alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16605]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 50.7, and in 
accordance with section 122(d)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9622(d)(2), 
notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States 
v. Browning-Ferris Industries Chemical Services, Inc., et al., 
(``Settling Defendants''), Civil Action No. 1:00 CV-386, was lodged on 
June 12, 2000, with the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Texas.
    In this action the United States and the State of Texas, pursuant 
to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607, 
sought natural resource damages, including assessment costs, related to 
releases of hazardous substances from the Bailey Waste Disposal Site 
(``Bailey Site''), located in Orange County, Bridge City, Texas. The 
Consent Decree provides that the Settling Defendants will pay the 
United States and the State of Texas $605,000.00 dollars for natural 
resource damages, including assessment costs, related to the release of 
hazardous substances from the Bailey Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
P.O. Box 7611, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 
20044-7611, and should refer to United States v. Browning-Ferris 
Industries Chemical Services, Inc., et al., DOJ Ref. #90-11-2-390/1.
    The proposed Consent Decree May be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, Eastern District of Texas, 350 Magnolia Street, 
Suite 150, Beaumont, Texas 77701; the Region VI Office of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A 
copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, United States Department of 
Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy please refer 
to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $9.75 (25 
cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.

Walker Smith,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16605 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
#### § 0.416 The Federal Communications Commission Record.

Texts adopted by the Commission or a member of its staff on delegated authority and released through the Office of Media Relations are published in the FCC Record. The FCC Record is published biweekly in pamphlet form. The pamphlets are available on a subscription basis from the Superintendent of Documents. Each biweekly pamphlet contains a table of contents and current index. A consolidated index is published on a periodic basis.

[64 FR 60722, Nov. 8, 1999]
Exhibit
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.
            The Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.























___________________________


Marliss D.
Johnson


Vice
President


Controller
and Treasurer


November 7,
2008
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-1714: In Re Lilleness - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TXx9FiHQm2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1714-in-re-lilleness-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1714: In Re Lilleness<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1714-in-re-lilleness-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=TXx9FiHQm2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1714: In Re Lilleness” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"TXx9FiHQm2\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: In Re Lilleness (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1714 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
#### FREDERICK L. BERRINGER, Respondent, *v.*LOUIS WENGENROTH, Appellant.

*Tender of assignment of judgment*— *necessary to maintenance of action to recover of notes on which it is the consideration.*

Appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury.

In this case the plaintiff sought to recover upon one of two notes, given by the defendant to George Fulling, the consideration for which was the assignment of a judgment held by him against William Wengenroth, the defendant’s brother. The first note was *532paid. The issue upon the trial was, whether the assignment of the judgment was to be made after the payment of the first note, or on the payment of both. It appeared, however, on the trial, that subsequent to the maturity of the note in suit, it was transferred to the plaintiff, and the judgment assigned to him also. There was no offer made by him to assign the judgment, at any time, and when, upon the close of the case, the judge was requested to charge that he could not recover without such an offer, the request was refused and exception taken to the ruling thus made. The consideration of both notes was the assignment; it was the whole consideration.

The court *held,*that if either party would sue upon this agreement, the plaintiff for not paying or the defendant for not transferring, the one must aver and prove a transfer or a tender, and the other a payment or a tender. (Per Holt, Ch. J., *Gallenovel*v. *Briggs,*1 Salk., 112 ; *Payne*v. *Lansing,*2 Wend., 525.)

*D. M. Porter,*for the appellant. *LLenry*Dailey, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1072: DURR v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MSOdrtCsBO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-22-1072-durr-v-mspb-opinion-22-1072-opinion-11-15-2022_2033520\/\">22-1072: DURR v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-22-1072-durr-v-mspb-opinion-22-1072-opinion-11-15-2022_2033520\/embed\/#?secret=MSOdrtCsBO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1072: DURR v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"MSOdrtCsBO\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: DURR v. MSPB [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1072 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-5032.

#### Pope *v.*Bernard et al.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### § 302-11.450 May we advance an employee funds for expenses incurred in connection with residence transactions?

