alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12553]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Risk Analysis and Evaluation of Regulatory Options for Nuclear 
Byproduct Material Systems

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the 
availability of NUREG/CR-6642, ``Risk Analysis and Evaluation of 
Regulatory Options for Nuclear Byproduct Material Systems,'' dated 
December 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG/CR-6642 may be obtained by writing to the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 
37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the 
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia 22161. A copy of the document is also available 
for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document 
Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Torre Taylor, Mail Stop TWFN 9-C-
24, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415-7900, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ce8f1e8dcf2eeffb2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3c7dec7f3ddc1d09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46456), NRC 
published draft NUREG/CR-6642, ``Risk Analysis and Evaluation of 
Regulatory Options for Nuclear Byproduct Material Systems,'' for public 
comment. All comments received during the comment period were reviewed 
in the preparation of the final NUREG report. The final version of 
NUREG/CR-6642 is now available. NUREG/CR-6642 presents a detailed, 
comparative risk analysis of nuclear byproduct materials, organized 
into groups of activities or ``systems,'' such as nuclear pharmacy, 
pool irradiators, and industrial radiography. It also describes the 
methodology used in the risk analysis and provides the results of the 
analysis.

Electronic Access

    NUREG/CR-6642 will also be available at NRC's web site under 
Reference Library--Technical Reports or directly at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/CR6642/index.html.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Acting Chief, Rulemaking and Guidance Branch, Division of Industrial 
and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS.
[FR Doc. 00-12553 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


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

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31053-31054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Special Committee 192; National Airspace Review Planning and 
Analysis

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a 
Special Committee 192 meeting to be held June 6, 2000, starting at 9:00 
a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1140 Connecticut Avenue, 
NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036.
    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Welcome and Introductory 
Remarks; (2) Overview and Coordination with Free Flight Select 
Committee; (3) Resolve Ballot Comments and Approve Working Group 1 
Document (User Priorities for the National Airspace Redesign); (4) 
Review Working Group 2 Status; (5) Review Working Group 3 Status and 
Plenary Approval; (6) Review High-altitude Concept; (7) Date and 
Location of Next Meeting; (8) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman,

[[Page 31054]]

members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. 
Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should 
contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC, 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone), (202) 833-9434 (fax), or http://www.rtca.org (web site). Members of the public may present a written 
statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2000.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-12167 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
#### Unexcelled Laundry System, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Otto Esemann, Respondent.

Argued January 21, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*556
      *Charles Burston*for appellant.

*Paul W. Hessel*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part; Hubbs, J.
#### Marian S. Honeyman, Appellant, *v.*Herbert G. Hanan, as Executor of Herbert W. Hanan, Deceased, Respondent.

Submitted April 26, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

Motion for reargument or to amend the remittitur granted to the extent of permitting a reargument and case set down for May 17, 1937. (See 271 N. Y. 564.)
**EXHIBIT 23**

****

****

****

****

****

# Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

****

****

****

The Board of Directors

LaBarge, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-53583, 33-31330, 33-108357, 33-124556, and 33-121031) on Form S-8 of LaBarge, Inc. of our reports dated September 6, 2006 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of LaBarge,Inc. and subsidiaries as of July 2, 2006, and July 3, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 2, 2006, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of July 2, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal over financial reporting as of July 2, 2006, which reports appear in the July 2, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of LaBarge, Inc.  Our report refersto the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment,” effective July 4, 2005.

/s/KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri

September 6, 2006
Exhibit 10.4

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

In connection with the Annual Report of TPG N.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period
ended 31 December 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A.D. Jones, Group Managing
Director Express of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|19 February 2003                                        |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                        |  | 
|/s/A.D. JONESA.D. Jones
Group Managing Director Express |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          1,809
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                      770
<INVENTORY>                                     3,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,853 
<PP&E>                                         27,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                 17,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,287
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        6,550
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,866
<SALES>                                        73,037 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               73,037
<CGS>                                          55,600         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  55,600 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               13,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,237
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,563
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,563
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.06
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1615

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 1615.141-1615.148 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Vincenzo Orlando against Hyman Rosen et al., Appellants, and Zach Fishkin et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Argued March 4, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*473
      *William, S. Sinclair*and *James J. Mahoney*for appellants.

*William, Warren Bimmick*for Zach Fishkin et al., respondents.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order of Appellate Division and award of State Industrial Board reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to State Industrial Board to proceed in accordance with opinion in *Matter of Garelick*v. *Rosen*(274 N. Y. 64). No opinion.

