alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 3.65-15 Sector Columbia River Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone.

Sector Columbia River's office is located in Portland, OR. The boundaries of Sector Columbia River's Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones start at the Washington coast at latitude 47°32′00′′ N, longitude 124°21′15′′ W, proceeding along this latitude east to latitude 47°32′00′′ N, longitude 123°18′00′′ W; thence south to latitude 46°55′00′′ N, longitude 123°18′00′′ W; thence east along this latitude to the eastern Idaho state line; thence southeast along the Idaho state line to the intersection of the Idaho-Wyoming boundary; thence south along the Idaho-Wyoming boundary to the intersection of the Idaho-Utah-Wyoming boundaries; thence west along the southern border of Idaho to Oregon and then west along the southern border of Oregon to the coast at latitude 41°59′54′′ N, longitude 124°12′42′′ W; thence west along the southern boundary of the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, which is described in § 3.65-10, to the outermost extent of the EEZ at latitude 41°38′35′′ N, 128°51′26′′ W; thence north along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 47°32′00′′ N; thence east to the point of origin.

[USCG-2023-0223, 88 FR 30899, May 15, 2023]
Submitted on petitioner’s petition for reconsideration filed March 30,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (111 Or App 661, 825 P2d 663) withdrawn; affirmed September 9,

petition for review denied November 24, 1992 (314 Or 727)

#### BENJAMIN JOSEPH KATO, *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE, *Respondent.*

(CA A67031)

836 P2d 1376

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, for petition.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*176PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of our decision dismissing his petition for review of an order of the Board of Parole. 111 Or App 661, 825 P2d 663 (1992). We allow reconsideration under ORAP 9.15, withdraw the opinion and address the original petition for review. *See Owens v. Board of Parole,*113 Or App 507, 834 P2d 547 (1992).

We conclude that petitioner’s claims of error do not merit discussion.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion withdrawn; affirmed.
~DEIND 

------· 

August 28, 2014 

B-H210-14-0045 1 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street SW 

Nas if Building, Room PL-401 

Wa hington, DC 20590 

Attention: Airworthines Rules Docket No. FAA-2014-0432 

Tile Boeirl<:J Cornpcmy 

PO. Box r;707 

Se<Jttle WA 9812-l ".:~·7 

Subject: Comments, IAR Docket No. F AA-2014-0432 (Driectorate Identifier 

2014-NM-099-AD): ST A 2598 Bulkhead Hinge Support Frame 

Crack, Airplane Model 747 

Boeing has reviewed the subject NPRM and concur with the content of the propo ed rule. 

Therefore, no additional comment will be forthcoming. 

Very truly yours, 

K. R. Guiley 

Manager, Continued Airworthine 

Twin Ai le Programs 

B-H2 10, M/C OA-19, (425) 266-5697 

FAX: (425) 342-1058 

MDM
It 

Hardesty 

PCP.4.3t 

Parraguirre 

Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner 

has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief 

is warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; see 

also NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring a petitioner to attach an appendix to his or 

her petition including a copy of any part of the record before the 

respondent or any original document necessary for this court to 

understand the matters set forth in the petition). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

cc: Randall George Angel 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
EXHIBIT
31.1                                           Certifications







I, Thomas
Kidrin, Chief Executive Officer of Worlds.com Inc. certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Worlds.com Inc. (the
"Company");





2. Based
on my knowledge, the 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 Company as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;





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





a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Company, including its consolidates subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared;





b) Evaluated
the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures, and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal period that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's
internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of
Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls which  are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data;
and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Company's internal controls.





