alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1280-1281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-304]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Extension of 
Public Scoping Comment Period for the Spaceport Camden Environmental 
Impact Statement.

AGENCY: DOT, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), lead Federal 
agency; and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National 
Park Service, cooperating agencies.

ACTION: Notice of extension of public scoping comment period.

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

SUMMARY: A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement, open a public scoping period, and hold a public scoping 
meeting for the proposed Spaceport Camden was published in the Federal 
Register by the Federal Aviation Administration on November 6, 2015. 
The comment period for the Draft EIS was to end on January 4, 2016 
(more than 45 days after publication of the Notice of Intent in the 
Federal Register). This notice extends the comment period to January 
18, 2016 to allow the public additional time to provide scoping 
comments.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, statements, or questions concerning 
scoping issues or the EIS process to Ms. Stacey M. Zee, FAA 
Environmental Specialist, Spaceport Camden County EIS c/o Leidos, 20201 
Century Boulevard, Suite 105, Germantown, MD 20874. Comments can also 
be sent by email to FAACamdenSpaceportEIS@Leidos.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey M. Zee, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email 
Stacey.Zee@faa.gov; or phone (202) 267-9305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 6, 2015, the FAA published a 
Notice of Intent to prepare an

[[Page 1281]]

Environmental Impact Statement, open a public scoping period, and hold 
a public scoping meeting for the proposed Spaceport Camden in the 
Federal Register and requested comments. The public scoping period was 
originally scheduled to close on January 4, 2016, but the FAA extended 
the comment period an additional 14 consecutive days, changing the 
deadline for submitting public scoping comments from January 4, 2016 to 
January 18, 2016.
    Additional information regarding the proposed project is available 
online at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/camden_spaceport/.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 5, 2016.
Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-304 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# C_2013147EN.01002802.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/28

---

Action brought on 25 March 2013 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)

(Case T-175/13)

2013/C 147/51

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Omega SA (Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Omega Engineering, Inc. (Stamford, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2013 in Joined Cases R 2055/2011-1 and R 2186/2011-1 and grant protection for the trade mark concerned in respect of all of the goods requested; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2013 in Joined Cases R 2055/2011-1 and R 2186/2011-1 and grant protection for the trade mark concerned in respect of all of the goods requested;

| — | order OHIM and Omega Engineering, Inc. to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and Omega Engineering, Inc. to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Omega SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: International registration, designating the European Union, of the figurative mark with word element ‘Ω OMEGA’ for goods in Class 9 — international registration No 997 036 designating the European Union

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Omega Engineering, Inc.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘OMEGA’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and protection applied for refused in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal and more extensive partial refusal of the protection applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
VOC Content of Aerosol Spray Paint 

Adam Dilts, Alex Chen, Alice Chow, Amy 

Mia South to: Bhesania, Amy Caprio, Andrew Steckel, Anne 

Arnold, Anthony Gardella, Ariel Garcia, Bob Kelly, 

From: Mia South/RTP/USEPAIUS 

To: Adam Dilts/R4/USEPAIUS@EPA, Alex Chen/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Alice 

Chow/R3/USEPAIUS@EPA, Amy Bhesania/R7/USEPAIUS@EPA, Amy 

Caprio/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Andrew Steckei/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Anne 

Hi, 

Steve Rosenthal asked me to forward the below letter from Wisconsin to all. 

Mia 

From: 

To: 

Date: 

Subject: 

Steve, 

"Eckdale, Robert B - DNR" <Robert.Eckdale@Wisconsin.gov> 

Steven Rosenthai/R5/USEPAIUS@EPA 

03/23/2011 11:47 AM 

VOC Content of Aerosol Spray Paint 

03/28/2011 02:30 PM 

The question we discussed earlier today was how to determine the VOC content of aerosol spray paint 

used as touch-up on miscellaneous metal parts and products. Specifically, do the propellants need to be 

counted in determining the VOC content in units of pounds per gallon of coating, excluding water and 

exempt compounds? 

