alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37578-37579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses; 
Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Research Advisory 
Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will meet on July 18-19, 
2007. On July 18 the meeting will be held in the Simmons Biomedical 
Research Bldg (NIB), Room 11.120, University of Texas Southwestern 
School of Medicine, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard., Dallas, Texas. The 
session will convene at 8 a.m. and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. On July 19 the 
meeting will be held at Hilton Anatole, 2201 Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, 
Texas.

[[Page 37579]]

The session will convene at 8 a.m. and adjourn at 2 p.m. All Sessions 
will be open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed 
research studies, research plans and research strategies relating to 
the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia 
theater of operations during the Gulf War.
    The Committee will review VA program activities related to Gulf War 
veterans' illnesses and updates on relevant scientific research 
published since the last Committee meeting. Additionally, there will be 
presentations and discussion of the Gulf War Illnesses Research Program 
at the University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, chronic 
multisymptom illnesses, mechanisms potentially underlying chronic 
symptoms affecting Gulf War veterans, and discussion of Committee 
business and activities.
    The meeting will include time reserved for public comments. A sign-
up sheet for five-minute comments will be available at the meeting. 
Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their 
comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official 
meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written 
statements for the Committee's review to Dr. Lea Steele, RAC-Gulf War 
Veterans' Illnesses (T-GW), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2200 
SW. Gage Boulevard., Topeka, KS 66622.
    Any member of the public seeking additional information should 
contact Dr. William Goldberg, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 254-
0294, or Dr. Steele, Scientific Director, at (785) 350-3111, ext. 
54617.

    Dated: June 28, 2007.

    By direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-3323 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
§ 176.907 Polymeric Beads and Plastic Molding Compounds. ( a ) When transported in cargo transport units, the cargo transport units must provide an adequate exchange of air in the unit. This adequate exchange of air may be accomplished by utilizing a ventilated container, an open-top container, or a container in one door off operation. When cargo transport units with venting devices are used these devices should be kept clear and operable. If mechanical devices are used for ventilation, they must be explosion-proof.
( b ) As an alternative to the options presented in paragraph (a) of this section to ensure an adequate exchange of air; a refrigerated cargo transport unit may be used.
( c ) The requirements in paragraph (a) and (b) of this section do not apply if the hazardous material is: ( 1 ) Packed in hermetically sealed packagings or IBC's which conform to packing group II performance level for liquid dangerous goods with a total pressure in the packaging (i.e., the vapor pressure of the material plus the partial pressure of air or other inert gases, less 100kPa (15 psia)) at 55 °C (131 °F), determined on the basis of the hazardous material not completely filling the receptacle at a temperature of 55 °C (131 °C) or less at a filling temperature of 15 °C (59 °F), will not exceed two-thirds of the marked test pressure.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( d ) Cargo transport units must be marked with a warning mark including the words “CAUTION—MAY CONTAIN FLAMMABLE VAPOR” or “CAUTION—MAY CONTAIN FLAMMABLE VAPOUR” with lettering having a height of at least 25 mm (1 inch). The mark must be affixed to each access point in a location where it will be easily seen by persons prior to opening or entering the cargo transport unit and must remain on the cargo transport unit until the following provisions are met: ( 1 ) The cargo transport unit has been completely ventilated to remove any hazardous concentrations of vapor or gas;
( 2 ) The immediate vicinity of the cargo transport unit is clear of any source of ignition; and
( 3 ) The hazardous materials have been unloaded.
[78 FR 1096, Jan. 7, 2013]
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General *v.*The Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION • (800) 638-2772 • www.cpsc.gov • www.SaferProducts.gov

CPSC recommends three safety steps to prevent unintentional poisonings 

and eye injuries related to single-load laundry packets: 

1. Do NOT let children handle laundry packets. 

2. Keep the liquid laundry packets sealed in their original packaging, 

and make sure they are locked up and out of a child’s sight and 

reach. 

3. If swallowed or exposed to the eye, immediately call Poison Help at 

1-800-222-1222.

 Single-Load Liquid Laundry 

Packets: Harmful to Children

Do NOT Let Children Handle; Keep Locked Up & Out of a Child’s Sight & Reach 

Children who are exposed to the chemicals in single-load liquid laundry packets 

are at risk of serious injury. Some of the chemicals in these laundry packets are 

toxic. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is advising parents 

and caregivers to lock up these laundry packets and keep them away from children. 

