alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13286]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Appendix I, DoD Pilot Mentor Protege Program 
Improvements; OMB Number 0704-0412.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 145.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 145.
    Average Burden per Response: 3 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 435 (145 reporting hours and 290 recordkeeping 
hours).
    Needs and Uses: The new information collection required by Appendix 
I, Policy and Procedures for the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protege Program, is 
required by section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). DoD will use the information to 
assess whether the purposes of the Pilot Mentor-Protege Program have 
been attained and to prepare the reports to Congress required by 
section 811 of Public Law 106-65. DFARS Appendix I requires a protege 
firm to report on its progress under a mentor-protege agreement by 
concurring with or rebutting its mentor firm's year-end report. The 
protege firm also must provide data on its employment, revenues, and 
participation in Dod contracts. The report is required annually during 
the protege firm's program participation term and for two fiscal years 
after the expiration of the program participation term.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Lewis W. Oleinick.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD (Acquisition), Room 10236, New 
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: May 22, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense,
[FR Doc. 00-13286 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### Madelyn Miller, Appellant, v Joseph Kelner et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 6, 1996;

decided June 13, 1996

Appeal, insofar as taken from the September 19, 1995 Appellate Division order that denied appellant’s motion to vacate the prior order of dismissal and that portion of the October 12, 1994 Appellate Division order that dismissed appellant’s appeal from that portion of Supreme Court’s September 8, 1993 order denying appellant’s motion to replead, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that the September 19, 1995 Appellate Division order and the above-specified portion of the October 12, 1994 Appellate Division order do not finally determine the action within the mean*917ing of the Constitution; appeal, insofar as taken from the remaining portion of the October 12, 1994 Appellate Division order dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that that part of the October 12, 1994 Appellate Division order does not directly involve a substantial constitutional question.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 31520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12512]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, June 14, 2013.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Examinations, and Enforcement 
Matters. In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

Natise Stowe,
Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2013-12512 Filed 5-22-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
#### § 452.117 Majority of votes not required for election.

A labor organization may by its constitution and bylaws provide for the election of the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes, although he does not have a majority of all the votes cast. Alternatively, it may provide that where no candidate receives a majority of all the votes cast, a run-off election be held between the two candidates having the highest vote. Similarly, a labor organization conducting an election to choose five members of an executive board may designate as elected from among all the nominees the five candidates who receive the highest vote.
Exhibit 24.1





McMoRan Exploration Co.





Secretary’s Certificate





I, Douglas N. Currault II, Assistant Secretary of McMoRan Exploration Co., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), do hereby certify that the following resolution was duly adopted by the Sole Director of the Corporation by written consent on November 12, 1998, and that such resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded and is in full force and effect on the date hereof:





RESOLVED, that any report, registration statement or other form filed on behalf of this Corporation pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or any amendment to such report, registration statement or other form, may be signed on behalf of any director or officer of this corporation pursuant to a power of attorney executed by such director or officer.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the seal of the Corporation on February 9, 2011.

















/s/ Douglas N. Currault II


Douglas N. Currault II


Assistant Secretary


Seal
§ 784.138 Perishable state of the aquatic product as affecting exemption. ( a ) Activities performed after conversion of an aquatic product to a nonperishable state cannot form the basis for application of the section 13(b)(4) exemption unless the subsequent operation is so integrated with the performance of exempt operations on the aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life mentioned in the section that functionally and as a practical matter it must be considered a part of the operations for which exemption was intended. The exemption is, consequently, not available for the handling or shipping of nonperishable products by an employer except where done as a part of named operations commenced on the product when it was in a perishable state. Thus, employees of dealers in or distributors of such nonperishable products as fish oil and fish meal, or canned seafood, are not within the exemption. Similarly, there is no basis for application of the exemption to employees employed in further processing of or manufacturing operations on products previously rendered nonperishable, such as refining fish oil or handling fish meal in connection with the manufacture of feeds. Further specific examples of application of the foregoing principle are given in the subsequent discussion of particular operations named in section 13(b)(4).
( b ) In applying the principle stated in paragraph (a) of this section, the Department has not asserted that the exemption is inapplicable to the performance of the operations described in section 13(b)(4) on frozen, smoked, salted, or cured fish. The Department will continue to follow this policy until further clarification from the courts.
§ 95.21 Standards for financial management systems. ( a ) Recipients shall relate financial data to performance data and develop unit cost information whenever practical.
( b ) Recipients' financial management systems shall provide for the following: ( 1 ) Accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial results of each federally-sponsored project or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in § 95.52. Though DOL requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient that maintains its records on other than an accrual basis, the recipient shall not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. These recipients may develop such accrual data for its reports on the basis of an analysis of the documentation on hand.
( 2 ) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally-sponsored activities. These records shall contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, outlays, income and interest.
( 3 ) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property and other assets. Recipients shall adequately safeguard all such assets and assure they are used solely for authorized purposes.
( 4 ) Comparison of outlays with budget amounts for each award. Whenever appropriate, financial information should be related to performance and unit cost data.
( 5 ) Written procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds to the recipient from the U.S. Treasury and the issuance or redemption of checks, warrants or payments by other means for program purposes by the recipient. To the extent that the provisions of the Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA) (Pub. L. 101-453) govern, payment methods of State agencies, instrumentalities, and fiscal agents shall be consistent with CMIA Treasury-State Agreements or the CMIA default procedures codified at 31 CFR part 205, “Withdrawal of Cash from the Treasury for Advances under Federal Grant and Other Programs.”
( 6 ) Written procedures for determining the reasonableness, allocability and allowability of costs in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Federal cost principles and the terms and conditions of the award.
( 7 ) Accounting records including cost accounting records that are supported by source documentation.
( c ) Where the Federal Government guarantees or insures the repayment of money borrowed by the recipient, DOL, at its discretion, may require adequate bonding and insurance if the bonding and insurance requirements of the recipient are not deemed adequate to protect the interest of the Federal Government.
( d ) DOL may require adequate fidelity bond coverage where the recipient lacks sufficient coverage to protect the Federal Government's interest.
( e ) Where bonds are required in the situations described above, the bonds shall be obtained from companies holding certificates of authority as acceptable sureties, as prescribed in 31 CFR part 223, “Surety Companies Doing Business with the United States.”
#### Board of Managers of the Revere Condominium, Respondent, v Shahsultan Jaffer, Appellant.

