alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{00767066}

AIPT 016

ALASKA IRONWORKERS PENSION PLAN

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER THE 

MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2014

LIST OF EXHIBITS AND APPENDICES

EXHIBIT 1 AIPT 017 Trustee’s Statements as to Penalties of Perjury and Public Disclosures

EXHIBIT 2 AIPT 018 – 090 Plan Actuary’s Certification of Plan’s Critical and Declining Status

EXHIBIT 3 AIPT 091 – 096 Plan Actuary’s Supplemental Information to Actuarial Certification

EXHIBIT 4 AIPT 097 – 113 Actuarial Certification of Plan Solvency of Proposed Benefit Suspension

EXHIBIT 5 AIPT 114 – 118 Wages and Fringe Benefit Contributions of Iron Workers Locals

EXHIBIT 6 AIPT 119 – 131 Demonstration that Limitations on Individual Suspensions are Satisfied

EXHIBIT 7 AIPT 132 – 135 Plan Provisions for Disability Benefits prior to November 1, 2010

EXHIBIT 8 AIPT 136 Demonstration of Distribution of Suspension of Benefits

EXHIBIT 9 AIPT 137 List of Contributing Employers

EXHIBIT 10 AIPT 138 – 156 Additional Information for Proposed Benefit Suspensions

EXHIBIT 11 AIPT 157 Plan Sponsor Certifications relating to Plan Amendments

EXHIBIT 12 AIPT 158 – 161 Narrative Statement

EXHIBIT 13 AIPT 162 – 326 Plan Documents

EXHIBIT 14 AIPT 327 – 335 Excerpts from Collective Bargaining and Side Agreements

EXHIBIT 15 AIPT 336 – 396 Excerpts from Form 5500

EXHIBIT 16 AIPT 397 – 402 Rehabilitation Plan

EXHIBIT 17 AIPT 403 – 472 Actuarial Valuation Report July 1, 2015

APPENDIX A AIPT 473 – 505 Notices

APPENDIX B AIPT 506 – 536 Information on Actuarial Assumptions and Methods

APPENDIX C AIPT 537 – 539 Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative

APPENDIX D AIPT 540 – 545 Checklist
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia
ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals hereby passes

the followi

ng order: A14A1398 . SIMMS v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATI ON. A14A1399 . SIMMS v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATI ON. The Appellant’s briefs weredue in these cases on July 22, 2014. The

Appellan t has not tim ely f

iled brief s a s required

by Cour t of Appea

ls Rule 23 ( a), nor has the Appellant sought extensions of time from this Court to file brief s, as provided in Rule 16 (a). C onsequ en tly, the instant appeals a

re hereb y DI SMISSED for w ant of prosecution. See Court of Appeals Rules 15 (a), 16 (b), and 23 (a). Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify t hat the abo ve is a true

extrac t from the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my signature a nd t he s eal of sai

d court hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 08/25/2014 August 25, 2014
Page 24.0

Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Checklist Item #24 

Does the application indicate whether the plan sponsor is requesting approved from PBGC of a 

proposed partition under section 4233 of ERISA?

See section 6.02.

The plan sponsor is not requesting approval from the PBGC of a proposed partition under section 4233 

of ERISA.
Local 805 Pension and Retirement Plan

EIN: 13-1917612, PN: 001

Revenue Procedure 2017-43, Sections 4.04(1)(a) and (1)(b)

Demonstration that Benefit Suspensions are Distributed Equitably

Actives

 Terminated 

Vesteds Retirees Beneficiaries Disableds

 A

A. Participant Count 459 572 813 165 13 

as of March 31, 2017

B. Average Monthly Benefit

Before the Suspension $729.64 $624.22 $1,082.32 $558.50 $1,944.59 After the Suspension $473.06 $352.34 $737.52 $508.90 $1,944.59 % Change (all) 35.2% 43.6% 31.9% 8.9% 0.0% % Change (only those impacted) 35.2% 44.3% 43.4% 19.1% 0.0% 

