BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
THE LINK BETWEEN TIGGE AND THE

NORTH AMERICAN ENSEMBLE FORECAST SYSTEM

The North American Ensemble Forecast System (NAEFS) is a multinational
project being developed by the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC),
the National Meteorological Service of Mexico (NMSM), and the US
National Weather Service (NWS), with the United Kingdom Met Office
(UKMO) joining in 2006. The project involves the exchange and sharing of
global ensemble forecasts among the participating countries. The Initial
Operating Capability (IOC) was established in September 2004.

The NAEFS will become fully operational by March 2006, and further
refinements are expected to be implemented in the following years. Each
set of ensemble forecasts (currently from MSC and NWS) will be
statistically post-processed to reduce systematic errors. The
bias-corrected constituent ensembles will be combined into a joint
ensemble that will be used to generate forecast products for
intermediate and end users. All software products used in the processing
of ensemble forecast data, as well as in the generation of products are
shared among the participating organizations, and used consistently at
each center. As a result, forecasts issued by the participating National
Meteorological Services (NMSs) will be seamless both in time and space.

Not surprisingly, the TIGGE database and the associated research plans
share many of the design features of the NAEFS project, since both are
based on the use of combined multi-center ensemble forecasts. The new
techniques and tools that are being developed for NAEFS will also be
shared with the THORPEX research and user community. It is expected that
TIGGE-related THORPEX research will greatly expand the capabilities of
multi-center ensemble forecasting and that the enhanced techniques will
find their operational use in the NAEFS and its successor system. The
NAEFS thus can be considered as a prototype for the ensemble forecast
component of the Global Interactive Forecast System (GIFS), a legacy
forecast system to be developed through THORPEX research.

Plans are underway for the NAEFS to include ensemble forecasts from the
UKMO in 2006, and the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography
Center (FNMOC) of the US Navy intends to participate as well. As more
NWP centers join the NAEFS, it is expected to evolve into a Global
Ensemble Prediction System (GEPS). GEPS will be an important part of the
future GIFS, shaped by new scientific results, and benefiting from a new
level of coordination among major NWP centers that will support it. As
an operational outlet for TIGGE-related THORPEX research, the GEPS is
expected to serve as a source of real-time forecast data to users.
Forecast products from the GEPS will be accessible via newly developed
application tools. GEPS and its products will be tested and used in
THORPEX and other demonstration and field programs at any stage of its
development, debuted probably during the International Polar Year (IPY)
in 2007-2009.
# CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH

Re: 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review---Spectrum Aggregation Limits for
Commercial Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT
Docket No. 01-14 , (rel. January 22, 2001).

The use of a spectrum cap is a drastic regulatory remedy that continues
to search for a corresponding competitive ill. To the extent the
marketplace was ever genetically predisposed to such a malady (a
disputable proposition in itself), I believe such treatment has long ago
outlived its effectiveness.[^1] In light of this diagnosis, I would have
crafted today's Notice in a substantially different way. There is
nothing in the Communications Act that requires the FCC to promulgate
any type of spectrum cap. As I have stated before, other agencies are
fully capable of monitoring the competitive health of the CMRS
marketplace. Nor is there any policy rationale for the continued
application of the technology- and efficiency-stifling caps. Thus, I
would have tentatively concluded here that the caps should be
eliminated. Finally, I have grown impatient with the Commission's
repeated re-examinations of these issues without substantial alterations
in our policy approach. Nonetheless, in light of our current policy
posture, I fully support fulfilling our promise to re-examine the caps
as part of this year's biennial review. I look forward to a full record
on these issues and prompt resolution by the Commission.

[^1]: See Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth,
    1998 Biennial Review, Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Wireless
    Carriers, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, WT Docket
    No. 98-205 (rel. September \--, 2000); Separate Statement of
    Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth in 1998 Biennial Review,
    Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Wireless Telecommunications
    Carriers, 15 FCC Rcd 9219 (1999).
----------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
  ***Pool Assembler Name***     ***Contact***       ***Telephone***

  **Bank of America**           **Mr. Chris         **212 583 8209**
                                Callahan**          

  **Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.**   **Mr. Brad          **901 347 1728**
                                Whitener**          

  **Coastal Securities, L.P.**  **Mr. John          **800 800 5783**
                                Cioccia**           

  **Community Bankers           **Ms. Brenda        **804 323 6688**
  Securities, LLC**             Clarke**            

  **FTN Financial Capital       **Ms. Kelly C.      **901 435 8744**
  Markets**                     Hendricks**         

  **Morgan Keegan & Company,    **Mr. Francis       **901 579 4904**
  Inc.**                        Anton**             

  **NatCity Investments, Inc.** **Mr. Scott Evans** **216 222 3223**

  **Shay Financial Services,    **Mr. Joel L.       **901 261 5901**
  Inc.**                        Banes**             

  **Signature Bank**            **Ms. Mary Mims**   **713 300 6106**

  **Sun Trust Bank**            **Mr. Mark C.       **901 842 3740**
                                Atwill**            

  **Vining Sparks IBG, LP**     **Ms. Beth Ousley** **901 766 3082**

  **Zions First National Bank** **Mr. Kenn Hunter** **801 748 4760**

                                                    
  ----------------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
Conclusions:

The 'best' model according to AIC model selection methods was
*Ψ*(*dist)γ(•)p(• t)*. The weight of evidence for this model was very
strong (*w* = 0.99), and there was little support for any of the other
competing models. Because there was little model selection uncertainty,
inferences are made using the 'best' model only (i.e. model averaging is
unnecessary). The 'best' model suggests that the probability a site is
occupied by *Plethodon serratus* was influenced by the site's previous
disturbance history. Disturbed sites were previously settled or logged
prior to the establishment of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in
1934. *Plethodon serratus* was more likely to occupy previously
disturbed sites ($\hat{\psi}(\text{dist}) = 0\text{.}\text{94}$) than
undisturbed sites ($\hat{\psi}(\text{undist}) = 0\text{.}\text{42}$). We
detected no temporal (yearly) variation in occupancy or colonization
probabilities that we expected as rainfall levels declined over our
4-year study. Occupancy levels were constant among years, but there was
a low level of turnover among sites as approximately 21% of sites are
locally colonized each year. Detection probabilities exhibited the same
seasonal pattern across years: *Plethodon serratus* was easier to detect
early in the sampling season, $\hat{p}$*(•, t~1~ )* = 0.85, but declined
steadily throughout the season and detection probabilities were
approximately four times lower during the last survey, $\hat{p}$*(•,
t~5~ )* = 0.23.
![](media/image1.png){width="0.3770833333333333in"
height="0.2965277777777778in"} **Department of Veterans Affairs**

***Montgomery GI Bill - Selected Reserve - Chapter 1606***

# What Is the Montgomery GI Bill - Selected Reserve?

The Montgomery GI Bill - Selected Reserve is an education program that
provides up to 36 months of education benefits to members of the
Selected Reserve. This includes the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
and Coast Guard Reserves, as well as the Army National Guard and the Air
National Guard. It is the first program that doesn\'t require a person
to serve on active duty in the regular Armed Forces to qualify.

An eligible reservist may get education benefits while in a program
approved for VA training. For information about the types of training
available, call the toll-free number listed at the bottom of the page.

# Who Is Eligible?

You may be considered an eligible reservist or National Guard member if:

-   after June 30, 1985, you signed a six-year obligation to serve in
    the Selected Reserve, AND

-   you completed your Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT), AND

-   you got your High School Diploma or GED before you completed your
    IADT, AND

-   you are in good standing in a drilling Selected Reserve unit

If you stay in the Selected Reserves, benefits generally end 10 years
from the date you became eligible for the program if you became eligible
before October 1, 1992. Benefits generally end 14 years from the date
you became eligible if you became eligible on or after October 1, 1992.
Your period of eligibility may be extended, if you were unable to train
because of a service-related disability. Typically, your eligibility
ends when you leave the Selected Reserves.

***Note:*** If you are an officer in the Selected Reserve **OR** if you
entered active duty from the Selected Reserve after November 29, 1989,
call the toll-free number below for additional eligibility requirements.

# How Much Does VA Pay? 

The monthly benefit paid to you is based on the type of training. If you
are attending school, your payment is based on your training time (i.e.
full time, half time, etc). The current full-time rate for college
training is \$309 per month.

# How Can You Apply? 

Your unit will give you a *Notice of Basic Eligibility* (DD Form 2384 or
2384-1) when you become eligible for Montgomery GI Bill - Selected
Reserve. Once you find a program approved for VA training, complete VA
Form 22-1990, *Application for Education Benefits*, and send it to the
VA regional office that serves the state where you will train.

*You can also apply online through our web site at*
**<http://vabenefits.vba.va.gov/vonapp>*.***

# Related Benefits

> Work-Study Program
>
> Tutorial Assistance
>
> Educational and Vocational Counseling

# For More Information, Call Toll-Free 1-888-GIBILL-1 (1-888-442-4551)

# or Visit Our Web Site At [http://www.gibill.va.gov](http://www.gibill.va.gov/).

Education Service -- September 2006
COMMISSIONING OF A LOW ENERGY PHOTO-EMISSION-BASED ELECTRON SOURCE, S.
Zownorega, N. Vinogradov, P. Piot\*, Northern Illinois University,
Department of Physics, DeKalb, IL 60115, <Piot@nicadd.niu.edu>