Date:
August 8, 2008





/s/ Thomas
Kidrin


Thomas
Kidrin
### Product • Produkt • Produit • Prodotto **DX6 DX7s**  **DX8 DX9**  **DX18G2 DX10t**  **DX18/DX18t** 

### STi **TM1000 TM1100** 

High Current Sensor (SPMA9590) p p p p p p p p 

### r Variometer Sensor (SPMA9589) p 

### r p* p p p p p 

### r GPS Sensor (SPMA9587) p 

### r r p p p p p 

### r 40G 3-Axis G-Force Sensor (SPMA9586) p p p p p p p p 

### r 8G 3-Axis G-Force Sensor (SPMA9585) p p p p p p p p 

### r JetCat Sensor (SPMA9584) r r r p p p p p 

### r Altimeter (SPMA9575) p p p p p p p p 

### r Airspeed Indicator (SPMA9574) p p p p p p p p 

### r Temperature Sensor (SPMA9571) p p p p p p p p p 

### Volt Pack Sensor (SPMA9570) p p p p p p p p p 

### RPM Sensor and Bracket (SPMA9569) p p p p p p p p p 

### Brushless RPM Sensor (SPMA9558) p p p p p p p p p 

### Deans Volt Sensor (SPMA9557) p p p p p p p p p 

### EC3 Volt Sensor (SPMA9556) p p p p p p p p p 

### JST Volt Sensor (SPMA9555) p p p p p p p p p 

### Z Connector Volt Sensor (SPMA9554) p p p p p p p p p 

### PowerBox 12K DSMX Combo (PBS4850) r r p p p p p p 

### r 

## Telemetry Compatibility • Telemetrie Kompatibilität Compatibilité Télémétrique • Compatibilità Sensor/Trasmettitore

©2014 Horizon Hobby, LLC The Spektrum trademark is used with permission of Bachmann Industries, Inc. 37924.1 09/2014 p

### = Compatible •

### Kompatibel •

### Compatible •

### Compatibile

r = Incompatible•

### Unvereinbar •

### Incompatible •

### Incompatibile *Compatible with DX8 as Altimeter only
#### § 780.709 Size and equipment of a country elevator.

Typically, the establishments commonly recognized as country elevators are small. Most of the establishments intended to come within the exemption have only one or two employees (107 Cong. Rec. (daily ed.) p. 5883), although some country elevators have a larger number. (See *Holt* v. *Barnesville Elevator Co.,* 145 F. 2d 250.) Establishments with more than five employees are not within the exemption. (See § 780.712.) The storage capacity of a country elevator may be as small as 6,000 bushels (see *Tobin* v. *Flour Mills,* 185 F. 2d 596) and will generally range from 15,000 to 50,000 bushels. As indicated in § 780.708, country elevators are equipped to receive grain in wagons or trucks from farmers and to load it in railroad boxcars. The facilities typically include scales for weighing the farm vehicles loaded with grain, grain bins, cleaning and mixing machinery, driers for prestorage drying of grain and endless conveyor belts or chain scoops to carry grain from the ground to the top of the elevator. The facilities for receiving grain in truckloads or wagonloads from farmers and the limited storage capacity, together with location of the elevator in or near the grain-producing area, serve to distinguish country elevators from terminal or subterminal elevators, to which the exemption is not applicable. The latter are located at terminal or interior market points, receive grain in carload lots, and receive the bulk of their grain from country elevators. Although some may receive grain from farms in the immediate areas, they are not typically equipped to receive grain except by rail. (See *Tobin* v. *Flour Mills,* supra; *Mitchell* v. *Sampson Const. Co.* (D. Kan.) 14 WH Cases 269.) It is the facilities of a country elevator for the elevation of bulk grain and the discharge of such grain into rail cars that make it an “elevator” and distinguish it from warehouses that perform similar functions in the flat warehousing, storage, and marketing for farmers of grain in sacks. Such warehouses are not “elevators” and therefore do not come within the section 13(b)(14) exemption.
6/30/2023

American Rescue Plan (ARP) for Adult Protective Services under SSA Title XX Section 2042(b)

APS Issued in FY21 APS Issued in FY22

APS Supplement 

Issued in FY23 Total

Alabama 1,253,632 $2,382,193 $51,162 $3,686,987

Alaska 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Arizona 1,865,376 $3,616,372 $77,668 $5,559,416

Arkansas 761,967 $1,443,035 $30,992 $2,235,994

California 8,687,314 $16,437,221 $353,011 $25,477,546

Colorado 1,274,252 $2,439,994 $52,403 $3,766,649

Connecticut 937,381 $1,776,855 $38,160 $2,752,396

Delaware 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Dist. of Columbia 129,080 $244,720 $5,256 $379,056