Concur: Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Dissenting: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman and O’Brien, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.25 Housekeeping. ( a ) During the course of construction, alteration, or repairs, form and scrap lumber with protruding nails, and all other debris, shall be kept cleared from work areas, passageways, and stairs, in and around buildings or other structures.
( b ) Combustible scrap and debris shall be removed at regular intervals during the course of construction. Safe means shall be provided to facilitate such removal.
( c ) Containers shall be provided for the collection and separation of waste, trash, oily and used rags, and other refuse. Containers used for garbage and other oily, flammable, or hazardous wastes, such as caustics, acids, harmful dusts, etc. shall be equipped with covers. Garbage and other waste shall be disposed of at frequent and regular intervals.
#### UNITED STATES v. BRIGGS & TURIVAS

[83 C. Cls. 664; 302 U. S. 690]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court October 11, 1937.
#### § 1981.101 Definitions.

“Act” or “Pipeline Safety Act” means section 6 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-355, December 17, 2002, 49 U.S.C. 60129.

“Assistant Secretary” means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health or the person or persons to whom he or she delegates authority under the Act.

“Complainant” means the employee who filed a complaint under the Act or on whose behalf a complaint was filed.

“Employee” means an individual presently or formerly working for a person owning or operating a pipeline facility or a contractor or subcontractor of such a person, an individual applying to work for a person owning or operating a pipeline facility or a contractor or subcontractor of such a person, or an individual whose employment could be affected by a person owning or operating a pipeline facility or a contractor or subcontractor of such a person.

“Employer” means a person owning or operating a pipeline facility or a contractor or subcontractor of such a person.

“Gas pipeline facility” includes a pipeline, a right of way, a facility, a building, or equipment used in transporting gas or treating gas during its transportation.

“Hazardous liquid pipeline facility” includes a pipeline, a right of way, a facility, a building, or equipment used or intended to be used in transporting hazardous liquid.

“Named person” means the person alleged to have violated the Act.

“OSHA” means the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor.

“Person” means a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, an individual, a State, a municipality, and a trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative of a person.

“Pipeline facility” means a gas pipeline facility and a hazardous liquid pipeline facility.

“Secretary” means the Secretary of Labor or persons to whom authority under the Act has been delegated.
#### In the Matter of Hiram P. Abbey, a Supposed Lunatic.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,*

*Filed June 22, 1889.)*

Lunacy—When trial of issues by jury ordered — Code Oiv. Pro,, § 8336.

Under section 8336 of the Code Civil Procedure, upon the return of the commission on an inquisition of lunacy, the court before which the proceedings are, may in its discretion, order a trial of the issue before a jury, and where such an order is made and the evidence raises a question for the consideration of the jury, the conclusion of the court should not be reversed.

Appeal from the order of the county court of Ontario county, denying the motion to confirm the verdict.rendered in favor of the supposed lunatic on an inquisition of lunacy, and ordering a trial of the issues to be had in -the county court by a jury.

*Frank Hamlin,*for the petitioner, resp’t; *Spencer Gooding,*for the supposed lunatic, app’lt.

Macomber, J.—

Twelve of the jurors signed a verdict that Mr. Abbey was competent to manage his affairs, and was not a lunatic.

Upon motion by his counsel for confirmation before the county judge, it was claimed on the part of the petitioner, who is a son of the supposed lunatic, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and, also, that it should not be confirmed because of certain irregularities on the part of some jurors while in consultation. By section 2336 *835of the Code of Civil Procedure it is provided: “"Upon the return of the commission, with the inquisition taken thereunder, or the rendering of the verdict of the jury, upon the question submitted to it by the order for a trial by a jury, the court must either direct a new trial or hearing or make such final order upon the petition as justice requires.”

This section seems to call upon the county court for the exercise of its discretion in the premises. *Jackson*v. *Jackson,*37 Hun, 309.

The judgment of the county court is supported by abundant and satisfactory proofs that Mr. Abbey, at the time of the inquisition was of unsound mind and incompetent to manage his affairs. The evidence leading to the opposite conclusions raised a fair question for the consideration of the jury. But under the peculiar phraseology of the statute in question, and in accordance with the decision already cited, the conclusion of the county judge ought not to be reversed, for the reason that it rested to a very large extent at least, in the discretion imposed upon him by law. This renders it unnecessary to consider the irregularities in the jury room complained of.

The order should be affirmed, with costs of the appeal to abide the final award of costs.

All concur.
#### § 1915.1015 4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1003 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1003).

[[61 FR 31430](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31430), June 20, 1996]
Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5
 

Page 3 of 5
 

Page 4 of 5
 

Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 10.17








Exhibit 10.17




	 	 	 
	

	 	ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION

DIVISION OF BUSINESS AND FINANCE

SECTION A: CONTRACT






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	1.
AMENDMENT

	 	2. CONTRACT
	 	3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF
	 	4. PROGRAM
	NUMBER:

	 	NO.:

	 	AMENDMENT:
	 	 
	8

	 	YH09-0001-04
	 	October 1, 2009
	 	
DHCM — ACUTE






5. CONTRACTOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS:


Health Choice Arizona



410 N.
44th Street, Suite 900



Phoenix, AZ 85008




6. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Section D Paragraph 53, Compensation.



