alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for P

- 0 6

- 0 153

A pubic copy of the sanitized PMN for these substances is not available.

For further information on obtaining a copy of this document
contact:

Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460

- 0001

Telephone: 202

- 564

- 9232

Email: Moss.Kenneth@epa.gov
§ 29.471 General. ( a ) *Loads and equilibrium.* For limit ground loads— ( 1 ) The limit ground loads obtained in the landing conditions in this part must be considered to be external loads that would occur in the rotorcraft structure if it were acting as a rigid body; and
( 2 ) In each specified landing condition, the external loads must be placed in equilibrium with linear and angular inertia loads in a rational or conservative manner.
( b ) *Critical centers of gravity.* The critical centers of gravity within the range for which certification is requested must be selected so that the maximum design loads are obtained in each landing gear element.
No. 17,310.

#### The State, ex rel. Chisholm, *v.*Gold, Trustee.

Prom the Marion Circuit Court.

*J. B. Julian*and *J. F. Julian,*for appellant.

*A. C. Ayres*and *A. Q. Jones,*for appellee.

Jordan, J.

— The relator, Robert S. Chisholm, instituted- this action in the name of the State, on his relation, to obtain a writ of mandate against the appellee, trustee of Center township, Marion county, Indiana, to require him to certify to the board of commissioners of said county that a certain bill was correct, wherein charges were specified in favor of the relator for boarding, caring for and nursing a pauper of that county.

Upon a trial in the court below, there was a finding in favor of appellee, denying the writ, and, over a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered against the relator for costs.

The only alleged error that can be considered is the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The question properly presented and argued by counsel for appellant, in their brief, is the sufficiency^ of the evidence, or, in other words, their contention is that the court erred in holding that the evidence was not sufficient to justify a finding in favor of appellant.

We have carefully read and examined the evidence in the record, and are satisfied that the judgment is clearly right, and is the only correct result, under the law and the facts, that could have been reached by the trial court. The evidence shows that Mrs. Clarke, the pauper in question, was an inmate of the Marion county Poor Asylum; that she was an invalid suffering from the effects of a chronic-disease; that the relator took her to his own home, boarded and nursed her, "but that these services were rendered by the appellant without any *700contract or authority that would entitle him to compensation from the county for the same.

Filed March 19, 1895.

There is evidence tending to show that this pauper was well cared for and comfortably situated at the asylum, and that there was no necessity existing for her removal therefrom by the relator, and that he agreed, when he took her away, that he would make no charge against the county for his services in controversy.

The case of *Board, etc.,*v. *Seaton,*90 Ind. 158, and others cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, relative to the power of the township trustee to employ a physician for a poor person, in certain contingencies, are not in point, in view of the facts herein, and lend no support to their contention. It may be conceded, perhaps, as contended, that the relator performed a noble and charitable act in behalf of this unfortunate woman, but it was one for which the law, under the evidence, does not award him compensation from the public treasury.

The judgment is affirmed, at the cost of the relator.
#### AVENI v GATTO et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9448.

Decided Feb 11, 1929

Sogg & Woodle, Cleveland, for Aveni.

H C Ward, for Gatto.

MIDDLETON, PJ and MAUCK, J of the 4th Dist and ROBERTS, J of the 7th Dist sitting.

MAUCK; J.

No complaint is now made by the petition in error that the judgment was prematurely entered,- complaint only going to the overruling of the demurrer and the resulting-dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition. The reply filed by plaintiff after judgment ad-mi Aed that she was of full age at the time she was served in the suit in which judgment was obtained, and that she did not raise in that case the questions now sought to be raised in this action. She then denied all else in the answer and this, of course, was a denial of the former adjudication. In view of the fact that the plaintiff evidently desired this reply to be of record, the trial court ought not to have entered judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s petition upon overruling the demurrer to the answer, and it would have,been error to have dismissed it, without evidence, on the ground that it was barred by a former adjudication when such adjudication was not admitted.

