alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace. ( a ) Unless otherwise required by part 93 of this chapter or unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class E airspace area, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class E airspace area must comply with the requirements of § 91.126.
( b ) *Departures.* Each pilot of an aircraft must comply with any traffic patterns established for that airport in part 93 of this chapter.
( c ) *Communications with control towers.* Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with § 91.185.
[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-239, 59 FR 11693, Mar. 11, 1994]
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0130(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0130(02)

**Council Decision of 3 December 1998 instructing Europol to deal with crimes committed or likely to be committed in the course of terrorist activities against life, limb, personal freedom or property **

*
Official Journal C 026 , 30/01/1999 P. 0022 - 0022 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 3 December 1998 instructing Europol to deal with crimes committed or likely to be committed in the course of terrorist activities against life, limb, personal freedom or property (1999/C 26/06)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) (1), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Having regard to the agreement reached in the Council on 19 March and 28 to 29 May 1998 on the principle to instruct Europol to deal with crimes committed or likely to be committed in the course of terrorist activities against life, limb, personal freedom or property when Europol takes up its activities,

Having regard to the work of the Counter-Terrorism Preparatory Group and after consideration by the Europol Management Board and being conscious of the need for a separate Decision on the budgetary and staffing implications for Europol,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

As from the date of taking up its activities in accordance with Article 45(4) of the Europol Convention, Europol shall have the authority to deal with crimes committed or likely to be committed in the course of terrorist activities against life, limb, personal freedom or property.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 1999.

Done at Brussels, 3 December 1998.

For the Council

The President

K. SCHLÖGL

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1.
§ 135.429 Required inspection personnel. ( a ) No person may use any person to perform required inspections unless the person performing the inspection is appropriately certificated, properly trained, qualified, and authorized to do so.
( b ) No person may allow any person to perform a required inspection unless, at the time, the person performing that inspection is under the supervision and control of an inspection unit.
( c ) No person may perform a required inspection if that person performed the item of work required to be inspected.
( d ) In the case of rotorcraft that operate in remote areas or sites, the Administrator may approve procedures for the performance of required inspection items by a pilot when no other qualified person is available, provided— ( 1 ) The pilot is employed by the certificate holder;
( 2 ) It can be shown to the satisfaction of the Administrator that each pilot authorized to perform required inspections is properly trained and qualified;
( 3 ) The required inspection is a result of a mechanical interruption and is not a part of a certificate holder's continuous airworthiness maintenance program;
( 4 ) Each item is inspected after each flight until the item has been inspected by an appropriately certificated mechanic other than the one who originally performed the item of work; and
( 5 ) Each item of work that is a required inspection item that is part of the flight control system shall be flight tested and reinspected before the aircraft is approved for return to service.
( e ) Each certificate holder shall maintain, or shall determine that each person with whom it arranges to perform its required inspections maintains, a current listing of persons who have been trained, qualified, and authorized to conduct required inspections. The persons must be identified by name, occupational title and the inspections that they are authorized to perform. The certificate holder (or person with whom it arranges to perform its required inspections) shall give written information to each person so authorized, describing the extent of that person's responsibilities, authorities, and inspectional limitations. The list shall be made available for inspection by the Administrator upon request.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-20, 51 FR 40710, Nov. 7, 1986]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30614-30615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on December 21, 1999, Johnson 
Matthey, Inc., Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003

[[Page 30615]]

Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)................  I
Difenoxin (9168)............................  I
Propiram (9649).............................  I
Amphetamine (1100)..........................  II
Methamphetamine (1105)......................  II
Methylphenidate (1724)......................  II
Codeine (9050)..............................  II
Oxycodone (9143)............................  II
Hydromorphone (9150)........................  II
Hydrocodone (9193)..........................  II
Meperidine (9230)...........................  II
Morphine (9300).............................  II
Thebaine (9333).............................  II
Alfentanil (9737)...........................  II
Sufentanil (9740)...........................  II
Fentanyl (9801).............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in 
bulk to supply final dosage form manufacturers.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than July 11, 2000.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-11892 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John T. Stafford, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                                                        
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12 , 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ John T. Stafford                                   
|                       |  |     |  | John T. Stafford, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Frazier *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided January 9, 1917.

73 South. 764.)

1. Intoxicating Liquors; Sale; Affidavit. — An affidavit charging that defendant received and accepted for delivery at one time more than one-half' gallon óf spirituous liquors, or more than two gallons of vinous liquors, or-more than five gallons of malted liquors in kegs, or more than 60 pints im bottles, or more than one gallon of intoxicating liquors, beyond those enumerated, contrary to law, and that he kept and stored on the premises where-the business of selling beverages was being conducted, prohibited liquors or beverages contrary to law, being substantially in the language of the statute-was sufficient.