A novel photoemission-type source of a pulsed low energy electron beam
has been suggested earlier \[1\] for applications in electron
microscopy. Existing electron sources are generally based on one of the
following processes: thermionic, field-emission or photoemission.
Although the latter approach requires a laser of appropriate wavelength
for the photocathode drive, photoemission has a number of advantages:
controlling the laser intensity, size and pulse duration directly
affects the photo emitted bunch charge, size and duration. In addition
photoemission offers higher current density compared to the other
emission processes. Metallic photocathodes typically have a long
lifetime and can operate in relatively poor vacuum of about 10^-7^ Torr.
The disadvantages of metallic cathode are the impossibility to produce
spin-polarized beams and low quantum efficiency (QE) of typically about
10^-5^ e-/photon. A significant effort has been applied for decades
towards investigation of photoemission phenomena in metals. It was shown
that the QE of properly cleaned copper cathode irradiated by 266 m
laser can reach \~ 10^-4^ e-/photon. Also, it was demonstrated that the
QE increases with the surface field via Shottky effect \[2\]. This later
feature has been used in rf guns, where the surface fields are
considerably high. For example, in \[3\] QE of 1x10^-4^ was achieved at
500 kV/cm electric field on the cathode. In electron microscopy the beam
kinetic energy is usually in the range of 1030 keV, corresponding to
surface field of 515 kV/cm. Nevertheless, considering the capabilities
of modern commercial UV lasers, the electron beam with a few pC bunch
charge, which is typical for electron microscopy needs, can be produced
from the copper cathode with modest QE of \~ 10^-7^. The suggested
source has been designed and built in Northern Illinois University. This
contribution describes commissioning of the device.

\[1\] N. Vinogradov et al., Proceedings of the PAC 2007 conference.

\[2\] T. Srinivason-Rao et al., J. Appl. Phys., **69** (5), 1991, p.
3291.

\[3\] P. Davis et al., in Proc. of PAC 1993 Conf., Washington DC, 1993,
p. 2976.
\[PUBLIC---NO. 235---69^TH^ CONGRESS\]

\[H. R. 8306\]

An Act To authorize the coinage of silver 50-cent pieces in
commemoration of the heroism of the fathers and mothers who traversed
the Oregon Trail to the Far West with great hardship, daring, and loss
of life, which not only resulted in adding new States to the Union but
earned a well-deserved and imperishable fame for the pioneers; to honor
the twenty thousand dead that lie buried in unknown graves along two
thousand miles of that great highway of history; to rescue the various
important points along the old trail from oblivion; and to commemorate
by suitable monuments, memorial or otherwise, the tragic events
associated with that emigration---erecting them either along the trail
itself or elsewhere, in localities appropriate for the purpose,
including the city of Washington.

*Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled*, That in commemoration of the
Oregon Trail and in memory of the pioneers of the far West there shall
be coined at the mints of the United States silver 50-cents pieces to
the number of not more than six million; such 50-cent pieces to be of
the standard Troy weight, composition, diameter, device, and design as
shall be fixed by the Director of the Mint, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, which said 50-cent pieces shall be legal
tender in any payment to the amount of their face value.

SEC. 2. That the coins herein authorized shall be issued only upon
request of the executive committee of the Oregon Trail Memorial
Association, Incorporated, a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York; and upon payment by such executive committee, for and
on behalf of the Oregon Trail Memorial Association, Incorporated, of the
par value of such coins, it shall be permissible for the said Oregon
Trail Memorial Association, Incorporated, to obtain such coins upon said
payment, all at one time or at separate times, and in separate amounts,
as it may determine.

SEC. 3. That all laws now in force relating to the subsidiary silver
coins of the United States, and the coinage or striking of the same,
regulating and guarding the process of coinage, providing for the
purchase of material and for the transportation, distribution, and
redemption of coins, for the prevention of debasement or counterfeiting,
for security of the coin, or for any other purposes, whether said laws
are penal or otherwise, shall, so far as applicable, apply to the
coinage herein authorized: *Provided,* That the United States shall not
be subject to the expense of making the necessary dies and other
preparations for this coinage.

Approved, May 17, 1926.

> \(227\)
**Think Tank #5 at Little Cayman Research Center:**

**A Strategic Planning Session for Ocean Acidification Research**

(Update: November 14, 2007)

**December 3 - 7, 2007**

**Little Cayman Research Center**

**Little Cayman, Cayman Islands**

**NOTES:**

-   During any day this week, if it looks like an excellent morning for
    our diving or boat adventures, we can do that first while the
    weather\'s good!

-   You must make sure Jon Clamp is aware of and approves of all SCUBA
    diving adventures; otherwise, snorkeling is about 14 steps out the
    front door.

