alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17080]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-828 (Final)]


Bulk Acetylsalicylic Acid (Aspirin) From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject 
investigation, the United States International Trade Commission 
determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is 
threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of bulk 
acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), provided for in subheadings 2918.22.10 
and 3003.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 
that have been found by the Department of Commerce to be sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The Commission further 
determines that it would not have found material injury but for the 
suspension of liquidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Sec. 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this investigation effective May 28, 
1999, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and the 
Department of Commerce by Rhodia, Inc., Cranbury, NJ. The final phase 
of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following 
notification of a preliminary determination by the Department of 
Commerce that imports of bulk aspirin from China were being sold at 
LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's investigation 
and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by 
posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the 
notice in the Federal Register of February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5659). The 
hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2000, and all persons 
who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by 
counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation 
to the Secretary of Commerce on June 30, 2000. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3314 (June 2000), 
entitled Bulk Acetylsalicylic Acid (Aspirin) from China: Investigation 
No. 731-TA-828 (Final).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 29, 2000.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-17080 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
{"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":"22-1249: APPLE INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Gj9GUehPfO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-22-1249-apple-inc-v-vidal-opinion-22-1249-opinion-3-13-2023_2093598\/\">22-1249: APPLE INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-22-1249-apple-inc-v-vidal-opinion-22-1249-opinion-3-13-2023_2093598\/embed\/#?secret=Gj9GUehPfO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1249: APPLE INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"Gj9GUehPfO\" 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: APPLE INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1249 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 22.721 Geographic area authorizations.

Eligible persons may apply for a paging geographic area authorization in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, on the channel pairs listed in § 22.725, by following the procedures and requirements set forth in § 22.503 for paging geographic area authorizations.

[62 FR 11636, Mar. 12, 1997]
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–27

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 438, THE

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT

OF 1999

FEBRUARY 23, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 76]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 76, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 438, the

‘‘Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999’’ under an

open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate divided

equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Commerce.

The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill

for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII (requiring a

three-day layover of the committee report). The Commerce Committee report was filed on Tuesday, February 23, and the bill will possibly be considered on the floor as early as Wednesday, February

24.

The rule makes in order the Committee on Commerce amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that each

section shall be considered as read.

The Chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional

Record. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote
2

follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
#### § 60-1.46 Delegation of authority by the Director.

The Director is authorized to redelegate the authority given to him by the regulations in this part. The authority redelegated by the Director pursuant to the regulations in this part shall be exercised under his general direction and control.

[43 FR 49240, Oct. 20, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 66971, Dec. 22, 1997]
{"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":"18-1790: SPITZ TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. NOBEL BIOCARE USA, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NoLsbJ5PCf\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-1790-spitz-technologies-corporation-v-nobel-biocare-usa-llc-rule-36-judgment-18-1790-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/\">18-1790: SPITZ TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. NOBEL BIOCARE USA, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-1790-spitz-technologies-corporation-v-nobel-biocare-usa-llc-rule-36-judgment-18-1790-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/embed\/#?secret=NoLsbJ5PCf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1790: SPITZ TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. NOBEL BIOCARE USA, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"NoLsbJ5PCf\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: SPITZ TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION v. NOBEL BIOCARE USA, LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1790 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
### Record of Contact with Outside Party to discuss issues related to the Informal Rulemaking **Agency Keeping Rulemaking Docket:** Bureau of International Labor Affairs/ Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor and Human Trafficking ( ILAB/OCFT), US Department of La bor **Title of Rule:** Notice of Initial Determination Updating the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced/Indentured Child Labor Pursuant to Executive Order 13126 **Stage of Rulemaking:** ILAB preparing Final Determination
**P arty(ies)/Title(s)**  **/Organization(s) Present or Represented:** Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) of India Delegation: (1) Vorguanti Srinivas (2) Arumugam Sakthivel (3) Jasha Prakash Dutt (4) Seetharaman Sampath (5) Vinary Mohan Kwatra (6) Boddu Bala Bhaskar Non

- DOL USG Partic ipants: (1) Tim Wedding, USTR (2) Daniel Adeney, USTR (3) Amy McGann, DOS (4) Sarah Brooks, DOS (5) Kim Natoli, DOS (6) Theresa Sullivan, ICE/DHS (7) Tara Matthews, ICE/DHS **Date of Discussion:**  February 15, 2012 **Nature of Discussion:** Meeting **Description of factual materials or info rmation presented:**  AEPC provided a powerpoint presentation on recent efforts in India to combat labor exploitation, including child labor, with particular emphasis on the garment and zari industries. The delegation spoke extensively about AEPC’s DISHA (Driving Industry Towards Sustainable Human Capital Advancement) program to make Indian apparel manufacturers more social ly and environmental ly responsible