C. Present Value of Accrued Benefits as of 3/31/2017

1. After the Suspension $16,567,231 $13,800,504 $65,634,615 $7,856,204 $3,075,241 $2. Before the Suspension $26,330,454 $22,613,079 $101,605,523 $8,901,478 $3,075,241 $

3. Impact of Suspension (1 - 2) ($9,763,223) ($8,812,575) ($35,970,908) ($1,045,274) $0 

D. Distribution of % Reduction in Monthly Benefit

No Reduction 0 43 330 108 13 0% to 10% 174 100 139 37 0 10% to 20% 86 53 49 8 0 20% to 30% 26 34 37 4 0 30% to 40% 103 60 47 5 0 40% to 50% 58 211 54 2 0 50% to 60% 11 23 81 0 0 60% to 70% 1 35 72 1 0 70% to 80% 0 13 3 0 0 80% to 90% 0 0 1 0 0 

Total 459 572 813 165 13 

Z:\065 805\p\Val\2017\Data\Data for PBGC submi
256 La. 1161

#### Kenneth RAU v. SUN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK.

No. 50971.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1970.

In re: Kenneth Rau applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 239 So.2d 481.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the court of appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment on the merits or motion.
Exhibit
32(b)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Columbus Southern Power Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Holly Keller Koeppel, the chief financial officer of the Company certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.








/s/ Holly Keller
Koeppel


Holly
Keller Koeppel


Chief
Financial Officer








October
31, 2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
256 La. 1160

#### Daniel James MELERINE v. FORD MOTOR CORPORATION.

No. 50976.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1970.

In re: Daniel James Melerine applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, St. Bernard Parish. 239 So.2d 406.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### Percy McCOY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. F. C. DOYAL, Jr., Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, and George Sproull Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11432.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

April 28, 1970.

*442Frank H. Taylor, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Marion Weimer, James A. Piper and James A. McGraw, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.

Before BOLIN, PRICE and WILLIAMS, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

Appellant having neither appeared nor filed a brief prior to the date fixed for the submission of this case, the appeal is considered abandoned and is dismissed. Rule VII, Sec. 5(b), Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal, as revised July 1, 1963, 8 LSA-R.S.
Appendix A: Page 1 of 6

WESTERN STATES OFFICE AND 

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

THIRD SUSPENSION APPLICATION

Appendix A
Exhibit 15
----------

Independent Accountants' Report
-------------------------------


Ranger Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries
St. Petersburg, Florida

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Ranger
Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2002, and the related
condensed consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001 and for the period from inception
through September 30, 2002. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements for them
to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.


                                          /s/  Aidman, Piser & Company, P.A.


November 8, 2002
Tampa, Florida
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000022896
<NAME> COMPUSERVE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         133,765
<SECURITIES>                                    34,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               388,592
<PP&E>                                         340,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 787,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     646,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   787,178
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,739
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,377)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,943
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,857)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,086)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,086)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **OROVER SCLLLRS**  **ATrOINcY 0rNrrrl.**  Hoa. Ror ~reathsl, Oh8iXaan Livertook Sanit8w Oorrl88lon of Tex88 8WE 'II.

