alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13631]



[[Page 35064]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-295-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 22, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee), tendered for filing, for inclusion in Tennessee's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 356, with 
an effective date of June 21, 2000.
    Tennessee states that the purpose of this filing is to modify its 
Tariff to extend the time period for payment after receipt of invoice 
by shippers who are entities of foreign governments and whose 
compliance with required governmental accounting practices do not 
conform to the invoice and payment provisions of Tennessee's Tariff. 
Tennessee further states that, if the proposed modifications are 
accepted, it will avoid the necessity of making individual filings of 
transportation service agreements entered into with these shippers 
because these transportation services agreements may contain ``material 
deviations'' from the pro forma transportation service agreements. 
Tennessee requests an effective date of June 21, 2000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13631 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Oil Crops Outlook (OCS)
A product of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 1:23 PM

To: Christopher Bolduc

Cc: Richard Parker; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tb allo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooper industries.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; bruce.r.hirsch@bge .com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.pa tterson@us.abb.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; artrosenfeld@g mail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org; robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@ pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coult er405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@public power.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jros setti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org; kwinder@mleainc.com; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; brenda.edwards@ee. doe.gov; jeremiah.freem an@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe. gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hv olt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com ; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy-solution.com; chad.kennedy@us.schn eider-electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas .patzner@us.schneider-electric.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim Subject: A Note on Pole Change Out Cost:

Hi Chris,

A quick note on the nature of pole change-out costs, and to what extent efficiency increases are

cost-causitive.

Poles do not last forever. They have a limite d life. Indeed, many utilities are replacing / reinforcing older wood poles as part of a general infrastructure improvement program. Commonwealth Edison is currently replacing 15,000 poles for just this purpose, according to Terry Donnelly, the Exec. VP for Operations.

While an increase in efficiency may hasten the change-out, under some conditions, it is not costcausative of a pole change -- only of moving that change forward in time. For example, if a pole required replacement this year anyway, and there was a more efficient transformer to be installed, one would not suggest the transformer was responsible for the change. More generally, if a pole change were required 10 years earlier than ot herwise due to a heavier transformer, the cost would be the time value of money over the 10 year period, not the full cost of the pole. This time value of money should subject to sharing for the likelihood of a joint pole cost sharing arrangement, and included at its exp ected value (as you are currently doing).

Hope this helps.



### Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

### 1915 Grand Court
Vienna, VA 22182

703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)
BermanEconomics@gmail.com
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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Drone Filmworx 

Company (Drone Filmworx) for an exemption from part 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 

enforcement, and search and rescue by other first responders.

By email dated February 11, 2015, which posted to the docket on the same day, the FAA sent 

you a request for additional information asking you to:

• Describe the aircraft make and model for the proposed UAS operation. The 

description should include the following: size and aircraft type (i.e. - fixed-wing,

rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) and to submit the aircraft manual.

• Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum. 

• Describe the process used to determine if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition 

for operation in the NAS.

• Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action 

taken in the aircraft record. 

• Provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Flight Operations Manual

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual
2

The FAA has not received this additional information.

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed 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
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 4 OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 17th

day of December, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Chris L. Gilbert and Glenn E. Janik, 

Appellants

v.

Kate M. Moseley, Appellee

No. 06-13-00081-CV

Trial Court No. CC-13-02405-D

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellants, Chris L. Gilbert and Glenn E. Janik, pay all costs of 

this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 4th day of March, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
#### § 784.133 “First processing.”

Processing connotes a change from the natural state of the marine product and first processing would constitute the first operation or series of continuous operations that effectuate this change. It appears that the first processing operations ordinarily performed on the fishing vessels at sea consist for the most part of eviscerating, removal of the gills, beheading certain fish that have large heads, and the removal of the scallop from its shell. Icing or freezing operations, which ordinarily immediately follow these operations, would also constitute an integral part of the first processing operations, as would such activities as filleting, cutting, scaling, or salting when performed as part of a continuous series of operations. Employment aboard the fishing vessel in freezing operations thus performed is within the exemption if the first processing of which it is a part otherwise meets the conditions of section 13(a)(5), notwithstanding the transfer by the 1961 amendments of “freezing”, as such, from this exemption to the exemption from overtime only provided by section 13(b)(4). Such preliminary operations as cleaning, washing, and grading of the marine products, though not exempt as first processing since they effect no change, would be exempt as part of first processing when done in preparation for the first processing operation described above including freezing. The same would be true with respect to the removal of the waste products resulting from the above described operations on board the fishing vessel.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.137 St. Francis River.