Liquid laundry packets are attractive to children as play items because they are soft 

and colorful and they resemble familiar items like candy, toys and teething 

products. In 2012 alone, CPSC staff has learned of about 500 incidents involving 

children and adults who were injured by the product. Children have required 

hospitalization from ingesting the product due to loss of consciousness, excessive 

vomiting, drowsiness, throat swelling, and difficulty breathing (requiring 

intubation). Eye contact with detergent from ruptured packets has also resulted in 

medical treatment for severe irritation and temporary vision loss due to ocular 

burns. 

Because these packets dissolve quickly and release highly concentrated toxic 

chemicals when contacted with water, wet hands, or saliva, consumers are strongly 

urged to always handle laundry packets carefully and with dry hands. 

Publication 390 112012
#### William R. Breed and another, *Executors, etc., Appellants, v.*John Padgett and *others, Respondents*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Boardman, J., dissenting.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, June 16, 1995 (81), Para 81.13 Adjournment Over]
[Page 1012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.81.13  adjournment over

  On motion of Mr. ARMEY, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12 
o'clock noon on Monday, June 19, 1995.
```
98-2102.

#### Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Huntington Natl. Bank.

Delaware App. No. 97CA006836. (Appeal of Huntington National Bank and cross-appeal of Chicago Title Company.)

Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
EXHIBIT
32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Robert Y. Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of Hydromer, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the six months ended December 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents
in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hydromer, Inc.









|Date: February
     15, 2013 | Hydromer                                                                
|---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                             | By: /s/ Robert Y. Lee                                                   
|                             | Robert Y. LeePrincipal Accounting officer
     & Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Wilfred J. Corrigan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of LSI Logic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of LSI Logic Corporation.



                                     By: /s/ WILFRED J. CORRIGAN
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                     Name: Wilfred J. Corrigan
                                     Title:   Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 10.5**

BSB Bancorp, Inc.

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8.03(d)

OF

1996 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE AND CAPITAL ACCUMULATIONPLAN

RESOLVED, that with respect to all options previously granted to any individual and to all options granted in the future to any individual, the period in which options may be exercised shallbe that period established as the permissible time period for directors, Section 16 Officers and key employees of the Company or its subsidiaries to trade in the Company’s securities under the Company’s Insider Trading Policy for federalsecurities law, unless the Committee shall determine otherwise.

The amendment to Section 8.03(d) was duly adopted and approved by the Board of Directors of BSB Bancorp, Inc. by resolution at ameeting held on the 25th day of November 2002.

|   | /s/ LARRY G. DENNISTON                                               |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                      |   |
|   | **Larry G. Denniston Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary** |   |
#### LEVY MELHADO, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, *v.*THE POUGHKEEPSIE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellant.

*Action for negligently causing death*— when *the complaint is sufficient —when freedom from contributory negligence need not be alleged.*

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer interposed to the complaint in this action, brought under the statute, for causing the death of the plaintiif’s intestate by a wrongful act of the defendant. The defendant demurred on the ground- that the complaint did not state facts siifficient to constitute a cause of action. The allegations in substance are that the defendant is a corporation, and that while the *100deceased was a passenger on one of the boats of the company he came to his death by being drowned in the waters of the Hudson river; that his death was caused by the wrongful act, neglect and default of the defendant in refusing to stop the boat or render him any assistance whatever, though requested so to do.

The court at General Term said: *“*These words set down a cause of action against the defendant. The general rule of law with us certainly is that absence of negligence contributive to the misfortune must be shown by the plaintiff as an essential prerequisite to recovery; yet this rule is limited and qualified by an exception or rather another rule, that where the exercise of ordinary care on the part of the defendant would have avoided the misfortune, the negligence of the plaintiff will not excuse nor avail as a defense. *(Kenyon*v. *The Ralroad,*5 Hun, 479.)

*“*If this complaint fails to allege freedom from negligence on the part of the deceased, it yet does allege wrongful and willful neglect and default in refusing to stop the boat and save a human life. Culpable negligence resulting in death is a crime, and where life has been lost by the carelessness or negligence of another the law admits no justification. £ This rule applies not only where the death of one is caused by the negligent act of another, but where it is caused by the negligent omission of duty of that other.’

“ There was due from the defendant to the deceased passenger protection and safety so far as they could be secured by reasonable care and exertion; certainly this obligation did not cease at the supreme moment when his life was in peril.”

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

*Thompson, Weeks ds Town,*for the appellant.

*Wm. R. Wood-in,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Gilbert, J., concurred; Barnard, P. J., not sitting;

Order overruling demurrer affirmed, with costs.
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–147

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1654,