**Monday**

**Arrival of Participants**

**Welcome to Little Cayman Research Center (LCRC) and Think Tank #5**

Dr. Carrie Manfrino, Director

> Jon Clamp, LCRC Manager

**Possible Trip Around the Island**

**Dinner and cocktails on the beach**

**Tuesday**

**Think Tank #5 Goals, LCRC ICON Station Overview, and Introductions
of**

**Rapporteurs for Think Tank #5:**

**Dwight Gledhill, Felipe Aryzayus and John Tomczuk**

Jim Hendee

**[Overview: Research and Predictions]{.underline}**

**Coral Reefs and the Carbon Cycle**

Joanie Kleypas

**Temporal Variability of Aragonite Saturation in a Coral Reef
Ecosystem**

Richard Feely

**\~\~ Coffee Break \~\~**

**Hot Sour Soup: Good for Colds, Bad for Corals**

Mark Eakin

**San Diego Meeting Wrap-Up and New Considerations**

Chris Langdon

**\~\~ Lunch \~\~**

**Ocean Acidification Coral and Research Program Outlook for NOAA/OAR**

Dwight Gledhill, John Tomczuk, Felipe Arzayus

**\~\~ Coffee, Discussion and Document Drafting (or save for night time)
\~\~**

**\~\~ Play Time \~\~**

**Wednesday**

**[Technological Advances]{.underline}**

**An Overview of Ecological Forecasting and Modeling in ICON/G2**

Lew Gramer

\~\~ **Trip to the Proposed New ICON Site \~\~**

**\~\~ Lunch \~\~**

**Existing Technology and Challenges for Monitoring the CO2 System in
Seawater**

Chris Sabine

**Extending Underway and Geochemical Survey Data Using Satellite Remote
Sensing**

Dwight Gledhill

**\~\~ Coffee Break \~\~**

**Research Platforms and New Research at USGS**

Kim Yates

Lisa Robbins

**\~\~ Coffee, Discussion and Document Drafting \~\~**

**Thursday**

**[Regional Studies, Etc.]{.underline}**

**Ocean Acidification Research Programs on the Great Barrier Reef,**

**and in the Coral Sea**

Ken Anthony

**Evaluating the Effects of Depressed Saturation State on Larval
Settlement**

**and Post-settlement Growth *of Porites astreoides***

Rebecca Albright

**\~\~ Coffee Break \~\~**

**Fragile Reefs of the Eastern Pacific:**

**Does Low Cementation Provide a Model for Reefs in a**

**High CO2 World?**

Derek Manzello

**Current and Future Research at IMaRS**

Abbie Ray Harris

**Regional Estimates of Reef Production with Landsat on Florida Reefs**

Christopher Moses

**\~\~ Lunch \~\~**

**Wrap-Up**

Jim Hendee & Rapporteurs

**\~\~ Coffee, Discussion and Document Finalizing \~\~**

**Friday**

**Nothing scheduled\...Most people leave, others stay & play.**
N022571

February 19, 2008

CLA-2-65:OT:RR:NC:N3:353

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 6504.00.6000, 6505.90.9076

Ms. Mindy Hu

The Glove Source, Inc.

9104 Guilford Rd., Suite 1-D

Columbia, Maryland 21046

RE: The tariff classification of hats from China.

Dear Ms. Hu:

In your letter dated January 21, 2008, you requested a classification
ruling. The samples which you submitted are being returned as requested.

Styles 9413, 9419 and 9405 are western-style hats made of plaited straw
not sewed. The hats have a wide brim and a drawcord chin strap.

Style 9423 is a western-style hat made of crocheted straw. The hat also
has a wide brim and a drawcord chin strap.

 The applicable subheading for Styles 9413, 9419 and 9405 will be
6504.00.6000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS),
which provides for \"Hats and other headgear, plaited or made by
assembling strips of any material, whether or not lined or trimmed: Of
vegetable fibers, of unspun fibrous vegetable material, of paper yarn or
of any combination thereof: Not sewed.\" The rate of duty will be 94
cents per dozen and 4.6% ad valorem.

The applicable subheading for Style 9423 will be 6505.90.9076,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides
for \"Hats and other headgear, knitted or crocheted, or made up from
lace, felt or other textile fabric, in the piece (but not in strips),
whether or not lined or trimmed...Other: Other: Other; Other: Other: Of
unspun vegetable fibers.\" The duty rate will be 20.7 cents per kilogram
plus 7.5% ad valorem. The textile category designation is 859.

Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change.
The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are
provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/.

With the exception of certain products of China, quota/visa requirements
are no longer applicable for merchandise which is the product of World
Trade Organization (WTO) member countries. Quota and visa requirements
are the result of international agreements that are subject to frequent
renegotiations and changes. To obtain the most current information on
quota and visa requirements applicable to this merchandise, we suggest
you check, close to the time of shipment, the "Textile Status Report for
Absolute Quotas" which is available on our web site at www.cbp.gov. For
current information regarding possible textile safeguard actions on
goods from China and related issues, we refer you to the web site of the
Office of Textiles and Apparel of the Department of Commerce at
otexa.ita.doc.gov.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the
Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be
provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is
imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact
National Import Specialist Kenneth Reidlinger at 646-733-3053.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Swierupski

Director,

National Commodity

Specialist Division
**§3.322 Rating of disabilities aggravated by service.**

\(a\) *Aggravation of preservice disability.* In cases involving
aggravation by active service, the rating will reflect only the degree
of disability over and above the degree of disability existing at the
time of entrance into active service, whether the particular condition
was noted at the time of entrance into active service, or whether it is
determined upon the evidence of record to have existed at that time. It
is necessary to deduct from the present evaluation the degree, if
ascertainable, of the disability existing at the time of entrance into
active service, in terms of the rating schedule except that if the
disability is total (100 percent) no deduction will be made. If the
degree of disability at the time of entrance into service is not
ascertainable in terms of the schedule, no deduction will be made.