The draws of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific railroad bridge, mile 59.7 at Madison, and all drawbridges above that point, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.

[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD02 86-33, 51 FR 32318, Sept. 11, 1986]
primeglobal_8kex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


PGCG ASSETS HOLDINGS SDN BHD


No. 11-12, Jalan 26/70A, Desa Hartamas, 50480 Kuala Lumpur


 


 


Date:  22 June 2012


 


CMY Assets Sdn Bhd


79 Jalan Bangkung


Bukit Bandaraya


59100 Kuala Lumpur


 


Dear Sir


 


PROPERTY KNOWN AS GERAN 10010, LOT 238, SECTION 43, TOWN AND DISTRICT OF KUALA LUMPUR, W.P. KUALA LUMPUR


MENARA CMY, NO. 160 JALAN AMPANG, KUALA LUMPUR


FIFTEEN (15) STORY PURPOSE-BUILT OFFICE BUILDING WITH AN ANNEXED TWO STOREY PODIUM BLOCK AND A BASEMENT LEVEL CAR PARK












 




	
a)  Purchase Price

	
:

	
Ringglt Malaysia Eighty One Million and Five Hundred Thousand (RM81,500,000-00) Only


	
b)  Terms of Payment

	
:

	
i)

	
2% Earnest Deposit upon confirmation of Acceptance of the offer to purchase


	  	  	
ii)

	
8% of the Purchase Price to be paid upon signing of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, within thirty (30) days from the date of confirmation of Acceptance of the offer to purchase.


	  	  	  	  
	
See note below

	
:

	
ii)

	
The balance of 90% of the Purchase Price shall be paid within six (6) months (5+1) from the date of the Sale & Purchase Agreement.









 


This Option to purchase the above property is valid for a period of fourteen (14) days from the date hereof, i.e. expires at 5:00 pm on Thursday, 5th July 2012.


 


Upon confirmation of the offer, kindly provide the Legal Firm's contact to prepare the Sale & Purchase Agreement to proceed with the transaction.


 


Thank you.
FAA Home
Airports
Resources
Series 150 Advisory Circulars (ACs) for Airport Projects

# AC 150/5345-28F - Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems (Cancelled)

- ShareShare
- 

- Facebook					Share on Facebook
- Twitter					Tweet on Twitter

## Document Information

- Number
- 150/5345-28F
- Title
- Precision Approach Path Indicator   (PAPI) Systems
- Date cancelled
- 2011-09-29
- Cancellation notes
- AC 150/5345-28G
- Date issued
- 2005-04-12
- Office of Primary Responsibility
- AAS-100, Office of Airport Safety & Standards - Airport Engineering Division 
- Description
-  	Contains the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) systems, which provide pilots with visual glideslope guidance during approach for landing. 
- Content
-    -  150/5345-28F  (PDF) 
  -  150/5345-28F  (MS Word) 

## View All

      - Current Series 150 ACs
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs
      - Draft Series 150 ACs
      - Advisory Circulars

## Export All

      - Current Series 150 ACs  (CSV)
      - Cancelled Series 150 ACs  (CSV)

## Top Requests

      - AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design
      - AC 150/5320-6G, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation
      - AC 150/5370-10H, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports
      - AC 150/5340-1M, Standards for Airport Markings
      - AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids
      - AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design
Strafford

No. 7202

#### Anthony Alcorn & *a.*v. City of Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment

June 30, 1975

*McManus & Johnson (Mr. Anthoney McManus*orally) for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph P. Nadeau*and *WillaimB. Cullimore*for the defendant, filed no brief.

*384Per curiam.