Background 

Under s. NR 422.15, Wis. Adm. Code, Wisconsin establishes VOC emission limitations in pounds per 

gallon coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, for the miscellaneous metal parts and products 

industry. This rule is based on the original CTG for this category and has not been revised to reflect the 

2008 update. The updated 2008 CTG for this category (including plastic parts) states that it does not apply 

to aerosol paints since they are regulated under the national rule as consumer and commercial products. 

Wisconsin has not adopted state VOC requirements for consumer and commercial products, including 

aerosol paints. 

Situation 

A mise metals manufacturer has coating application lines, and uses custom color matched aerosol can 

spray paint to touch up any scratches or imperfections prior to shipping. The facility's consultant has 

asked whether the propellant needs to be included when determining compliance with VOC content limits 

expressed as pounds per gallon, excluding water and exempt compounds. The consultant has stated that 

the VOC content of the coating, prior to being filled into the can, is less than the applicable limit, 3.0 lbs 

VOC per gallon coating, excluding water and exempt compounds. The consultant also indicated that if the 

propellant is considered, the limit is exceeded. 

Note 

The limit is in units of VOC per gallon of coating. While the propellant is necessary to apply the coating, I 

would offer that it doesn't seem to be part of, or a necessary component of, the coating itself. 

I'd appreciate any comments or guidance you could offer. Let me know if you have any questions.
Defense federal community celebrates the contributions of Hispanic Americans
 
  By Mislin A. Hampton, DLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs Liaison
  A ceremony recognizing National Hispanic Heritage Month took place inside the auditorium at Defense Supply Center Columbus’ Operations Center Sept. 28.  The event was sponsored by the Defense Federal Community Equal Employment Opportunity Hispanic Employment Program Each year, Americans observe NHHM from Sept. 15 through Oct. 15 by celebrating the histories, cultures and contributions of American citizens whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.  This year’s theme was “Hispanic Americans: Embracing, Enriching, and Enabling America.” It highlights the contributions of Hispanic Americans to our nation in many fields, honors their sacrifices, and recognizes their hard work in achieving their goals. In his welcoming remarks, DLA Land and Maritime Acting Commander James McClaugherty discussed how the contributions of Hispanic Americans make the United States a more vibrant, and richer country. “Hispanic Americans represent 18% of the U.S. population, and will continue to grow,” McClaugherty said. “Many of them work with us here at DLA and are an important part of our agency.” During the event, the audience heard from two special guest speakers, including Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Tamara Gonzales, a technical quality business process analyst at Land and Maritime, and Army Maj. Claudio Garcia-Castro, a logistics officer for the Ohio Army National Guard. Gonzales also serves as a 1st Sgt. in the 121st Air Refueling Wing at Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base in Columbus.  She is responsible for the morale, welfare, and conduct of all enlisted members in the Air Refueling Wing. “I am very proud to say that we bring the ideas of our grandparents,” Gonzales said. “They told us how to embrace change, and how to enrich American culture though hard work and education, and bring greatness to this nation. My grandmother taught me how to overcome adversities, and embrace failures in order to succeed.”** Both speakers remarked about the way Hispanic Americans embrace, enrich, and enable this great nation, while honoring their past. Garcia-Castro was born in Matamoros, Mexico and immigrated to Ohio with his parents at a young age. “I stand here today proud to be a major in the U.S. Army and reflect on what my father has always said - no matter who you are, what you are, or what you do in life, be proud and do your best,” Garcia-Castro said. “I look back on myself as a young boy who came to America unable to speak English and unable to understand the American culture. I am honored to call myself an American and happy to have retained many of the Mexican traditions I grew up with.”
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Review of Immunology Grant 
Applications.
    Date: July 23, 1998.
    Time: 2:00 PM to adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Solar Building Room 4C38, 6003 Executive Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Edward W. Schroder, Scientific Review 
Administrator.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 25, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-17618 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,662
<PP&E>                                         148,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,705
<BONDS>                                        150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (40,024)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,941
<SALES>                                         57,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,430
<CGS>                                           48,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-7151.