T. Ny(lonor Bulldin Tort Korth 8, Tex80 

## 8I3

Oplalon Ho. O-718t /l

n8 hr8 me81r8d **qUOt8** a8 **iOiiOW8l Livrmtook**  

### Sanitary **85d 8l** **’ 8**  **l ’** **8Odt** 

### t0 b8 eat that 

### th8yb8
**8E OOt+8t8d,**  th8 **0** print **ill bOOkl8t**  

### wQtOr8, th8 Ofrailroad ooapenl88,
**Vi886 that**  **the first**  reprlntlag **of Will**  **008t** thi8

**. pi8**  am praotl**Ot OOUl** **’ 88,**  **MO88Mry 8**  bran **nrleed** throughThe 

### spprOpd8tiOnsad8 t0 thir ?8paI%i8Et for 

### ri5tl5g 18 not dqUat8 t0 d8fl%y this l xpeMe and We would Plke 

### t0 know if itWill **b8** 

### ~lmi88ible t0 Pat ?eT th8printing8i these **booklets 0on**  the **thergenay** ApprOprlrtlon ot t10,000.00 m84e to thla f?eparBent through f3X8e Bill 879, Chapt8r 319, 08neral 8nd Speold Law8 Of l'ex88 * Aat **0r** the 49th Logl8lature, F*gular seselon, 1945.*- e. ..a

‘1, t

Eon. Roy Lwenthal, Pqge 4* ’ 815 

### I Bon.RgLoventbu,Pagm~
**Exhibit 15.1**

**TIAN YUAN LAW FIRM**

**11F/Tower C, Corporate Square, 35 Financial St.**

**Beijing. 100032, P. R. China**

**Tel: (8610) 8809-2188; Fax: (8610) 8809-2150**

April 24, 2012 

**China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc.**

No. 18-1 East Nanping Road 

Hunnan NationalNew & High-tech Development Zone 

Shenyang, Liaoning Province 

People’s Republic of China 110171 

Dear Sirs, 

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the headings “Risk Factors” and “Regulations” in China NuokangBio-Pharmaceutical Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the month of April 2012.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6757

BRIAN M. BLAKEMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOE SOLANA, Superintendent, Hyde Correctional Institution; ERIK A. HOOKS, 

N.C. Department of Public Safety; MEDICAL STAFF, Hyde Correctional 

Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03280-D)

Submitted: October 20, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian M. Blakeman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian M. Blakeman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Blakeman v. Solana, No. 5:19-ct-03280-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 2020). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

30 M ETROPOLITAN P LACE V

. D ANA P ARTNERSHIP

NOTICE : THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P . § 2

- 10 2 ( E )

.

30 M ETROPOLITAN P LACE , L.L.C.

, APPELLEE ,

V

.
D ANA P ARTNERSHIP , L.L.P., AND A RUN A GARWAL , APPELLANT S

.

Filed August 15, 2023 . No. A

- 22

- 591

.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J EFFREY J. L UX , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.
Thomas J. Culhane, Bonnie M. Boryca, and Ryan L. Crew, of Erickson | Sederstrom, P.C., for appellants.
Gregory C. Scaglione and Kendra Vosler, of Koley Jessen, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.

P IRTLE , Chief Judge, and M OORE and A RTERBURN , Judges.

P ER C URIAM

.

This matter is before the court on the motion for rehearing filed by appellants regarding

our memorandum opinion reported in 30 Metropolitan Place v. Dana Partnership

, No. A

- 22

- 591

, 202 3 WL 4188670 (Neb. App. June 27, 202 3 ) (selected for posting to court w ebsite). We overrule the motion, but for purposes of clarification, we modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section of the opinion , under the subheading “ (c) Date Prejudgment Interest Began to Accrue, ” we modify the final paragraph to read as follows:

“ Our calculation of the principal amount plus prejudgment interest is as follows. On March 22, 2020, the principal amount of rent due and owing was $346,747.94 according to Exhibit 47- 2

- offered by 30 Metro and receiv ed by the court. 30 Metro is owed 837 days interest at 12 per cent per year. This spans the period from March 22, 2020 until July 7, 2022 when the judgment was entered. The total amount of interest due and owing for that period is $95,420.18. Therefore, th e combined amount of principal and prejudgment interest due and owing at the time the judgment was entered is $442,168.12. ” The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
F ORMER OPINION MODIFIED

. M OTION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED

.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29698]