\(b\) *Aggravation of service-connected disability.* Where a disease or
injury incurred in peacetime service is aggravated during service in a
period of war, or conversely, where a disease or injury incurred in
service during a period of war is aggravated during peacetime service,
the entire disability flowing from the disease or injury will be service
connected based on the war service.

\[26 FR 1583, Feb. 24, 1961\]

**Cross references:** Principles relating to service connection. See
§3.303. Aggravation of preservice disability. See §3.306.
Released May 30, 2000

**FCC CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E. KENNARD STATEMENT ON**

**BROADCAST BIENNIAL REVIEW REPORT**

**(MM Docket No. 98-35)**

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the FCC to
evaluate its ownership rules every two years. In this first review, we
developed a comprehensive record and undertook a careful review of these
vitally important rules, as required by Congress.

In the course of this review, we recognized three critical facts. First,
the majority of Americans still get most of their news and public
affairs information from broadcast stations, and, in a participatory
democracy like ours, it is vitally important that we encourage the
widest possible dissemination of this information from diverse and
antagonistic sources. Our structural ownership restrictions seek to
promote this First Amendment principle.

Second, the media marketplace has become increasingly dynamic and
competitive, with an expanding number of information outlets and media
platforms (i.e., the internet and satellite) and more Americans than
ever before are using these options.

Finally, over the last 18 months, the FCC has provided significant
regulatory relief to the broadcast industry and the industry is still in
the process of responding to this new regulatory environment. Although
the marketplace is still in flux, we do know that the regulatory changes
have allowed broadcasters in large markets to respond to competitive
dynamics, without sacrificing our long-cherished diversity and
competition principles.

The Report we issue today again balances the public interest in
diversity of ownership with the demands of a changing marketplace and
the broadcast industries' need to realize economic efficiencies and
remain competitive. The proposed modifications to the dual network and
newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules, and the technical changes to
our radio market definition policies are careful and deliberate, but
forwardlooking.

The dual network rule is fundamentally about promoting viewpoint
diversity and it should not be eliminated as it applies to the four
major networks. However, I am persuaded that there may be powerful
arguments for modifying the rule to allow common ownership of an
emerging and established network. For that reason, a Notice that
examines the diversity costs and efficiency benefits of modifying the
rule in this way is appropriate.

I also continue to believe that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership
rule well serves our public interest goals. However, there may be
certain circumstances in which, given the specifics of the market and of
the newspaper and broadcast outlet involved, sufficient diversity and
competition would remain even if a newspaper and broadcast station were
commonly owned. For example, a combination between a single radio
station in a large market and a small, suburban newspaper might raise
fewer concerns than other potential combinations.

I look forward to a robust debate on these proposed modifications and
the challenge of balancing our competing public interest goals.

\- FCC -
Lisa_C_Moerner@dom.com

09/01/2005 04:07 PM To

Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

Please find attached Dominion\'s comments on Docket ID No.
OAR-2004-0238.

Please find attached Dominion\'s comments on Docket ID No.
OAR-2004-0238. A

hard copy of these comments has also been mailed.

Lisa C. Moerner

Manager \-- Environmental Policy

Dominion Resources Services Inc.

5000 Dominion Boulevard

Glen Allen, VA 23060

\(804\) 273-2998 (work)

\(804\) 273-3410 (fax)

\(804\) 363-6167 (cell)

\-\-\-\-- Forwarded by Lisa C Moerner/SVCS/VANCPOWER on 09/01/2005 04:05
PM

\-\-\-\--

(See attached file: dehy_mac.pdf)
**The Delta Smelt Working Group and the delta smelt risk assessment
matrix**

The delta smelt risk assessment matrix (DSRAM) consists of month by
month criteria which, when exceeded will trigger a meeting of the Delta
Smelt Working Group (Working Group). The purpose of the DSRAM is to take
actions to protect delta smelt in a proactive manner prior to salvage
events. Reclamation and/or DWR are responsible for monitoring the DSRAM
criteria and reporting back to the Service and the Working Group. The
DSRAM has been modified from the delta smelt decision tree which was
peer reviewed and presented in the IEP Newsletter. The DSRAM will be
sent out for independent peer review. The DSRAM is an adaptive
management tool which may be further modified by the Working Group/WOMT
as new information becomes available, without undergoing formal
reconsultation. An informative link to an existing website will be
developed that compiles monitoring data from IEP and DFG to enable
members of the Working Group to easily track the progress of the
triggering criteria. Data will be updated at least weekly to determine
the need for a meeting.

Should a triggering criterion be met or exceeded, Reclamation and/or DWR
will inform the members of the Working Group and the Working Group will
determine the need to meet. Any member of the Working Group may set up a
meeting of the Working Group at any time. A meeting of the Working Group
may consist of an in-person meeting, a conference call, or a discussion
by email. If needed, the Working Group will meet prior to the weekly
meetings of the DAT and the WOMT and information will be shared with
these groups.