No, you may not advance an employee funds for expenses incurred in connection with residence transactions.
5071 

5072 

5073 

5074 

5075 

5076 

5077 

5078 

5079 

5080 

5081 

5082 

5083 

5084 

5085 

5086 

5087 

5088 

5089 

5090 

5091 

5092 

5093 

5094 

5095 

5096 

5097 

5098 

5099 

5100 

5101 

5102 

5103 

5104 

5105 

5106 

5107 

5108 

5109 

5110 

5111 

5112 

5113 

5114 

5115 

5116 

5117 

5118 

5119 

5120 

5121 

5122 

5123 

5124 

5125 

5126 

5127 

5128 

5129 

5130 

5131 

5132 

5133 

5134 

5135 

5136 

5137 

5138 

5139 

5140 

5141 

5142 

5143 

5144 

5145 

5146 

5147 

5148 

5149 

5150 

5151 

5152 

5153 

5154 

5155 

5156 

5157 

5158 

5159 

5160 

5161 

5162 

5163 

5164 

5165 

5166 

5167 

5168 

5169 

5170 

5171 

5172 

5173 

5174 

5175 

5176 

5177 

5178 

5179 

5180 

5181 

5182 

5183 

5184 

5185 

5186 

5187 

5188 

5189 

5190 

5191 

5192 

5193 

5194 

5195 

5196 

5197 

5198 

5199 

5200 

5201 

5202 

5203 

5204 

5205 

5206 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:23:15-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Notice of Designation of Court Access Coordinators and Update to the Guide for Oral Argument - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vKsqiu9fdI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-designation-of-court-access-coordinators-and-update-to-the-guide-for-oral-argument\/\">Notice of Designation of Court Access Coordinators and Update to the Guide for Oral Argument<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-designation-of-court-access-coordinators-and-update-to-the-guide-for-oral-argument\/embed\/#?secret=vKsqiu9fdI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Designation of Court Access Coordinators and Update to the Guide for Oral Argument” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"vKsqiu9fdI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Clerk\u2019s Office has updated the Federal Circuit\u2019s Guide for Oral Argument, which can be found under\u00a0Argument Resources (pdf).\u00a0 The updated Guide includes minor procedural clarifications and designates new Access Coordinators, pursuant to\u00a0The Guide for Judiciary Policy, vol. 5 \u00a7 255.40 (pdf).\u00a0 The Access Coordinators are responsible for coordinating auxiliary aids and services to participants […]"}
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1409 Allocation of Unusable Space Costs. ( a ) With respect to the formula referenced in § 1.1406(d)(2), a utility shall apportion the cost of providing unusable space on a pole so that such apportionment equals two-thirds of the costs of providing unusable space that would be allocated to such entity under an equal apportionment of such costs among all attaching entities.
( b ) All attaching entities attached to the pole shall be counted for purposes of apportioning the cost of unusable space.
( c ) Utilities may use the following rebuttable presumptive averages when calculating the number of attaching entities with respect to the formula referenced in § 1.1406(d)(2). For non-urbanized service areas (under 50,000 population), a presumptive average number of attaching entities of three. For urbanized service areas (50,000 or higher population), a presumptive average number of attaching entities of five. If any part of the utility's service area within the state has a designation of urbanized (50,000 or higher population) by the Bureau of Census, United States Department of Commerce, then all of that service area shall be designated as urbanized for purposes of determining the presumptive average number of attaching entities.
( d ) A utility may establish its own presumptive average number of attaching entities for its urbanized and non-urbanized service area as follows: ( 1 ) Each utility shall, upon request, provide all attaching entities and all entities seeking access the methodology and information upon which the utilities presumptive average number of attachers is based.
( 2 ) Each utility is required to exercise good faith in establishing and updating its presumptive average number of attachers.
( 3 ) The presumptive average number of attachers may be challenged by an attaching entity by submitting information demonstrating why the utility's presumptive average is incorrect. The attaching entity should also submit what it believes should be the presumptive average and the methodology used. Where a complete inspection is impractical, a statistically sound survey may be submitted.
( 4 ) Upon successful challenge of the existing presumptive average number of attachers, the resulting data determined shall be used by the utility as the presumptive number of attachers within the rate formula.
[63 FR 12026, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 66 FR 34581, June 29, 2001. Redesignated and amended at 83 FR 44841, Sept. 4, 2018]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.56 Motions for summary denial of petitions for forbearance. ( a ) Opponents of a petition for forbearance may submit a motion for summary denial if it can be shown that the petition for forbearance, viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner, cannot meet the statutory criteria for forbearance.
( b ) A motion for summary denial may not be filed later than the due date for comments and oppositions announced in the public notice.
( c ) Oppositions to motions for summary denial may not be filed later than the due date for reply comments announced in the public notice.
( d ) No reply may be filed to an opposition to a motion for summary denial.
[74 FR 39227, Aug. 6, 2009]
§ 101.1005 Frequencies available. ( a ) The following frequencies are available for assignment to LMDS in two license blocks: Block A of 300 MHz 29,100-29,250 MHz 31,075-31,225 MHz Block B of 150 MHz 31,000-31,075 MHz 31,225-31,300 MHz
( b ) In Block A licenses, the frequencies are authorized as follows: ( 1 ) 29,100-29,250 MHz is shared on a co-primary basis with feeder links for non-geostationary orbit Mobile Satellite Service (NGSO/MSS) systems in the band and is limited to LMDS hub-to-subscriber transmissions, as provided in §§ 25.257 and 101.103(h) of this chapter.
( 2 ) 31,075-31,225 MHz is authorized on a primary protected basis and is shared with private microwave point-to-point systems licensed prior to March 11, 1997, as provided in § 101.103(b).
( c ) In Block B licenses, the frequencies are authorized as follows: ( 1 ) On a primary protected basis if LMDS shares the frequencies with systems licensed as Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS) licensed prior to March 11, 1997, as provided in § 101.103(b).
( 2 ) On a co-equal basis with systems not licensed as LTTS prior to March 11, 1997, as provided in § 101.103(g).
[62 FR 23168, Apr. 29, 1997, as amended at 81 FR 79945, Nov. 14, 2016]
----