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

MAY 18, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 174]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 174, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 1654, the

‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act

of 1999,’’ under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general

debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Science.

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 rule makes in order

as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment

in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on

Science and now printed in the bill.

The rule provides that the committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall be considered as read. The rule waives points

of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for

failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI (prohibiting nongermane amendments).

The rule authorizes the Chair 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
2

vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The waiver of clause 4(a) of rule XIII is necessary because the

Committee on Science did not file the report in the House until

Tuesday, May 18, and the bill is expected to be considered on the

floor on May 19. The waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI is necessary

because section 219 of the committee amendment in the nature of

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and printed in the bill is a provision which falls into the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Æ
#### Hart Winn v. The State.

*No. 838.*

*Decided December 12.*

Impeachment of Witness—Charge as to.—Where evidence had been introduced to impeach a witness, and the court in the charge instructed the jury, that “the object of this class of evidence is not to prove what the witness says on the trial is untrue, but to show his unworthiness of belief; and it goes to you like all other evidence, to •be considered by you in arriving at a verdict.” *Held,*erroneous. Such evidence can serve but one purpose, that is, to disprove and falsify the testimony of the witness whose character has been impeached.

Appeal from the County Court of Shelby. Tried below before Hon. B. L. Parker, County Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the punishment assessed being a fine of $25.

Ho statement is necessary.

*Davis & Garrison,*for appellant.

*JR. L. JBJenry,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSOH, Judge.

This conviction was for carrying a pistol in violation of the statute.

*38The court charged the jury, that “a witness may be impeached by showing his general character for truth and veracity, or that he has made other and different statements out of court from those made on the trial. The object of this class of evidence is not to prove what the witness says on the trial is untrue, but to show his unworthiness of belief, and it goes to you like all other evidence, to be considered by you in arriving at a verdict.” An exception was duly reserved to this charge. Why is it proposed to show that the witness is unworthy of belief? What is the object of this character of testimony? It can serve but one purpose, that is, to disprove and falsify the testimony of the witness whose character has thus been impeached.

The remaining questions will not likely arise upon another trial.

If the case is not properly before the County Court, proper orders can be made in the District Court, and the cause then transferred to the County Court in accordance with the provisions of the statutes.

For the error in the charge, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

*jReversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
*Wednesday, December 16, 1998*

DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

98-2207.

#### In re Enforcement of Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Custodian of Records, Wallaby’s, Inc.

On October 21, 1998, movant, the Ohio State Bar Association, filed a motion requesting this court to order the Custodian of Records of Wallaby’s, Inc. to appeal’ before the court to show cause why that person and Wallaby’s, Inc. have failed to obey subpoenas *duces tecum*issued by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. On November 23, 1998, movant filed notice of action respondent has taken to purge itself of contempt. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the movant be awarded all costs and fees, including reasonable attorney fees, that the movant incurs in prosecuting this enforcement proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.
§ 178.518 Standards for woven plastic bags. ( a ) The following are identification codes for woven plastic bags: ( 1 ) 5H1 for an unlined or non-coated woven plastic bag;
( 2 ) 5H2 for a sift-proof woven plastic bag; and
( 3 ) 5H3 for a water-resistant woven plastic bag.
( b ) Construction requirements for woven plastic fabric bags are as follows: ( 1 ) Bags must be made from stretched tapes or monofilaments of a suitable plastic material. The strength of the material used and the construction of the bag must be appropriate to the capacity and intended use of the bag.
( 2 ) If the fabric is woven flat, the bags must be made by sewing or some other method ensuring closure of the bottom and one side. If the fabric is tubular, the bag must be closed by sewing, weaving, or some other equally strong method of closure.
( 3 ) Bags, sift-proof, 5H2 must be made sift-proof by appropriate means such as use of paper or a plastic film bonded to the inner surface of the bag or one or more separate inner liners made of paper or plastic material.
( 4 ) Bags, water-resistant, 5H3: To prevent the entry of moisture, the bag must be made waterproof by appropriate means, such as separate inner liners of water-resistant paper (e.g., waxed kraft paper, double-tarred kraft paper or plastic-coated kraft paper), or plastic film bonded to the inner or outer surface of the bag, or one or more inner plastic liners.
( 5 ) Maximum net mass: 50 kg (110 pounds).
[Amdt. 178-97, 55 FR 52717, Dec. 21, 1990, as amended by Amdt. 178-99, 58 FR 51534, Oct. 1, 1993]
From: caryn777@earthlink.net [mailto:caryn777@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:02 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Caryn Gottfried 

28 Miramonte Drive 

Moraga, CA 94556
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending March 1, 2014

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
98-2493.

#### Leybovich v. Grover.

Warren App. No. CA98-04-041. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and a claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.