. The delegation also shared recent child labor monitoring statistics with USDOL. With regard to the List of Good s Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor mandated by Executive Order 13126 (EO List ) , the delegation stated that the List creates a Non

- tariff barrier inconsistent with Article XI of GATT and that the exemption of GPA and NAFTA countries from the EO is inconsistent with Art I of GATT. AEPC stated that the List is not applied in a uniform and impartial manner, which is inconsistent with Article X of GATT. Further, the delegation expressed its desire for garments and zari from India to be re moved from the List based on the evidence provided on efforts to combat the problem as well as recent inspection data.The AEPC delegation provided several materials during the meeting, including copies of their

powerpoint presentation, a booklet a bout the DISHA project, and a booklet entitle d “G uidance for migrant women workers in hostel and the recruitment process

spinning/garmenting factories” by the Tirupur Stakeholders Forum

. **Department of Labor Representative Participating:** (1) Marcia Eugenio, Director, OCFT (2) Sharon Heller, OCFT (3) Rachel Rigby, OCFT (4) Angela Peltzer, OCFT (5) Elizabeth Wolkomir, OCFT (6) Heather Filemyr, SOL
#### § 105-54.200 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes the policy and procedures for establishing advisory committees within GSA.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.915 General application requirements. ( a ) *General requirement.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for all Wireless Radio Services, station licenses, as defined in section 308(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, operator licenses, modifications or renewals of licenses, assignments or transfers of control of station licenses or any rights thereunder, and waiver requests associated with any of the foregoing shall be granted only upon an application filed pursuant to §§ 1.913 through 1.917 of this part.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Exception for emergency filings.* The Commission may grant station licenses, or modifications or renewals thereof, without the filing of a formal application in the following cases: ( i ) an emergency found by the Commission to involve danger to life or property or to be due to damage to equipment;
( ii ) a national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by the Congress and during the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged, when such action is necessary for the national defense or security or otherwise in furtherance of the war effort; or
( iii ) an emergency where the Commission finds that it would not be feasible to secure renewal applications from existing licensees or otherwise to follow normal licensing procedures.
( 2 ) No such authorization shall be granted for or continue in effect beyond the period of the emergency or war requiring it. The procedures to be followed for emergency requests submitted under this subparagraph are the same as for seeking special temporary authority under § 1.931 of this part. After the end of the period of emergency, the party must submit its request by filing the appropriate FCC form in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
[63 FR 68923, Dec. 14, 1998]
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Andrew M. OShea, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Moscow CableCom Corp., certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Moscow CableCom Corp. (the Registrant);

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:

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 Registrant, including its consolidated 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 Registrant'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 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 the Registrant's board of directors:

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:  November 14, 2005



/s/     Andrew M. OShea

Andrew M. OShea

Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The Southeastern States Regulatory Fairness Board will hold a public hearing on August 1, 2000, at 9 a.m. located at Tougaloo College, Health and Wellness Center, 500 W. County Line Road, Tougaloo, Mississippi to receive comments and testimony from small businesses and representatives of trade associations concerning federal regulatory enforcement or compliance actions taken by federal agencies. Transcripts of these proceedings will be posted on the Internet. These transcripts are subject only to limited review by the National Ombudsman. For further information, call Elestine Harvey (312) 353-1744. 

Bettie Baca,

Counselor to the Administrator/Public Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 00-16980 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1645]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act and the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in the action 
entitled United States v. Ambroid Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-
11377-JLT, was lodged on January 13, 2000, with the United States 
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The proposed consent 
decree resolves the claims of the United States against J. Frank 
Strauss and Robert M. Kuzara in a complaint filed against these 
parties, and several others, pursuant to Section 107 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607. In the complaint, which was filed on 
June 17, 1997, the United States sought the recovery of past 
unreimbursed response costs incurred by the United States in connection 
with a drum removal action performed at the Yankee Chemical Superfund 
Site, located at 600 West Water Street, in Taunton, Massachusetts (the 
``Site''). The settlement also resolves the claims of the United States 
against Bank Hapoalim, B.M., a third-party defendant in the action. 
Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Settling Defendants will 
reimburse the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund in the amount of 
$50,000. The United States has provided a covenant not to sue under 
Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9606 and 9607, as well 
as pursuant to Section 7003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 6973, with respect to the 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. Any comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to United States v. Amoroid Company, Inc., DOJ Ref. Number 90-11-
3-1747. Commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in 
the affected area, in accordance with Section 7003(d) of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6973(d).
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at EPA Region 1, 
located at One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114 (contact 
Peter DeCambre, 617-918-1890). A copy of the proposed consent decree 
may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree 
Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy, 
please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount 
of $7.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs).

Joel M. Gross,
Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-1645 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M