2. Constitutional Law; Illegal Sale of Intoxicating Liquors. — The provision of § 12, Acts 1915, p. 44, is a valid .exercise of the police power, and' does not conflict with the Federal or State Constitution as an interference; with the right to own and possess property.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

J. M. Frazier was convicted of violating the prohibition law; and he appeals.

Affirmed.

The affidavit was as follows:

*452(2) J. M. Frazier, whose name is otherwise unknown to affiant, within 12 months before the making of this affidavit, and subsequent to June 30, 1915, in said county did receive or accept for delivery, or possess, or have in possession at one time, more than one-half gallon of spirituous liquor, or more than two gallons of vinous liquor, or more than five gallons of malted liquor in kegs, or more than sixty pints in bottles, or more than one gallon of intoxicating or fermentive liquors, beyond those thus enumerated in this count of the affidavit, contrary to law.

(5) J. M. Frazier, whose name is otherwise unknown to affiant, within 12 months before making this affidavit, and subsequent to June 30, 1915, in said county, did keep or store on premises where a business of selling beverages was being conducted prohibited liquors or beverages contrary to law.

The demurrers raise the proposition that these counts charge no offense known to the law, and that the law under which the prosecution was had is violative of the Constitution of the United State, and of the state of Alabama, in that it is an unreasonable interference with the rights of the citizen to own and possess property.

Sanders & Roe, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney 'General, for the State*

PELHAM, P. J.

(1) The charges on which the defendant was convicted as set out in the second and fourth counts of the affidavit are substantially in the language of the statute descriptive of the offense, and are *sufficient.*— Porter *v. State, infra,*72 South. 776.

(2) The statute (Acts 1915, p. 44, § 12) under which the charges were framed is not violative of the federal or state Constitution in limiting the amount of prohibited liquors a person may possess or have in possession at one time, and the demurrers attacking the affidavit on this ground are not well taken.— *Southern Exp. Co. v. Whittle,*194 Ala. 406, 69 South. 652, L. R. A. 1916C, 278.

We find no error in the record.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1615

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

#### §§ 1615.171-1615.999 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1999

<CASH>                               151,714
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                            100
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     151,814
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       159,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                157,170
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                           1,012,700
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         159,584
<SALES>                                2,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,699
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,012,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  (1,010,286)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                      (1,010,286)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,010,286)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)




</TABLE>
§ 61.105 Aeronautical knowledge. ( a ) *General.* A person who is applying for a private pilot certificate must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or complete a home-study course on the aeronautical knowledge areas of paragraph (b) of this section that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.
( b ) *Aeronautical knowledge areas.* ( 1 ) Applicable Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that relate to private pilot privileges, limitations, and flight operations;
( 2 ) Accident reporting requirements of the National Transportation Safety Board;
( 3 ) Use of the applicable portions of the “Aeronautical Information Manual” and FAA advisory circulars;
( 4 ) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning, and navigation systems;
( 5 ) Radio communication procedures;
( 6 ) Recognition of critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, windshear avoidance, and the procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts;
( 7 ) Safe and efficient operation of aircraft, including collision avoidance, and recognition and avoidance of wake turbulence;
( 8 ) Effects of density altitude on takeoff and climb performance;
( 9 ) Weight and balance computations;
( 10 ) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems;
( 11 ) Stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques for the airplane and glider category ratings;
( 12 ) Aeronautical decision making and judgment; and
( 13 ) Preflight action that includes— ( i ) How to obtain information on runway lengths at airports of intended use, data on takeoff and landing distances, weather reports and forecasts, and fuel requirements; and
( ii ) How to plan for alternatives if the planned flight cannot be completed or delays are encountered.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40902, July 30, 1997]
§ 1608.7 Affirmative action plans or programs under State or local law. Affirmative action plans or programs executed by agreement with State or local government agencies, or by order of State or local government agencies, whether entered by consent or after contested proceedings, under statutes or ordinances described in title VII, will be reviewed by the Commission in light of the similar purposes of title VII and such statutes and ordinances. Accordingly, the Commission will process title VII complaints involving such affirmative action plans or programs under this section. ( a ) *Procedures for review of plans or programs.* If adherence to an affirmative action plan or program executed pursuant to a State statute or local ordinance described in title VII is the basis of a complaint filed under title VII or is alleged to be the justification for an action which is challenged under Title VII, the Commission will investigate to determine: ( 1 ) Whether the affirmative action plan or program was executed by an employer, labor organization, or person subject to the statute or ordinance, ( 2 ) Whether the agreement was approved by an appropriate official of the State or local government, and ( 3 ) Whether adherence to the plan or program was the basis of the complaint or justification. ( 1 ) *Previously approved plans or programs.* If the Commission finds the facts described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Commission will, in accordance with the “substantial weight” provisions of section 706 of the Act, find no reasonable cause where appropriate. ( 2 ) *Plans or programs not previously approved.* If the plan or program has not been approved by an appropriate official of the State or local government, the Commission will follow the procedure of § 1608.10 of these Guidelines. If the Commission finds that the plan or program does conform to these Guidelines, the Commission will make a determination of no reasonable cause as set forth in § 1608.10(a). ( b ) *Reliance on these guidelines.* In addition, if the affirmative action plan or program has been adopted in good faith reliance on these Guidelines, the provisions of section 713(b)(1) and § 1608.10(b), of this part, may be asserted by the respondent.
§ 14.2 Policy. The interests of the United States and its citizens are best served when information regarding the affairs of Government is readily available to the public. Provisions for such an informed citizenry are reflected in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and in the current public information policies of the executive branch. ( a ) *Safeguarding national security information.* Some official information within the Federal Government is directly concerned with matters of national defense and the conduct of foreign relations. This information must, therefore, be subject to security constraints, and limited in term of its distribution.
( b ) *Exemption from public disclosure.* Official information of a sensitive nature, hereinafter referred to as national security information, is expressly exempted from compulsory public disclosure by Section 552(b)(1) of title 5 U.S.C. Persons wrongfully disclosing such information are subject to prosecution under United States criminal laws.
( c ) *Scope.* To ensure that national security information is protected, but only to the extent and for such a period as is necessary, these regulations: ( 1 ) Identify information to be protected.
( 2 ) Prescribe procedures on classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of information.
( 3 ) Establish a monitoring system to ensure the effectiveness of the Department of Labor (DOL) security program and regulations.
( d ) *Limitation.* The need to safeguard national security information in no way implies an indiscriminate license to withhold information from the public. It is important that the citizens of the United States have access, consistent with national security, to information concerning the policies and programs of their Government.
Exhibit 10-d

COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS


The retainer for Board
service for non-employee directors of ArvinMeritor is $75,000 per year. No
additional retainer is paid for service as committee members.

The Chairman of the Audit
Committee receives an additional retainer of $10,000 per year, and the Chairman
of the Compensation Committee receives an additional retainer of $7,000 per
year. The Chairmen of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the
Environmental and Social Responsibility Committee each receive an additional
retainer of $5,000 per year. The Presiding Director receives an additional
retainer of $20,000 per year. 

A director may elect to defer
payment of all or part of the cash retainer fees to a later date, with interest
on deferred amounts accruing quarterly at a rate equal to 120% of the Federal
long-term rate set each month by the Secretary of the Treasury. Each director
also has the option each year (provided sufficient shares are available under a
plan covering director equity grants to accommodate this deferral option at the
time of election) to defer all or any portion of the cash retainer by electing
to receive restricted shares or restricted share units that could be forfeited
if certain conditions are not satisfied. The restricted shares or restricted
share units in lieu of the cash retainer are valued at the closing price of the
Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange – Composite Transactions reporting
system on the date each retainer payment would otherwise be made in
cash.

After each Annual Meeting of
Shareowners, each non-employee director receives an equity grant. The grant in
2008 consisted of shares of common stock, restricted stock or restricted share
units valued at $80,000 on the date of grant. Because the grant for fiscal 2009
would deplete the remaining shares available under the 2004 Directors Stock
Plan, the grant consisted of 3,500 shares per director with the difference
between the fair market value on the date of grant of the 3,500 shares and
$80,000 (the intended value of the equity award) paid in cash.

In addition, in January 2009,
the Board reduced the amount of their annual compensation by 10% until further
notice. Their annual compensation consists of (i) the cash retainer of $75,000
plus (ii) the annual grant valued at $80,000 (comprised in 2009 of cash and
3,500 shares of stock). The 10% reduction was achieved, at the director’s
election, either through foregoing the stock grant and deducting the balance of
the $15,500 from the cash payment or through deducting the entire $15,500 from
the cash payment. This 10% reduction was discontinued in November 2009.


A non-employee director who
is elected to the Board during the fiscal year receives a pro rata portion of the annual grant.

Non-employee directors also
receive fees for attendance at committee meetings. These attendance fees are in
the amount of $1,500 for each meeting in person and $750 for each telephone
meeting.

Directors who are also
employees of ArvinMeritor or a subsidiary of ArvinMeritor do not receive
compensation for serving as directors.