Florida 6,321,959 $12,087,354 $259,597 $18,668,910

Georgia 2,283,242 $4,377,839 $94,021 $6,755,102

Hawaii 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Idaho 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Illinois 3,047,328 $5,750,992 $123,512 $8,921,832

Indiana 1,618,610 $3,070,139 $65,936 $4,754,685

Iowa 811,164 $1,535,026 $32,967 $2,379,157

Kansas 704,707 $1,334,740 $28,666 $2,068,113

Kentucky 1,115,193 $2,112,929 $45,379 $3,273,501

Louisiana 1,110,372 $2,109,473 $45,305 $3,265,150

Maine 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Maryland 1,440,997 $2,740,164 $58,850 $4,240,011

Massachusetts 1,735,714 $3,289,234 $70,642 $5,095,590

Michigan 2,629,735 $4,977,667 $106,904 $7,714,306

Minnesota 1,376,357 $2,622,975 $56,333 $4,055,665

Mississippi 722,828 $1,369,378 $29,410 $2,121,616

Missouri 1,569,549 $2,979,772 $63,996 $4,613,317

Montana 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Nebraska 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Nevada 729,486 $1,409,017 $30,261 $2,168,764

New Hampshire 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

New Jersey 2,201,359 $4,168,871 $89,534 $6,459,764

New Mexico 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

New York 4,864,372 $9,195,346 $197,486 $14,257,204

North Carolina 2,579,576 $4,937,892 $106,050 $7,623,518

North Dakota 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Ohio 3,042,896 $5,750,910 $123,511 $8,917,317

Oklahoma 937,536 $1,780,936 $38,249 $2,756,721

Oregon 1,111,411 $2,107,701 $45,266 $3,264,378

Pennsylvania 3,520,052 $6,646,693 $142,749 $10,309,494

Rhode Island 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

South Carolina 1,366,031 $2,627,163 $56,423 $4,049,617
6/30/2023

South Dakota 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Tennessee 1,688,868 $3,221,883 $69,195 $4,979,946

Texas 5,659,858 $10,846,822 $232,954 $16,739,634

Utah 0 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,253,704

Vermont 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Virginia 2,021,926 $3,850,700 $82,701 $5,955,327

Washington 1,799,233 $3,421,084 $73,474 $5,293,791

West Virginia 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

Wisconsin 1,517,845 $2,888,644 $62,039 $4,468,528

Wyoming 645,450 $1,227,345 $26,359 $1,899,154

American Samoa 86,060 $163,646 $3,515 $253,221

Guam 86,060 $163,646 $3,515 $253,221

Northern Marianas 86,060 $163,646 $3,515 $253,221

Puerto Rico 951,354 $1,802,162 $38,704 $2,792,220

Virgin Islands 86,060 $163,646 $3,515 $253,221

TOTAL $85,414,550 $163,646,000 $3,514,570 $252,575,120
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.555 Safety Zone; Delaware River. ( a ) *Definition.* As used in this section, Captain of the Port means the Commander of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The Captain of the Port may be contacted by telephone at (215) 271-4807 or via VHF marine band radio, channel 16.
( b ) *Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters located within a 150-yard radius around the dredging operation and barge, conducting dredging operations in or near the Marcus Hook Range in the vicinity of Anchorage 7.
( c ) *Enforcement.* This safety zone will be enforced annually beginning on September 1 through December 31.
( d ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.
( 2 ) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this safety zone or watch officers aboard the Dredge and Barge can be contacted on VHF marine band radio, channel 16. The Captain of the Port may be contacted by telephone at (215) 271-4807 or via VHF marine band radio, channel 16.
[CGD05-04-035, 70 FR 40887, July 15, 2005]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Kansas timber industry, anassessment of timber product output and use**
 
1993 | 1998 | 2003 | 2009
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.80/15:
Item Number:0083-B-24 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000653891
 
December 12, 2019
May 15,2015 Secretary Anthony Foxx U.S Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue , SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0082
Dear Secretary Foxx , 8949 S 83rd Court Hickory Hills, IL 60457