We have concluded, however, that if all the pleadings had been in that were in after the plaintiff’s reply was filed, that the defendants would have been entitled to a judgment upon the pleadings and consequently that no error intervened to the prejudice of the plaintiff. This appears from an examination of the petition itself. The case in' which judgment was rendered against plaintiff was one for foreclosure and she now claims that in that case she was improperly deprived of her inchoate right of dower, .and she predicates her right to vacate the judgment upon unavoidable casualty or misfortune, preventing her from defending her claims in the original case, as is provided for in the seventh paragraph of Section 11631 GC. Her petition is somewhat vague in its recitations, but she successfully resisted a motion to make the pleadings more definite and certain. It must be assumed, therefore, that she pleaded all the facts, that she had. Those facts, briefly, were that she signed the mortgages at a time that she was ignorant of the fact that she had a dower estate in her husband’s property and was thereby encumbering the same, and that she was ignorant of the fact that her property rights might be affected by her acceptance of a deed to the property. There is nothing about either of these averments or anything' else in the petition that even looks like unaviodable casualty or misfortune. Nor is there any reason alleged why she was *228prevented from making her defense for what it w,as worth in the original action. It is simply a plea that she was ignorant of the law at the time the foreclosure case was tried and that she subsequently learned the law. There is not a single fact pleaded that tends to show “unavoidable casualty or misfortune preventing the party from prosecuting or defending.” She consequently has no sort of a case and was not prejudiced by the fact that the judgment 6f dismissal was entered when it was.

Judgment affirmed.

Middleton, PJ, and Roberts, J, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30564-30565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


International Trade Administration Business Development Trade 
Mission to Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce invites U.S. companies to 
participate in Acting Assistant Secretary and Director General Marjory 
Searing's Business Development Trade Mission to Egypt, Kenya, and South 
Africa, October 1-7, 2000.

[[Page 30565]]


DATES: All applications must be received by August 4, 2000. 
Applications received after that date will be considered on a space 
available basis.

ADDRESSES: Applications may be submitted to Grace Wiggins, Department 
of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 3810, Washington, 
D.C. 20230, Tel: 202-482-6482.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grace Wiggins, Department of Commerce 
Tel.: 202-482-6482; Fax (202) 482-6482.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acting Assistant Secretary and Director 
General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Marjory Searing will 
lead a senior-level business development trade mission, of 
approximately 10-15 companies, focusing on women-owned and women-
managed businesses to the countries of Egypt, Kenya and South Africa. 
This Business Development Mission is being organized to coincide with 
the Global Summit of Women 2000: Africa being held in Johannesburg, 
South Africa on October 5-7. While the trade mission and summit focus 
on women-owned and/or managed companies, participation is not limited 
to such businesses and all interested U.S. companies are encouraged to 
apply. The mission will visit Cairo, Egypt; Nairobi, Kenya; and 
Johannesburg, South Africa with an optional stop to Cape Town, South 
Africa. The overall focus of the trip will be commercial opportunities 
for U.S. companies, presented by the continuing market liberalization 
and privatization happening in these countries.
    Best sectors offering opportunities for American firms include but 
are not limited to environmental equipment and services, 
Telecommunications, medical and computer equipment and software, 
information technology, fashion and jewelry, cosmetic/hair products and 
security and safety equipment.

    Dated: May 8, 2000.
Sherry Lewis-Khanna,
Special Assistant, Office of Domestic Operations.
[FR Doc. 00-11915 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
§ 249.6 Destruction of records. ( a ) Upon the expiration of the period of preservation prescribed in this part, records may be destroyed at the option of the carrier.
( b ) Unless otherwise specified, duplicate copies of records may be destroyed at any time if they contain no significant information not shown on the originals.
[ER-1214, 46 FR 25415, May 6, 1981, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15932, Apr. 16, 2019]
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


I, Mark F. Travis, the principal accounting officer of Intrepid Capital
Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

         1.       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A Amendment No. 1 of the
                  Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Periodic
                  Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
                  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                       25
Date: August 27, 2003
                              By:              /s/ Mark F. Travis
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Mark F. Travis, principal accounting officer
#### § 450.203 Compliance.