----

| LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES |
|----------------------|
|                 |  Company Name | Jurisdictionof Incorporation  |
| 1.              | Lumenis Holdings Inc.  | Delaware |
| 2.              | Lumenis Inc.  | Massachusetts |
| 3.              | Lumenis (Mexico) SA de CV  | Mexico |
| 4.              | Lumenis do Brasil Produtos Medicos Ltda.  | Brazil |
| 5.              | Lumenis Holdings (Holland) BV  | Netherlands |
| 6.              | Lumenis (UK) Limited  | England and Wales |
| 7.              | Spectron Cosmetics Holdings Ltd.  | England and Wales |
| 8.              | Spectron Cosmetics Ltd.  | England and Wales |
| 9.              | Lumenis (Germany) GmbH  | Germany |
| 10.             | Lumenis (Austria) GmbH in Liquidation | Austria |
| 11.             | Lumenis (France) SARL  | France |
| 12.             | Lumenis (Italy) SRL  | Italy |
| 13.             | Lumenis (HK) Ltd.  | Hong Kong |
| 14.             | Lumenis (Asia Pacific) Ltd.  | Hong Kong |
| 15.             | Lumenis Japan Co. Ltd.  | Japan |
| 16.             | Wuhan Sharplan Chutian Medical Laser Manufacturing Ltd.  | China |
| 17.             | Ke Yi Ren Medical Laser Equipment Trading (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (also known as Lumenis Medical Laser Equipment Trading (Beijing) Co. Ltd.)  | China |
| 18.             | Lumenis India Private Ltd.  | India |

----

----
#### § 15.501 Scope.

This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed ultra-wideband transmission systems.
No. 11-5051.

#### Ricker *v.*Finander et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. ■ Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-5076.

#### McBurney *v.*Disciplinary Board of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied.
```

                                   EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated May 3, 2007 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of iDNA, Inc.
and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2007. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of iDNA, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 2-93984, effective October 1,
1987, File No. 33-51727, effective December 28, 1993, and File No. 33-58579,
effective May 31, 1995).

/s/ Grant Thornton, LLP
Cleveland, Ohio
May 3, 2007
```
§ 109-39.300 General. ( a ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) Motor equipment fleet managers shall ensure that operators and passengers in GSA Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS), agency-owned and agency commercially-leased motor vehicles are aware of the prohibition against the use of tobacco products in these vehicles.