[[Page 60702]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-3-29-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 31, 1997, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing to become part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Ninth Revised Sheet No. 50 
to be effective November 1, 1997.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to track 
fuel changes attributable to transportation service purchased from 
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) under its Rate Schedule 
FT the costs of which are included in the rates and charges payable 
under Transco's Rate Schedule FT-NT. Transco states that the filing is 
being made pursuant to tracking provisions under Section 4 of Transco's 
Rate Schedule FT-NT.
    Transco states that included in Appendix B attached to the filing 
is the explanation of the fuel changes and details regarding the 
computation of the revised Rate Schedule FT-NT fuel percentages.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each 
of its FT-NT customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29698 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit (a)(2)

**DWS INVESTMENT TRUST**

 

Amended and Restated Establishment and Designation of Series and  

Classes of Shares of Beneficial Interest, With $0.01 Par Value  

 

WHEREAS, the Trustees of DWS Investment Trust (the “Trust”), acting pursuant to the Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust (the “Declaration”), dated June 2, 2008, as amended, had previously established and designated one or more series of shares of beneficial interest in the Trust (each, a “Series” composed of “Shares”) pursuant to one or more designations of series (the “Prior Series Designations”) and had previously established and designated one or more classes of Shares (each, a “Class”) for some or all of the Series pursuant to one or more designations of classes (the “Prior Class Designations,” such Prior Series Designations and Prior Class Designations referred to herein collectively as the “Prior Designations”);

NOW THEREFORE, the Trustees of the Trust, effective upon filing, hereby amend and restate the Trust’s Prior Designations, the terms of which to supersede any terms set forth in the Prior Designations:

1.     The following Series of Shares and Classes thereof are established and designated, the Shares, with $0.001 par value, of such Series and Classes to be subject to the terms of, and entitled to all the rights and preferences accorded to Shares of a Series, and, if applicable, a Class under, the Declaration and this restated designation:

 

|   | DWS Capital Growth Fund | Class A |
|--------|-------------------------|---------|

|   | Class B |
|--------|---------|

|   | Class C |
|--------|---------|

|   | Class R |
|--------|---------|

|   | Class S |
|--------|---------|

|   | Institutional Class |
|--------|---------------------|

 

|   | DWS Growth & Income Fund | Class A |
|--------|------------------------------|---------|

|   | Class B |
|--------|---------|

|   | Class C |
|--------|---------|

|   | Class S |
|--------|---------|

|   | Institutional Class |
|--------|---------------------|

 

|   | DWS Large Company Growth Fund | Class A Shares |
|--------|-------------------------------|----------------|

|   | Class B Shares |
|--------|----------------|

|   | Class C Shares |
|--------|----------------|

|   | Class S Shares |
|--------|----------------|

|   | Institutional Class Shares |
|--------|----------------------------|

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61327-61328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30074]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Amendment of Exemption

November 10, 1997.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

[[Page 61328]]

    a. Proposed Action: Amendment of Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 4478-005.
    c. Exemptee: Bell Enterprises.
    d. Name of Project: Bell Hydroelectric.
    e. Location: Battle Creek, in Trinity County, California.
    f. Action Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC Secs. 791--825(r).
    g. Ememptee Contact: C. Larry Bell, Bell Enterprises, 2500 SE 
Nevada Court, Portland, OR 97219, (503) 245-8594.
    h. FERC Contact: Regina Saizan, (202) 219-2673.
    i. Comment Date: December 26, 1977.
    j. Description of the proposed action: The proposed amendment will 
remove the existing diversion structure, the water ditch, the 4,860-
foot-long penstock, and the 500-kw powerhouse from the exemption to 
reflect the project's as-built condition.
    k. this notice also consists of the following standard paragraphs: 
B, C1, and D2.
    B. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit 
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, 
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission 
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules 
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or 
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified 
comment date for the particular application.
    C1. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must 
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS 
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as 
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to 
which the filing refers. any of the above-named documents must be filed 
by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the 
Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. A copy of 
any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of 
the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    D2. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited 
to filed comments on the described application. A copy of the 
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If 
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing 
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an 
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30074 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M