Should a meeting of the Working Group prove necessary, the group will
decide whether to recommend a change in exports, change in south delta
barrier operations, San Joaquin River flows, or a change in delta cross
channel operations, and the extent and duration of the potential action.
These potential actions are listed in the DSRAM by the months wherein
each of these tools generally become available. The group will recommend
actions which will be shared with the DAT and forwarded to the WOMT for
discussion and potential implementation. This recommendation will
include a discussion of the level of concern for delta smelt and will
include who participated in the working group discussions. All
dissenting opinions and/or discussion points will also be forwarded to
the WOMT. The Working Group will meet at least weekly throughout the
period in which the triggering criteria are met or exceeded, to
determine the need to provide further recommendations to the WOMT.

Notes and findings of Working Group meeting will be submitted to the
Service and members of the WOMT for their records. The WOMT will respond
to the Working Group's recommendations and the actions taken by the WOMT
will be summarized by Reclamation and/or DWR annually and submitted to
all WOMT agencies.

If an action is taken, the Working Group will follow up on the action to
attempt to ascertain its effectiveness. An assessment of effectiveness
will be attached to the notes from the Working Group's discussion
concerning the action.
# NY H87105

February 25, 2002

CLA-2-52:RR:NC:TA:352 H87105

CATEGORY: Classification

TARIFF NO.: 5208.52.3045

Ms. Colleen O'Shea-Moran

Jo-Ann Stores Inc.

5555 Darrow Road

Hudson, Ohio 44236

RE: The tariff classification of printed 100% cotton plain woven fabric
from China.

Dear Ms. O'Shea-Moran:

In your letter dated January 7, 2002 you requested a classification
ruling.

The submitted sample, designated as style RED 794 Printed Cotton
Flannel, is a printed plain woven fabric composed of 100% cotton.
Laboratory analysis indicates that this product contains 18.3 single
yarns per centimeter in the warp and 15.3 single yarns per centimeter in
the filling. It is constructed with 20/1 c.c. yarns in the warp and 10/1
c.c. yarns in the filling. Weighing 155.4 g/m^2^, this fabric will be
imported in 107 centimeter widths. Based on the data developed by the
Customs laboratory, the average yarn number for this item has been
calculated to be 21 in the metric system. The fabric is characterized by
having been napped on one side and then printed with stylized motif
featuring multihued dogs.

The applicable subheading for the printed plain woven fabric will be
5208.52.3045, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS),
which provides for woven fabrics of cotton, containing 85 percent or
more by weight of cotton, weighing not more than 200 g/m^2^, printed,
plain weave, weighing more than 100 g/m^2^, other, of number 42 or lower
number, sheeting, other. The duty rate will be 6.7 percent ad valorem.

This plain woven printed fabric falls within textile category
designation 313. Based upon international textile trade agreements
products of China are subject to quota and the requirement of a visa.

The designated textile and apparel categories and their quota and visa
status are the result of international agreements that are subject to
frequent renegotiations and changes. To obtain the most current
information, we suggest that you check, close to the time of shipment,
the [U.S. Customs Service Textile Status Report]{.underline}, an
internal issuance of the U.S. Customs Service, which is available at the
Customs Web site at www.customs.gov. In addition, the designated textile
and apparel categories may be subdivided into parts. If so, visa and
quota requirements applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected
and should also be verified at the time of shipment.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the
Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be
provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is
imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact
National Import Specialist Alan Tytelman at 646-733-3045.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Swierupski

Director,

National Commodity

Specialist Division
[Answers]{.underline}

[Testing for Pearling]{.underline}

1.  Exactly 50 grams.

2.  Approximately 32 to 35 grams.

3.  Kernel texture, heat damage and injured-by-heat.

4.  The length of time for which the pearler has been standardized (a
    full pearl).

5.  One-third of the length of time for which the pearling machine has
    been standardized (a 1/3 pearl).

6.  The second hand of a watch or clock.

7.  On the total weight of the kernels after pearling.

8.  To prevent partially or unpearled kernels from entering the chamber
    drawer, thus causing an incomplete pearling operation.

9.  A scale approved by FGIS.

10.  [Step 1]{.underline} - Empty the pearling chamber and hull drawer.

 [Step 2]{.underline} - Close the pearling chamber slide, and pour the
test portion into the chamber.

 [Step 3]{.underline} - Replace the funnel lid.

 [Step 4]{.underline} - Start the pearler by turning the timer switch
to the number of seconds for

> which the pearler is standardized.

 [Step 5]{.underline} - After the pearler stops, remove the pearled
portion.

 [Step 6]{.underline} - Weigh the pearled portion on a balance scale
and record the weight on the

> pan ticket.

11. Barley and Sunflower seed.

12. Heat damage and damaged-by-heat.

13. It removes the hull by abrasion for the determination of heat damage
    and injured-by-heat in barley, and heat damage and damaged-by-heat
    in sunflower seed.

