alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12020]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6606-2]


Extension of Time to Comment on Agency Information Collection 
Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Subpart J

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of time to comment on Agency Information 
Collection Activities: proposed collection; comment request.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing an 
extension of time to comment on the National Oil and Hazardous 
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan-Subpart J Information Collection 
Request renewal.

DATES: Comments are due by June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to EPA, 5203G, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington DC 20460. Materials relevant to this ICR may be inspected 
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by visiting the Public 
Docket, located at 1235 Jefferson-Davis Highway (ground floor), 
Arlington, Virginia 22202. The docket number for this notice is SPSUBJ. 
The telephone number for the Public Docket is (703) 603-9232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William ``Nick'' Nichols, (703) 603-
9918, Facsimile Number (703) 603-9116, e-mail:<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff91969c9790938cd191969c94bf9a8f9ed1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0beb9b3b8bfbca3febeb9b3bb90b5a0b1feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA announces an extension of time to 
submit comments on the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan-subpart J Information Collection Request renewal from 
May 17, 2000 to June 12, 2000. Subpart J of the NCP allows and 
regulates the use of chemical and biological oil spill cleanup and 
control agents. The information collected is supplied by the 
manufacturer of such products. This information and data are then 
analyzed by EPA to determine the appropriateness, and under which 
category, the product may be listed on the NCP Product Schedule. This 
product data are critical for EPA to assure effectiveness and toxicity 
data for these products are available to the oil spill community for 
their use. The original document for comment was published in the 
Federal Register at 65 FR 20451 (April 17, 2000).

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
[FR Doc. 00-12020 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Room 8E-089

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested parties on 

the Energy Conservation Standard (ECS) Preliminary Analyses for Automatic Commercial Ice

Makers (ACIM).

Agenda

9:00 – 9:30 am Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, & Opening Statements

Doug Brookman

Interested parties make a brief summary of their comments.

9:30 – 9:40 am Standards Rulemaking Overview

Charles Llenza

Summary of the statutory background, rulemaking process, and the issues 

on which DOE seeks input during today’s public meeting. 

Test Procedure Final Rule Availability

Charles Llenza

Notification of the availability of the Final Rule for Test Procedures

9:40 – 10:40 am Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and 

Engineering Analysis

Detlef Westphalen

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and 

factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screening 

analysis, and engineering analysis.

10:40 – 11:20 am Markups Analysis, Energy Use Analysis, and Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period Analysis

Alan Cooke

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and 

factors considered for the markups to determine equipment price analysis,

energy use analysis, and life-cycle cost and payback period analysis.
11:20 – 11:50 am Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis

Nathaniel Clayville

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and

factors considered for the shipments analysis and national energy savings

and net present value analysis.

11:50 am – 12:05 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Ben Barrington

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach to be used

and factors to be considered for the manufacturer impact analysis.

12:05 – 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 – 1:30 pm NOPR Analyses: Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact

Analysis, Emissions Analysis and Valuation, and Regulatory Impact

Analysis

Alan Cooke

Description of analyses DOE will conduct at the NOPR stage of the

rulemaking.

1:30 – 2:00 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Doug Brookman

Final discussions on today’s issues and closing remarks.
steam_record - Re: Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire Completion Extension Request for 

Dairyland Power Cooperative 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date. 

Sincerely, 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: Bill J Kowalski <wjk@dairynet.com>

Date: 7/9/2010 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire Completion Extension Request for Dairyland 

Power Cooperative

Attachments: Extension Request_Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire - Letter to EPA 07082010.pdf

Page 1 of 2
#### Hollis *v.*The State.

Crime.

(Decided January 9, 1917.

73 South. 758.)

Appeal and Error; Review; Motion to Set Aside Verdict. — In the absence of a bill of exception the appellate courts cannot review the action of the trial court in refusing a motion to set aside a verdict on account of surprise as to the testimony of certain witnesses introduced on behalf of the state.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

Ellis Hollis, alias, etc., was convicted of crime and he appeals.

Affirmed.

C. D. Comstock, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

The motion shown in transcript to set aside the verdict of conviction on account of surprise as to the testimony of certain witnesses introduced in behalf of the state on the trial cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. The record proper shows proceedings regular in all things; and no error appearing, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 1603.104 Service of the complaint.

Upon receipt of a complaint, the Commission shall promptly serve the respondent with a copy of the complaint.
#### § 1472.630 Debarment.