In *Alcorn v. Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment,*114 N.H. 491, 322 A. 2d 608 (1974), which was an appeal from the denial of a variance, this court remanded the matter to the board of adjustment for a clarification of the grounds upon which the variance was denied so that the plaintiffs would not be denied their right of appeal. This decision was handed down on July 19, 1974. On July 22, 1974, by letter, counsel for the plaintiffs wrote counsel for the defendant seeking a resolution of the matter. After a period of inaction on the part of the board and at the suggestion of the board’s counsel, a request was made directly to the board on October 1, 1974, wherein counsel for the plaintiffs sought compliance with our order. To this date there has been no response from the board.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment in the superior court which was denied by *Mullavey,*J., who transferred plaintiffs’ exceptions.

In spite of repeated efforts on the part of the plaintiffs to obtain compliance with our remand, almost a year has elapsed and the board has not yet complied. Although two vacancies on the board were to be filled at the August 6, 1974 meeting of the city council, no reason appears why, before that time, the board could not have articulated its reasons for the denial of plaintiffs’ application. Nor does there appear to be any reason why the board could not have done so after the vacancies were filled. Counsel for the plaintiffs offered to make an additional presentation by letter of August 6, 1974, to the board with its new membership. The same offer was made by letter dated October 1, 1974. The record before us shows no response by the board to those offers. The inaction by the board strongly suggests that no reasons exist for the denial of the variance. Accordingly, unless within sixty days the board complies with the remand ordered in *Alcorn v. Rochester Zoning Board of Adjustment,*114 N.H. 491, 495, 322 A.2d 608, 610 (1974), the plaintiffs’ appeal is sustained.

*Remanded.*

*388Warren B. Rudman, attorney general, and Edward A. Haffer, assistant attorney general, filed memorandum of law.

Sheehan, Phinney, Bass *8c*Green, by James E. Higgins, filed memorandum of law.
Exhibit 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION





I, Matthew Heysel, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report of China Energy Ventures Corp.



2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.





|Date:  May 21, 2004 | By: | /s/ MATTHEW HEYSELName:   Matthew Heysel
Title:   Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Leonard Borow, Chief Operating Officer of Aeroflex Incorporated, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Aeroflex Incorporated;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

a)             Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)             Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | May 9, 2005         |   | /s/  Leonard Borow |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|   | Leonard  Borow           |
|   | Chief  Operating Officer |

 

----
#### § 794.2 Purpose of this part.

This part 794 constitutes the official interpretation of the Department of Labor with respect to the meaning and application of section 7(b)(3) of the Act. This section provides a limited partial exemption from the overtime provisions of section 7 of the Act (but not from the minimum wage, child labor, equal pay, or recordkeeping provisions) with respect to employees of an independently owned and controlled local enterprise engaged in the wholesale or bulk distribution of petroleum products, if the enterprise meets certain specified conditions. This exemption was added to the Act by the 1966 Amendments, which repealed a complete overtime exemption previously available for employees of such enterprises (section 13(b)(10) of the Act as amended in 1961). It is the purpose of this part to make available in one place the interpretations of the law governing this exemption which will guide the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator in the performance of their duties under the Act.
Carroll

No. 6584

#### State of New Hampshire v. Kenneth Craigue

May 30, 1975

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *James L. Kruse,*attorney *(Mr. Kruse*orally), for the State.

*William P. Shea,*by brief and orally, for the defendant.

*240Memorandum Opinion

Defendant was found guilty of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor in a jury-waived trial, and his exception to the court’s failure to dismiss for failure to prove a prima facie case was transferred by *Dunfey,*J.

The arresting officer who appeared on the scene within fifteen minutes of receiving a call found the defendant behind the wheel of a truck, the motor of which was running and from which came the odor of a burning clutch. The vehicle was alongside the traveled part of a public highway with its tires buried in sand. Tire skid marks led from one side of the road to the other directly to the position of the truck. The only other person at the scene was a local resident who was preparing to bring his own vehicle from nearby to assist in pulling the truck out.

This case is governed by *State v. Costello,*110 N.H. 182, 263 A.2d 671 (1970), and *State v. Allen,*114 N.H. 682, 327 A.2d 715 (1974). Not only could it be found that the defendant drove the truck on the public highway to the location where he was found, but the brief lapse of time that it took the officer to arrive would support a finding that defendant’s degree of intoxication had not materially changed.

*Exception overruled.*

Kenison, C.J., did not sit.