Submitted April 22, 1996;

decided June 13, 1996

Motion to resettle February 15, 1996 and March 28, 1996 orders of the Court of Appeals denied. *[See,*87 NY2d 952, 1016.]
#### § 801.43 Civil money penalties—payment and collection.

Where the assessment is directed in a final order of the Department, the amount of the penalty is immediately due and payable to the United States Department of Labor.

The person assessed such penalty shall remit promptly the amount thereof, as finally determined, to the Secretary. Payment shall be made by certified check or money order made payable and delivered or mailed according to the instructions provided by the Department; through the electronic pay portal located at *www.pay.gov* or any successor system; or by any additional payment method deemed acceptable by the Department.

[84 FR 59931, Nov. 7, 2019]
§ 779.245 Conditions for coverage of retail or service enterprises. ( a ) Retail or service enterprises may be covered under section 3(s)(1) of the prior Act or section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act although the latter is not limited to retail or service enterprises. A retail or service enterprise will be a covered enterprise under section 3(s)(1) of the amended Act if both the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The enterprise is “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” This requirement, which is discussed in §§ 779.237 through 779.243, applies to all covered enterprises under the provisions of both the prior and the amended Act; and,
( 2 ) During the period February 1, 1967, through January 31, 1969, the enterprise has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated, of at least $500,000; or on and after February 1, 1969, the enterprise has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of at least $250,000, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated.
( b ) A retail or service enterprise will be covered under section 3(s)(1) of the Act prior to the amendments if all four of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The enterprise is “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” as explained above in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and,
( 2 ) The enterprise has one or more “retail or service establishments” (the statutory definition of the term “retail or service establishment” is contained in § 779.24 and discussed in subpart D of this part) and,
( 3 ) The enterprise has an annual gross volume of sales of $1 million or more, exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated and,
( 4 ) The enterprise “purchases or receives goods for resale that move or have moved across State lines (not in deliveries from the reselling establishment) which amount in total annual volume to $250,000 or more.” (This requirement is discussed in §§ 779.246 through 779.253.)
( c ) Sections 779.258 through 779.260 discuss the meaning of “annual gross volume of sales made or business done” and §§ 779.261 through 779.264 discuss what excise taxes may be excluded from the annual gross volume. Sections 779.265 through 779.269 discuss the method of computing the annual gross volume where it is necessary to determine monetary obligations to employees under the Act.
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: Ogulei, David Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:42 PM To: fpi_market@fpi-inc.com Subject: Ambient and Stack Metals Monitoring

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is looking for information on commercially available stack an d ambient continuous emissions monitoring equipment f or heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium and others. Do you currently man ufacture and/or sell such monitoring equipment? If so, are you currently marketing such monitoring equ ipment in the United States? If you have any helpf ul information regarding commercially available contin uous metals monitors, would you please share that information with me?

Thank you.

David Ogulei, Ph.D., P.E. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division | AR-18J 77 West Jackson Blvd. | Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Fax: (312) 692-2080 Ogulei.David@epa.gov
(79 South. 156)

#### HOOPER v. TOWN OF ALBERTVILLE et al.

(8 Div. 608.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June *29,*1918.)

Certiorari <&wkey;70(4) — Apbeal—Record.

On appeal from proceeding in certiorari, it is 'essential to jurisdiction of appellate court that record show that writ was issued and return made.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, *Judge.*

Certiorari by J. F. Hooper against the Town of Albertville and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellant. Thomas E. Orr, of Albertville, for appellees.