#### Dontay Gibson, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1146, 131 S. Ct. 921,

178 L. Ed. 2d 768,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 404.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
S91A0642.

#### WEBB v. WEBB.

(405 SE2d 874)

Decided May 13, 1991.

*Lynwood D. Jordan, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Jane K. Mitchell,*for appellee.

Smith, Presiding Justice.

We granted a discretionary application to consider whether the trial court erred in finding a jury issue under the circumstances of this case. We hold that it did.

The appellant, Howard McRae Webb, and the appellee, Gladys Jones Webb, are involved in a divorce. Prior to marriage, the parties had entered into a pre-nuptial agreement. In the divorce proceedings, Ms. Webb asserts that the pre-nuptial agreement should be ignored because it was the result of duress, nondisclosure of assets, and on other grounds. The trial court determined that the pre-nuptial agreement was valid and not against public policy, and left further determination of the pre-nuptial agreement to the jury.

This case is controlled by *Allen v. Allen,*260 Ga. 777 (400 SE2d 15) (1991), and it was error for the trial court to leave this issue to the jury.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 10-7522.

#### Edward Matthieu, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 845,

178 L. Ed. 2d 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9753.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16245]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering Education and Centers; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel Engineering Education and Centers 
(#173).
    Date/Time: July 9-10, 1998, 7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 580, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Mary Poats, Program Manager, Engineering 
Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation, Room 
585 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Combined Research-Curriculum Development Program.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b. (c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 15, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-16245 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
First Amendment to the NCR Nonqualified Excess Plan, executed December 17, 2004



 Exhibit 10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE NCR NONQUALIFIED EXCESS PLAN 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE NCR NONQUALIFIED EXCESS PLAN (the “Plan”) as
restated and in effect January 1, 1996 by NCR Corporation (“NCR”). 
  
 WHEREAS, NCR desires to amend the Plan to freeze accruals for all participants other than those in a “grandfathered group”; 
  
 WHEREAS, the changes made by this Amendment were approved by the Board of Directors of NCR as of May 17, 2004, and the
Senior Vice President, Human Resources was authorized to execute a conforming amendment of the Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, NCR does hereby amend the Plan, effective September 1, 2004, as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 2.1 of ARTICLE II is hereby amended by the addition of the following new paragraph: 

  
 Notwithstanding the above, effective September 1, 2004, no new Participants will be added to the Plan. 
  

	2.	Section 3.1 of ARTICLE III is hereby amended by the addition of the following new paragraph: 

  
 “Notwithstanding the above, effective August 31, 2004, benefit accruals will cease and no additional benefit will
accrue for any Participant in the Plan, with the exception of the following Participants who will continue to accrue benefits: 
  

	 	(a)	Participants who (1) were hired prior to September 1, 2004, (2) were age 40 or older as of August 31, 2004, and (3) did not make an election to cease accruals in the NCR Pension
Plan and receive an enhanced company matching contribution in the NCR Savings Plan; and 

  

	 	(b)	Participants who were under age 40 as of August 31, 2004, who (1) were hired prior to May 1, 1985, (2) remained continuously employed by the Company since that date, and (3) did not
make an election to cease accruals in the NCR Pension Plan and receive an enhanced company matching contribution in the NCR Savings Plan.” 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NCR has caused this amendment to the Plan to be executed this 17th day of December, 2004. 
  

			
	 FOR NCR CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Christine Wallace


	 	 	 Christine Wallace

	 	 	 Senior Vice President, Human Resources
# C_2013313EN.01003202.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/32

---

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)

(Case T-459/13)

2013/C 313/61

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastian) (represented by F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘GRAPHENE’ for goods and services in Classes 2, 6, 10 and 22 — application for Community trade mark No 10 892 446.

Community trade mark applied for:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s quarterly report onForm 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”)promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject tothe liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or theExchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporatesit by reference.

 

 
| Date: May 10, 2005 |                                                                                                      |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | /s/ Thomas E. D’Ambra                                                                                |
|               | Name: Thomas E. D’Ambra, Ph.D.  Title: Chairman of the Board, President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----