A licensee must conduct a licensed launch or reentry in accordance with representations made in its license application, the requirements of subparts C and D of this part, and the terms and conditions contained in the license. A licensee's failure to act in accordance with the representations made in the license application, the requirements of subparts C and D of this part, and the terms and conditions contained in the license, is sufficient basis for the revocation of a license or other appropriate enforcement action.
Dec 03 09 06:07p Colleen HcKaughan	 (520)498-1333 p. 1 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC110N AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
 

November 25. 2009 

David Modeer 

General Manager 

Central Arizona Project 

23636 No 7th Street 

Phoenix. Arizona 85024 

RE:	 Request for Additional Infonnation on CAP Water Pricing Concerning the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's Future Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Rulemaking 

Dear Mr. Modeer: 

We met with the Bureau ofReclamation ("Bureau") on October 27,2009, in 

Phoenix. Arizona to discuss our Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

concerning Best Available Retrofit Technology (BARn determinations for the Four 

Comers Power Plant and Navajo Generating Station. lhe discussion was helpful to us in 

better understanding how a future BART rulemaking may impact the price ofwater being 

supplied by the Central Arizona Project ("CAPj, and specifically how any price change 

could impact Indian tribes that use the CAP water. 

As background, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 ("EPA 

Region 9") is tasked with meeting the requirements ofthe Regional Haze Rule and 

reducing visibility-impairing pollutants from the two power plants located within the 

Navajo Nation. as those plants are affecting multiple national parks and wilderness areas, 

including the Grand Canyon in Arizona In making our future BART determination, we 

must consider five factors: the costs ofcompliance (i.e. cost effectiveness), energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts ofcompliance, existing pollution control 

equipment, the remaining useful life ofthe source, and the degree ofvisibility 

improvement. The ANPR sought public input on only two ofthe five BART factors ­

cost effectiveness and visibility improvements. 

To more fully develop the administrative record that will support our proposed 

BART rulemaking, and after further reflection following our discussion in Phoenix, we 

have some additional questions pertaining to CAP water pricing. The Bureau suggested 

that you would be the best source for this information. As such, we would appreciate any 

additional information that you could provide in response to the following question: 

PriNM on R«yr:16J Paper 
p.2 Dec 03 09 06:07p Colleen McKauchan (520]498-1333 

What would be the effect on the cost ofwater from the CAP for the various BART 

retrofit options outlined in the A1\TpR? 

Please provide a response atyour earliest convenience. but we would appreciate a 

response by December 28,2009 ifpossible. Ifyou would like to discuss this further, you 

can call me at 520-498-0118. or have one ofyour staffmembers call Kate Hoag ofmy 

staffat 415-972-3970. Thank you for your time and attention to our request. 