My company has been providing limousine services for 20 years in the Chicago area, and I get a lot ofmy business from travelers arriving at O'Hare International. Ifforeign airlines are kept from flying into our airports, competition 

### will be eliminated. Travelers will see prices go up while quality goes down. This would not be good for companies like mine that serve an international clientele, which is why you should maintain Open Skies. Big airlines like United, American , and Delta want the government to limit where foreign carriers can fly, because they are losing business to them. This is not the answer, because there should always be a free market. Ifa few companies gain a monopoly, they will have too much control over setting prices, and prices will increase. This is already evident--airfares are over one-third less on flights under Open Skies because ofthe competition.
I'm Middle Eastern, and I mostly fly Middle Eastern airlines, primarily Royal Jordanian. Most travelers out of O'Hare who fly to the Middle East prefer Emirates or Qatar. This is because their airfares are up to $400 cheaper, and they also provide better service. It would be bad for travelers and bad for business if everyone has to fly one ofthree airlines, because there would be limited choices. Please, leave Open Skies as is and let there be competition among airlines on airfares and services. Sincerely,

FreddeAyed President



# s 10
- 150520-026FreddeAyed President Freddy's Limou sine & Cars Inc. 8949 S 83rd Court Hickory Hills, IL 60457



### 510-150520-026 The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretar y of Transportation United Stales Department ofTransportation A'n'N: Docket Center Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0082 1200 New Jersey Avenu e , SE Washington , DC 20590


## IllJll jil111/' i11,11' I

## !Ill'ill• p,llll'l'll

### j'I IIi j11,1111) l) 11,

### Jl
August26,2014TheHonorableAnthonyR.FoxxSecretaryDepartmentofTransportation1200NewJerseyAvenueSEWashington,DC20590RE:NorwegianAirInternational-DocketNo.OST-2013-0204DearSecretaryFoxx:AspilotsworkingforNorwegianAirInternationalanditsaffiliates,wearewritinginsupportofNorwegianAirInternational's(NAI)exemptionandforeignaircarrierpermitapplicationscurrentlypendingbeforetheU.S.DepartmentofTransportation.WeurgetheDepartmenttograntNAI'sapplicationswithoutfurtherdelaytoallowustobringthisexcitingnewservicetoU.S.markets.AspilotsforNorwegian,wecanassureyouthattheallegationsmadebypilotsunionsandotherscallingintoquestionNorwegian'slaborpracticesandsafetyrecordshavenobasisinfactorreality.First,oursalariesarecompetitivewithourpeersaroundtheglobe.Asyouknow,operatinga787Dreamlinerrequiresthousandsofhoursofpilotexperience,andourexperienceisverymuchindemandaroundtheworld.Thiscompetitiveadvantageforpilotsredoundsnomatterwherewearebased.Indeed,pilotsbasedinAsiaandEuropewithourlevelsofexperience,oftenmakefarmorethantheirunionizedpilotsintheU.S.Second,ourworkingconditionsaregood.Wehavetheflexibilitytoflyschedulesconvenienttous.Weenjoycompetitiveworkingconditionswhereverwearebased,whicharesubjecttolocalemploymentlawsandlaborstandards.Indeed,intheU.S.ourpilotshavetherighttounionizejustlikepilotsinotherbasesacrosstheworld,subjecttolocalandcountrylawsineffect.Third,wearefullylicensedandqualifiedpilots.NAI'spilotsaresubjecttotheoversightandlicensingrequirementsofIreland-oneofthemostrobustaviationsafetyoversightorganizationsintheworld.ThecompanyfullycomplieswithEuropeansafetystandards(EASA)andallitscrewsaretrainedaccordingtoEUstandardsandthecompany'sownadditionaltrainingprograms.Wehavewell-trainedandexperiencedpilotsonlong-haulwithseveralthousandflighthoursfrommajorairlinesallovertheworld.Fourth,tosuggestthatanyofuswouldcompromisesafetysimplybecauseofouremploymentarrangementsandriskourlivesorthoseofourpassengers,orriskourlicensesoffendsuspersonallyandprofessionally.NottomentionthattosuggestalesserlevelofsafetybasedonourparticularemploymentarrangementwouldflyinthefaceofestablishnormsundertheChicagoConventionandtheU.S-EUOpenSkiesAgreement.Thiscriticismdoesnotonlyhitthecompany,butalsoallofus,whoeverydayhaveourpassengers'andco-workers'safetyasourmainpriority.We,pilotshiredbyNorwegian,wouldstronglyurgeDOTtorenouncethemisleadinginformationaboutouroperationsandthefalseclaimsaboutoursafetystandards.We