14. 30 grams (± 1.5 grams).

15. 14 to 16 grams.

16. After the removal of mechanically separated foreign material.

17. A full standardized pearl.
![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.7277777777777777in"
height="0.7069444444444445in"}

**U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development**

**Office of Public and Indian Housing**

Special Attention of: **Notice PIH-2008- 40 (HA)**

Regional and Field Office Directors of Public

Housing; Section 8 Financial Management Center; Issued: November 4, 2008

Public Housing Agencies Administering Housing

Choice Voucher and Public Housing Program; Expires: November 30, 2009

Owners/Agents; Resident Management Corporations;

Resident Councils [References:]{.underline}

24 CFR 5.609(a)(1) and (c)(2)

**Subject: Income exclusion of kinship care payments when foster
children are placed with relatives.**

1.  **[Purpose]{.underline}.** This notice clarifies the exclusion of
    kinship care payments. Payments made on behalf of a related child to
    the tenant household are excluded from income certifications
    pursuant to 24 CFR 5.609(c)(2).

2.  **[Applicability]{.underline}.** This notice applies to Public and
    Indian Housing (PIH) rental assistance programs including: Public
    Housing, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, Housing Choice Voucher
    and Section 8 Project-Based Voucher and Certificate Programs.

3.  **[Background.]{.underline}** Kinship payments are foster care
    subsidies for children living with a related legal guardian.
    Previously, Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) included California's
    Kinship Guardian Assistant Payments (Kin-GAP) as income when
    determining annual household income. Congress and housing advocates
    sought a re-interpretation of the income criteria in order to remove
    a disincentive towards family unification and to treat Kin-GAP the
    same as foster care payments.

> The Department's analysis concurred that kinship care serves as an
> alternative to foster care placements and that compensation to
> participating relatives is comparable to parenting under foster care.
> Payments for the care of foster children are exempt from income. This
> notice interprets kinship payments as equivalent to foster care
> payments.

**4. [Exclusion of income]{.underline}**. During annual and/or interim
reexamination of family income pursuant to Section 24 CFR 960.257 for
public housing and 24 CFR 982.516 for Section 8 programs, PHAs are to
exclude kinship payments.

5.  **[Further information]{.underline}.** Direct inquiries to the
    Public Housing Management and Occupancy Division, Office of Public
    Housing and Voucher Programs at (202) 708-0744.

> [/s/]{.underline}
>
> Paula O. Blunt, General Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Public and Indian Housing
Attachment 3

FIP Requirements

Analysis/Justification Checklist

\$150,000 or less

Requisition \# \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Date of Request: [March 21, 1996]{.underline}

1\. Is this a FIP request?

> **Yes, this is a FIP request.**

2\. Statement of Organization\'s Mission

> **The Occupational Safety and Health Branch (OSHB) supports NIH and
> extramural research to identify and control potentially hazardous
> factors and risks associated with biomedical research. Our Branch
> provides central administrative and technical services to plan,
> conduct, coordinate and support programs to create and maintain a safe
> and healthful environment for NIH patients, employees, visitors, and
> guest workers and to ensure compliance with applicable regulations of
> the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
> Labor.**

3\. Explain the specific requirement that motivated this acquisition.

> **The staff of the Occupational Safety and Health Branch is
> responsible for identifying, evaluating, and controlling safety and
> health hazards in NIH surveys, walk-troughs and surveillance
> activities of laboratories, offices, corridors, and other areas (e.g.
> stairwells, loading docks, etc.) and (2) managing, maintaining, and
> reporting information and data collected during safety and health
> inspections.**

4\. What are the expected benefits of the acquisition?

> **The IRIS system (and the accompanying modules) is a comprehensive
> information system specifically designed for the management of safety
> and health inspections. This Windows-based application maintains a
> variety of inspection results on a single data system, which enables
> comprehensive inspection data collection, verification, management,
> and reporting. These features will allow OSHB to manage, maintain and
> report safety survey information and data more efficiently and
> effectively.**

5\. What other alternatives were considered?

> **The alternative is reliance on hard-copy, hand-written safety and
> health survey reports which is paper intensive, not readily
> retrievable or searchable, difficult and time-consuming to sort, and
> all-around cumbersome to manage.**

6\. Type an explanation of acquisition proposed.

> **This vendor is the only company which provides this system and the
> accompanying survey modules. Therefore, this will be an open-market,
> sole-source acquisition.**

7\. Is the equipment Energy Star compliant or is an exemption required?

> **This is not a hardware purchase.**

8\. Are there special FIP accommodation needs for persons with
disabilities?

> **No special accommodations required.**
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image1.pct)         | ***The University of Western         |
| {width="0.7777777777777778in" | Australia***                         |
| h                             |                                      |
| eight="0.8611111111111112in"} | **Centre for Microscopy and          |
|                               | Microanalysis**                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Dr.B.J. Griffin               | Nedlands, Western Australia 6907     |
|                               |                                      |
| Senior Lecturer               | Facsimile (09) 380 1087 Telex        |
|                               | AA92992                              |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | Telephone (09) 380 2739              |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | Email bjg@uniwa.uwa.edu.au           |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

**VIRTUAL SEM 1.2 GUIDE**

There is NO guide to the virtual SEM.