*Debarment* means an action taken by a Federal agency to prohibit a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions. A recipient so prohibited is debarred, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689.
#### § 1401.28 Preservation of records.

The FMCS must preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until final disposition of the “request” case: No sooner than 91 days after the final response is sent to the requester to allow for a timely appeal. The Agency must not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
<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 September 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.

Dated:  August 27, 2003

                            By:           /s/ Mark F. Travis
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Mark F. Travis, principal accounting officer



                                       25
#### ROGERS v EPPSTEIN.

Ohio Appeal, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.

No. 2087.

Decided Nov. 19, 1928.

Loyal A Goins, Toledo, for Rogers.

Hiett, Wall & Effler, Toledo, for Eppstein.

LLOYD, J

Without considering whether or not this amended petition otherwise states a cause of action against the defendant, an examination thereof immediately discloses that the facts as pleaded therein show that the plaintiff was as well aware of the icy and slippery condition of the sidewalk as was the -defendant, and therefore, in our opinion, in affirming the judgment of the court of common pleas, it is sffiucient to say, that in the absence of some facts which would excuse him therefrom, he must be held to have been guilty of such contributory negligence as would preclude a recovery by him for the alleged injuries of which he complains.

For the reason given, the judgment of the court of common pleas will be affirmed.

Richards and- Williams, JJ, concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0563 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0563

**97/563/EC: Commission Decision of 28 July 1997 amending Decision 94/325/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in Thailand (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 232 , 23/08/1997 P. 0012 - 0012 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 28 July 1997 amending Decision 94/325/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in Thailand (Text with EEA relevance) (97/563/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), as last amended by Directive 96/23/EC (2), and in particular Article 11 (1) thereof,

Whereas the Commission has adopted Decision 97/562/EC (3) laying down special conditions for the import of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in Thailand; whereas it is therefore necessary to amend Commission Decision 94/325/EC (4), as last amended by Decision 96/31/EC (5);

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Point IV.7 of Annex A to Commission Decision 94/325/EC shall be replaced by the following text:

'7. in addition, where the fishery products are frozen or processed bivalve molluscs: the molluscs were obtained from approved production areas listed in the Annex to Commission Decision 97/562/EC (*) laying down special conditions for the import of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in Thailand and which have been sterilized or heat-treated in accordance with the requirements of Commission Decision 93/25/EEC (**).

(*) OJ No L 232, 23. 8. 1997, p. 9.

(**) OJ No L 16, 25. 1. 1993, p. 22.`

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 July 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15.

(2) OJ No L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.

(3) See page 9 of this Official Journal.

(4) OJ No L 145, 10. 6. 1994, p. 30.

(5) OJ No L 9, 12. 1. 1996, p. 6.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7134
CHARLES TERRENCE BARLOW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-401-5-BR) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Terrence Barlow, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Terrence Barlow appeals from the district court’sorder dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition without prejudice, which the court properly construed as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2001) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barlow v. Dewalt , No. CA-01-401-5-BR (E.D.N.C. filed June 12, 2001; entered June 14, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 450.33 Incremental review and determinations. An applicant may submit its application for a safety review in modules using an incremental approach approved by the Administrator. ( a ) An applicant must identify to the Administrator, prior to submitting an application, whether it will submit a modular application for any approval or determination.
( b ) An applicant using an incremental approach must have the approach approved by the Administrator prior to submitting an application. In reviewing a proposed approach, the Administrator will consider the following: ( 1 ) Whether the modules can be reviewed independently; and
( 2 ) Whether the modules will be submitted in a workable chronological order.
( c ) The Administrator may make incremental determinations as part of this review process.
§ 298.60 General reporting instructions. ( a ) Each commuter air carrier and each small certificated air carrier shall file the applicable schedules of Form 298-C, “Report of Financial and Operating Statistics for Small Aircraft Operators,” Schedule T-100, “U.S. Air Carrier Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop Segment and On-Flight Market,” and the “Passenger Origin—Destination Survey” prescribed in part 241, Sec. 19-8, of this subchapter.
( b ) A single copy of the BTS Form 298-C report shall be filed quarterly with the Office of Airline Information (OAI) for the periods ended March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31 of each year to be received on or before May 10, August 10, November 10, and February 10, respectively. An electronic filing of the monthly Schedule T-100 is due at OAI within 30 days after the end of each month. Due dates falling on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday will become effective on the next work day.
( c ) Reports required by this section shall be submitted to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in a format specified in accounting and reporting directives issued by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' Director of Airline Information.
[ER-1399, 50 FR 19, Jan. 2, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40104, Sept. 2, 1992; 60 FR 66726, Dec. 26, 1995; 67 FR 49231, July 30, 2002; 75 FR 41585, July 16, 2010; DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019; DOT-OST-2018-0132, 88 FR 6164, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### SCHROEDER Dir of Pub Serv et v STATE ex THOMAS & 5 others (6 cases)

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

Nos. 2154-5-6-7-8-9.