are among

a growing

cadre

of pilots (including Americans)

working

for Norwegian

and

are anxiously awaiting

the launch

of NAI's transatlantic

service.

Our work environment

is positive, cooperative

and energetic.

We appreciate

the opportunity

to work

in the state-of-the-art

Boeing

787 aircraft

with

its many outstanding

features,

making

the overall

flying experience

extremely

pleasant

for both customers and crew

. We

urge

the

U.S

. Department

of Transportation

to swiftly approve

NAI's exemption

and foreign

air carrier

permit applications

.

Let

us continue

to fly-

in accordance

with

the Open

Sk

i es regime

. Sincerely, Ulrik

Pridal

RCA 16118

NAI
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

A TLA N TA
,_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The C o u rt o f Appea ls h ereb

y p a s s es the fo llo wi

n g order:

A2 4 A1 50 2 . EDW ARD SMART v . LI NDA J AN ARNOLD et a l.

I n this civ il ac tio n, Ed w ard Smart, p ro c eed ing p ro se, f iled a co mp laint against

mu ltip le d ef

e nd a nts. Thereaf

ter, o n M arc h 29 , 2023, the trial c o u r t entered an o rd er

d ismissing Smart’ s c o mp laint. Smart f iled a mo tio n f

o r r e c o nsid eratio n, w hic h the

trial c ou rt d enied o n M ay 23, 2023. On M ay 27 , 2023, Smart f iled a no tic e o f ap p eal.

W e, ho w ev er, lac k j u r isd ic tio n bec au se the ap p eal is u ntimely.

A no tic e o f ap p eal mu st be f iled w ithin 30 d ays o f entry of a n ap p ealable o rd er.

OCGA § 5- 6

- 38 ( a). The d enial o f a mo tio n f or rec onsid eratio n is no t ap pealable in its

o w n right, see Bell v

. C

o hra n , 244 Ga. A pp

. 51 0, 51 1 (536 SE2d 1 87 ) (2000), and the

f iling o f su c h a mo tio n d o es no t extend the time f o r f iling a no tic e o f ap p e a l

. See

C heeley- To wn s v

. Ra

pi d Gro u p , 21 2 Ga. A p p

. 1 83, 1 83 (1 ) (441 SE2d 452) (1 9 9 4). The

p ro p e r and timely f

iling o f a no tic e o f ap p eal is an abso lu te r equ irement to c o nf er j u risd ic tio n u p o n a n ap p ellate c o u rt. See C o u ch v

. Un i ted Pa

perwo rkers I

n tl. Un i o n , 224

Ga. Ap p. 7 21 , 721 (482 SE2d 7 04) (1 9 9 7 )

. H e re, Smart f iled his no tic e o f ap p eal 59

d ays af ter the trial c o u rt’ s o r d er d ismissing the ac t io n, and his su b sequ e nt requ est f o r

rec o nsid e ratio n o f

that ru ling d id no t extend the time f o r f iling an ap p eal. May 29, 2024A c c o rd ingly, this ap p eal is hereby D I SM I SSED as u ntimely.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e

x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.
W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t
h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 05/29/2024
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13897]


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

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE


Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will meet 
Monday, June 19, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Tuesday, June 
20, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., in room 7C13 of the General 
Accounting Office building, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will hold a 
meeting to discuss issues that may impact government auditing 
standards. Any interested person may attend the meeting as an observer. 
Council discussions and reviews are open to the public.
    For further information contact: Marcia Buchanan, Assistant 
Director, Government Auditing Standards, AIMD, 202-512-9321.

Marcia B. Buchanan,
Assistant Director.
[FR Doc. 00-13897 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-M