passengers with a disability to sign waivers of liability for damage to or loss of wheelchairs or other assistive devices, or for the loss of, death of, or injury to service animals. Carriers may note pre-existing damage to an assistive device to the same extent that carriers do this with respect to other checked baggage.
#### § 25.1516 Other speed limitations.

Any other limitation associated with speed must be established.

[Doc. No. 2000-8511, 66 FR 34024, June 26, 2001]