Sincerely. 

~~~~

Colleen McKaughan 

Associate Director 

Air Division 

USEPA, Region 9 

2
§ 91.1077 Training program and revision: Initial and final approval. ( a ) To obtain initial and final approval of a training program, or a revision to an approved training program, each program manager must submit to the Administrator— ( 1 ) An outline of the proposed or revised curriculum, that provides enough information for a preliminary evaluation of the proposed training program or revision; and
( 2 ) Additional relevant information that may be requested by the Administrator.
( b ) If the proposed training program or revision complies with this subpart, the Administrator grants initial approval in writing after which the program manager may conduct the training under that program. The Administrator then evaluates the effectiveness of the training program and advises the program manager of deficiencies, if any, that must be corrected.
( c ) The Administrator grants final approval of the proposed training program or revision if the program manager shows that the training conducted under the initial approval in paragraph (b) of this section ensures that each person who successfully completes the training is adequately trained to perform that person's assigned duties.
( d ) Whenever the Administrator finds that revisions are necessary for the continued adequacy of a training program that has been granted final approval, the program manager must, after notification by the Administrator, make any changes in the program that are found necessary by the Administrator. Within 30 days after the program manager receives the notice, it may file a petition to reconsider the notice with the Administrator. The filing of a petition to reconsider stays the notice pending a decision by the Administrator. However, if the Administrator finds that there is an emergency that requires immediate action in the interest of safety, the Administrator may, upon a statement of the reasons, require a change effective without stay.
forms1a2111309ex10-9.htm


    PROMISSORY
NOTE

    


    


    $
5,000.00                                                                                 Dated:  October
24, 2006

    


    Principal
Amount                                $
5,000.00                                           State
of New York

    


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the
undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Mary
Passalaqua, the sum Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), together with interest
thereon at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.  Said sum
shall be paid in the manner following:

    


    In full upon demand.

    


    All payments shall be first applied to
interest and the balance to principal.  This note may be prepaid, at
any time, on whole or in part, without penalty.  All prepayments shall
be applied in reverse order of maturity.

    


    This note shall at the option of any
holder hereof be immediately due and payable upon the failure to make any
payment due hereunder within 5 days of its due date.

    


    In the event this note shall be in
default, and placed with an attorney for collection, then the undersigned agree
to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection.  Payments
not made within five (5) days of due date shall be subject to a late charge of 5
% of said payment.  All payments hereunder shall be made to such
address as may from time to time be designated by any holder
hereof.

    


    The undersigned and all other parties
to this note, whether as endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain
fully bound hereunder until this note shall be fully paid and waive demand,
presentment and protest and all notices thereto and further agree to remain
bound, notwithstanding any extension, renewal, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence by any holder or upon the discharge or release of any obligor
hereunder or to this note, or upon the exchange, substitution, or release of any
collateral granted as security for this note.  No modification or
indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any
indulgence on any one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or
future occasion.  Any modification or change of terms, hereunder
granted by any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of any of the undersigned, and
each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant to each of the others a
power of attorney to enter into any such modification on their
behalf.  The rights of any holder hereof shall be cumulative and not
necessarily successive.  This note shall take effect as a sealed
instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State first appearing at the head of this note.  The
undersigned hereby execute this note as principals and not as
sureties.

    


    /s/ John F.
Passalaqua

                                                                                         Borrower-
John F. Passalaqua

    Secretary, Pegasus Tel,
Inc.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-84679 and No. 333-31298) of FutureLink Corp. pertaining to the
FutureLink Distribution Corp. Stock Option Plan and the FutureLink Corp. Stock
Option Plan of our report dated March 14, 2000, except for Notes 13 and 16, as
to which the date is April 29, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of FutureLink Corp. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 1999, as amended, included in this Form 10-KSB/A.


                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Orange County, California

May 30, 2000
§ 25.1187 Drainage and ventilation of fire zones. ( a ) There must be complete drainage of each part of each designated fire zone to minimize the hazards resulting from failure or malfunctioning of any component containing flammable fluids. The drainage means must be— ( 1 ) Effective under conditions expected to prevail when drainage is needed; and
( 2 ) Arranged so that no discharged fluid will cause an additional fire hazard.
( b ) Each designated fire zone must be ventilated to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapors.
( c ) No ventilation opening may be where it would allow the entry of flammable fluids, vapors, or flame from other zones.
( d ) Each ventilation means must be arranged so that no discharged vapors will cause an additional fire hazard.
( e ) Unless the extinguishing agent capacity and rate of discharge are based on maximum air flow through a zone, there must be means to allow the crew to shut off sources of forced ventilation to any fire zone except the engine power section of the nacelle and the combustion heater ventilating air ducts.
# EUR-Lex - 31995R1995 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R1995

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1995/95 of 16 August 1995 amending for the seventh time Regulation (EC) No 3146/94 adopting exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in Germany **

*
Official Journal L 194 , 17/08/1995 P. 0011 - 0011 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1995/95 of 16 August 1995 amending for the seventh time Regulation (EC) No 3146/94 adopting exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in Germany

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Whereas, because of the outbreak of classical swine fever in certain production regions in Germany, exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat were adopted for that Member State in Commission Regulation (EC) No 3146/94 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1771/95 (4);

Whereas the aid granted upon the delivery of piglets and young piglets should be adjusted to the current market situation by taking account of the fall in market prices; whereas this adjustment must be applied immediately so as to prevent unjustified economic benefits for the producers in question;

Whereas pursuant to Article 10 (2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1068/93 of 30 April 1993 on detailed rules for determining and applying the agricultural conversion rates (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1053/95 (6), the agricultural conversion rate to be used for converting the aid into national currency shall be the rate in force on the day the animals in question are delivered;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 5 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 3146/94, 'ECU 50`, 'ECU 43`, 'ECU 40` and 'ECU 34` are replaced by 'ECU 40`, 'ECU 34`, 'ECU 32` and 'ECU 27` respectively.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 August 1995.

For the Commission Erkki LIIKANEN Member of the Commission