BROWN, P. J.

The record in this case seems to be made up of the petition for the writ of certiorari, the exhibits thereto consisting of a copy of the alleged assessment of taxes by the town council, the objections filed by the appellant protesting against the assessment, and a copy of the proceedings of the town council representing the levy and such objections, and designated in the petition respectively as Exhibits A, B, and C, the flat of the circuit judge directing the issuance of the writ, and the judgment of the court '“that the petition for certiorari in this case be and the same is hereby quashed, denied, and annulled, and the petitioner taxed with the costs of the proceeding.”

So far as this record shows, no writ of certiorari was ever issued, and’ if such writ was issued, and return thereto made, the return is not transcribed in the record, or is so transcribed that it is impossible to distinguish the return from the exhibits to the petition — tell where one ends and the other begins. The issuance of the writ of certiorari and the return thereto is essential to the jurisdiction of the court to review the proceedings assailed in the petition. The practice in such cases is clearly staled in St. John v. Richter, 167 Ala. 656, 52 South. 465, and Independent Pub. Co. v. Amer. Press Ass’n, 102 Ala. 475, 15 South. 947. With the record in the condition above indicated, the case is not so presented as that the judgment and proceedings of the trial court can be reviewed, and a judgment will be entered here dismissing the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit
24-a

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that
each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints each of Robert E.
Switz and Gokul V. Hemmady, with full power to each to act without the other, as his or
her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution, for him
or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (the Company) for
the Companys fiscal year ended October 31, 2003, and any or all amendments to said
Annual Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to file the same
with such other authorities as necessary, granting unto each such attorney-in-fact and
agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite
and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes
as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each
such attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of
Attorney has been signed by the following persons on the dates indicated below their
names.

|                          | 
|------------------------- | 
|/s/ Robert Annunziata     | 
|                          | 
|Robert Annunziata         | 
|Date: 1/14/04             | 
|                          | 
|                          | 
|/s/ John A. Blanchard III | 
|                          | 
|John A. Blanchard III     | 
|Date: 1/14/04             | 
|                          | 
|                          | 
|/s/ John J. Boyle III     | 
|                          | 
|John J. Boyle III         | 
|Date: 1/14/04             | 
|                          | 
|                          | 
|/s/ James C. Castle       | 
|                          | 
|James C. Castle           | 
|Date: 1/14/04             | 
|                          | 
|                          | 
|/s/ Mickey P. Foret       | 
|                          | 
|Mickey P. Foret           | 
|Date: 1/14/04             | 
|                          | 

---
**Exhibit 99(ap)**

 

**Certification of Financial ReportsPursuant to 18 USC Section 1350**

 

 

The undersigned hereby certify that theannual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that information contained in that Form10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ J. Nicholas Bayne                                  |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | J. Nicholas Bayne                                      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                |
|   |                                                   |
|   |                                                   |
|   | /s/ Larry E. LaPlante                                  |   |
|   | Larry E. LaPlante                                      |
|   | Vice President, Treasurer  and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                   |
|   |                                                   |
|   | Dated: March  28, 2003                                 |

 

This certification is made solely forpurposes of 18 USC Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard containedtherein, and not for any other purpose.

 

1

----
Argued and submitted May 13,

affirmed December 23, 1992

#### Michael BEROVIC, D.C., *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, *Respondent.*

(CA A71845)

843 P2d 1023

Brian R. Barnes, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Horton & Koenig, Eugene.

John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Noren v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners,*117 Or App 337, 843 P2d 1021 (1992).
March 19, 2015

Mr. Anthony Cullen

CEO Drone Filmworx Company 3401 Grande Vista Drive, Suite 56 Newbury Park, CA 91319

Dear Mr. Cullen :

This is in response to your October 25 , 2014, letter sent to the docket ( No. FAA

- 2014

- 0931 ) petitioning the Fed eral Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Drone Filmworx Company ( Drone Filmworx ) for an exemption from p art 21; §§ 45.23(b) ; 61.113 (a) and (b) ; 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103 (b) ; 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151 (a); 91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a ) (1); 91.409 (a)(2); and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

. That exemption, if granted, would allow Drone Filmworx to conduct aerial cinematography, primarily for use in the television and motion picture industries, law

en forcement, and search and rescue by other first responders.

By email dated February 11 , 201 5

, which posted to the docket on the same day

, the FAA sent you a request for additional information asking you to:

• Describe the aircraft m ake and m odel for the proposed UAS operation. T he description should include the following: size and aircraft type (i.e.

- fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) and to sub m it the air c raft m anual.

• Provide infor m ation regarding the radio frequency spectru m

.

• Des c ribe the process used to deter m ine if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS.

• Describe the process used to docu m e nt UAS discrepancies a n d the corrective a c t i on taken in the aircraft record.

• P rovide a copy of the following referenced m aterials:

o Flight Operations Manual

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual2

The FAA has not received this additional information.

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has close d your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information please resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director

, Office of Rulemaking