Decided January 2, 1929

Mr. George W. Ritter, Director of Law, and Mr. Martin S. Dodd, Assistant Director of Law, Toledo, for plaintiff.

Mr. W. S. Thurstin, Jr., Toledo, for defendants.

LLOYD, J.

The only question presented for decision to this court is whether or not the court of common pleas is correct in holding that relators having been appointed under subdivision “g” of Section 172 of the charter and Rule 58 of the Commission to positions within the competitive class of the classified service and for which, by competitive examination, eligible lists should be established, from which appointments thereto might be made, were protected *423against arbitrary discharge before the creation of such eligible list.

It was stated in argument, and the record discloses the fact so to be, that for many years it has been customary in Toledo to appoint employes without an eligible list and, if deemed expedient, summarily to discharge them. In following this heretofore unchallenged custom the motive of plaintiff in error is not in question, since it might perhaps be assumed that what had theretofore been done was rightly done and might properly be emulated. But customary violation of an express, lawful charter or statutory provision can not make such violation lawful.

It would seem that the common sense construction to be given to subdivision “g” of Section 172 of the charter and of Rule 58 of the Commission would be that employes appointed thereunder, unless lawfully removed for cause after due notice and hearing, as Drovided by the charter, are secure in their positions until such eligible list is .established and their successors appointed therefrom.

This being our conclusion as to the construction' that should be placed upon these provisions, it is clear to us that the judgments of the court of common pleas should be affirmed.

Richards and Williams, JJ., concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0298 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0298

**96/298/EC: Commission Decision of 23 February 1996 amending Decision 94/984/EC laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultrymeat from certain third countries (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 114 , 08/05/1996 P. 0033 - 0034 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 23 February 1996 amending Decision 94/984/EC laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultrymeat from certain third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (96/298/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultrymeat (1), as last amended by Directive 93/121/EC (2), and in particular 11, paragraph 1 thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 94/984/EC (3), as amended by Decision 95/302/EC (4), established the animal health conditions and the veterinary certificates for imports of fresh poultrymeat from certain third countries;

Whereas it is now possible to review the list of countries by including Argentina, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Madagascar and Slovenia and to establish the regionalization for China, in accordance with information received from these countries, in some cases completed with the results of an on-the-spot inspection carried out by the Commission services; whereas however Madagascar can comply with the requirements of model A in respect of goose and duck liver only;

Whereas a certain delay should be provided for these changes to enable the competent authorities in the Member States to implement this Decision; whereas a further delay is needed for imports from China, in view of the regionalization of this country;

Whereas the title of the Decision needs to be extended to third countries in general and the reference to certain third countries has to be deleted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Commission Decision 94/984/EC is amended as follows:

1. In the title, the word 'certain` is deleted;

2. Annex I is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 March 1996.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 February 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ No L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 39.

(3) OJ No L 378, 31. 12. 1994, p. 11.

(4) OJ No L 185, 4. 8. 1995, p. 50.

ANNEX

'ANNEX I

Third countries or parts of third countries which are allowed to use the certificates laid down in Annex II for imports of fresh poultrymeat into the Community

Note: the characters A and B refer to the model established in part 2 of Annex II.

>TABLE>
#### UNION TRUST CO v NUSBAUM

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10,144.

Decided October 14, 1929

Oliver Stamper, Esq., Cleveland, for Union Trust Co.

P. L. Horwitz, Esq., Cleveland, for Nusbaum.

LEVINE, J.

It will be observed that on May 15th the obligation of the note did not yet mature and, in our opinion. The Union Trust Company could not apply the money in its hands to the payment of a note which as yet did not mature.

The judgment of the Municipal Court is, in our opinion, correct, and the same is affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, concurs. Sullivan, J, not participating.