7. THE CONTRACT REFERENCED ABOVE FOLLOWS




	 	A.	 	Section D, Paragraph 53, Compensation has had one paragraph revised with the following language.






Reconciliation
of Prospective non-MED Costs to Reimbursement: AHCCCS will reconcile the Contractor’s prospective non-MED medical cost
expenses to prospective non-MED net capitation paid to the Contractor for dates of service during the contract year being reconciled. This
reconciliation will limit the Contractor’s profits and losses to 2%. Any losses in excess of 2% will be reimbursed to the Contractor, and
likewise, profits in excess of 2% will be recouped. Adjudicated encounter data will be used to determine medical expenses. Refer to the
Prospective non-MED Reconciliation Policy included in the ACOM for further details.



	 	 	 
	NOTE: Please sign, date, and return executed file by E-Mail to:

	 	Mark Held at Mark.Held@azahcccs.gov
	 

	 	Sr. Procurement Specialist
	 

	 	AHCCCS Contracts and Purchasing
	 

	 	and Georgina Maya at
	 

	 	Georgina.Maya@azahcccs.gov






8. EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL
CONTRACT NOT HERETOFORE CHANGED AND/OR AMENDED REMAIN UNCHANGED AND
IN FULL
EFFECT.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO SIGN THEIR NAMES IN AGREEMENT



	 	 	 
	9.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE:

	 	10. SIGNATURE OF AHCCCSA
CONTRACTING

OFFICER:
	 
	/s/
Carolyn Rose

	 	/s/ Michael Veit
	 

	 	 
	TYPED
NAME: CAROLYN ROSE

	 	TYPED NAME: MICHAEL VEIT
	TITLE:
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

	 	TITLE: CONTRACTS &
PURCHASING ADMINISTRATOR
	DATE:
SEP 21 2009

	 	DATE: SEP 16 2009
§ 2200.2 Scope of rules; applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; construction. ( a ) *Scope.* These rules shall govern all proceedings before the Commission and its Judges.
( b ) *Applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.* In the absence of a specific provision, procedure shall be in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
( c ) *Construction.* These rules shall be construed to secure an expeditious, just, and inexpensive determination of every case.
§ 1960.41 National committee duties. National committees established under this subpart shall, except where prohibited by law: ( a ) Monitor performance of the agency safety and health program and make policy recommendations to the head of the agency on the operation of the program;
( b ) Monitor and assist in the development and operation of the agency's establishment committees. As the committee deems appropriate, monitor and review: Reports of inspections; internal and external evaluation reports; agency safety and health training programs; proposed agency standards; agency plans for abating hazards; and responses to reports of hazardous conditions; safety and health program deficiencies; and allegations of reprisal;
( c ) Monitor and recommend changes in the resources allocated to the entire agency safety and health program;
( d ) Report their dissatisfaction to the Secretary if half a committee determines there are deficiencies in the agency's safety and health program or is not satisfied with the agency's reports of reprisal investigations; and
( e ) Request the Secretary to conduct an evaluation or inspection if half the members of record are not satisfied with an agency's response to a report of hazardous working conditions.
#### Dorothy Berwick, an Infant, by John Berwick, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, *v.*Board of Education of the City of White Plains, Respondent.

Argued March 23, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*475
      *Oliver K. King*for appellants.

*Alfred M. Bailey*and *William A. Earl*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R2682 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R2682

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2682/1999 of 17 December 1999 establishing the forecast supply balances for cereal products and dried fodder for the smaller Aegean islands for 2000 and amending Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 laying down detailed rules of application for the specific supply arrangements **

*
Official Journal L 326 , 18/12/1999 P. 0020 - 0021 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2682/1999

of 17 December 1999

establishing the forecast supply balances for cereal products and dried fodder for the smaller Aegean islands for 2000 and amending Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 laying down detailed rules of application for the specific supply arrangements

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2958/93(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1802/95(4), lays down the common detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 as regards the specific arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products to smaller Aegean islands, and pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93, the amount of aid for this supply;

(2) For the purposes of applying Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93, Commission Regulation (EC) No 3175/94(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2782/98(6), establishes for 1999 the forecast supply balances for cereals and dried fodder. The forecast supply balances should be established for 2000. Regulation (EC) No 3175/94 should therefore be amended;

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Joint Committee of the relevant management committees,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93, the forecast supply balance for cereal products and dried fodder for the smaller Aegean islands originating in the rest of the Community in 2000 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 January 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 17 December 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 184, 27.7.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

(3) OJ L 267, 28.10.1993, p. 4.

(4) OJ L 174, 26.7.1995, p. 27.

(5) OJ L 335, 23.12.1994, p. 54.

(6) OJ L 347, 23.12.1998, p. 15.

ANNEX

Forecast supply balance for cereal products and dried fodder for the smaller Aegean islands for 2000

>TABLE>

Groups A and B are defined in Annexes I and II to Regulation (EEC) No 2958/93.