It was designed as a simulation of a scanning electron microscope and
usage is anticipated to be by browsing and exploring. The program is
still under developement as news ideas, samples, etc come to mind. You
will find some areas that are incomplete - particularly parts 16-20 of
the tutorial section. I am sorry for this however time is always
limited - it is progressing, keep in touch.

We use virtual SEM as a 2 hour practical for our basic SEM course
students, of whom we have around 150 per annum. They work together in
pairs or individually although I prefer the \'pair\' usage for
beginners. The peer level interaction is very supportive.

The assessment section deliberately does not provide the \'correct
answers\' after the marking phase. The intention behind this logic is to
preserve the usefulness of the question set. I accept other arguments
about direct feedback are strong and have gone with my personal
preference.

Have fun and feel free to give me your comments.

Brendon Griffin

3rd August, 1995
![](media/image1.png){width="0.59375in"
height="0.59375in"}**Modification or Task Order Distribution Checklist**

Related SOP: [**Distribution of Contract Awards, Modifications, and Task
Orders
SOP**](http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/sop/contracts/distribution.htm)

April 7, 2006 (jlg)

Date submitted to PT**:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** In
accordance with FAR 4.201, distribution should be completed within 10
working days after modification/task order execution.

Contract No: Mod No.: Unilateral Bilateral

Task Order No.: Task Order Mod No.:

Program Division: DAIDS DAIT DMID

Project Officer name and address:

Business Rep. name and address: Check if address is attached on mod or
letter

P.I. name and address: Check if address is the same as business address

**Documentation Checklist:**

**To be**

**Need Attached Completed by PT**

2 SIGNED ORIGINALS of Modification/Task Order (PT send 2 copies to PI &
Business Rep.)

Signed Original of PO Designation Memo (Return Original to CS) (PT send
2 copies to PI & Business Rep.)

Signed Original Execution Letter (PT send to the Business Rep.) (Return
copy of letter to C.S.)

Congressional Liaison Fax (action over \$3M -- not incremental funding)

OAMP/NIH Notification Fax (Action over \$3M -- not incremental funding)

NIH-1688-1 with FAX transmittal (updated if any changes in scope)

ADB Printout showing final approval of action in ADB.

DCIS Datasheet for entry into DCIS.

**Distribution of Copies of Modification/Task Order:**

**Need Completed**

Contract Specialist/Contract File (Original Signature)

Contractor (Original Signature + 1 copy to business Rep.)

Project Officer

Acting Branch Chief

AO-Marilyn Kunzweiler (all actions)

AO-Brian Collier (DAIDS Only)

Property

DCIS (finalized, copy to CS and Branch Chief)

ADB printout indicating approval is in file

MERLIN printout with updates

Novation (Mod. may need to be distributed to other ICs - list will be
attached to Mod.)

PO designation Memo copy to (Contractor, CS, PT, Project Officer,
Scientific Branch Chief)

PMOB (with signature page only of PO Memo, if applicable)

Lai Tan for changes to the statement of work

OAMP notified via Fax (Over \$3M -- not for incremental funding actions)

Congressional Liaison notified via Fax (Actions over \$3M -- not for
incremental funding actions)

NIH form 1688 for changes in scope of contract

Other (list)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comments: Please identify any circumstances unique to this action.

Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer Date Procurement Technician Date

DCIS Verification Entry Date Date documents and Checklist returned to CS
**Indiana Rural Development Modest Housing Definition\
Single Family Housing Programs**

# **County Limit**

#  **County Limit**

Adams (increased 12/27/01) \$102,000

Allen (increased 12/27/01) 102,000

Bartholomew 117,800

Boone 117,800

Brown 99,750

Carroll (added 5/22/02) 106,317

Clark (increased 4/17/00) 99,750

Clinton 99,450

Dearborn 118,550

Decatur (added 9/21/00) 96,000

DeKalb (increased 11/15/01) 100,000

Dubois (increased 2/27/02) 114,500

Elkhart 93,100

Floyd (increased 4/17/00) 99,750

Franklin (added 6/17/02) 98,000

Hamilton 117,800

Hancock 117,800

Harrison (increased 8/23/02) 109,750

Hendricks 117,800

Howard (increase 3/16/01) 98,350

Huntington (increased 12/27/01) 102,000

Jackson (added 8/23/02) 96,317

Jasper (added 5/15/01) 100,000

Jefferson (added 6/12/02) 98,000

Jennings (added 6/17/02) 98,000

Johnson 117,800

Kosciusko (increased 5/22/02) \$110,000

LaGrange (added 4/17/00) 90,000

LaPorte (added 8/30/01) 100,000

Lake 123,400

Marshall (added 6/3/02) 105,000

Madison 117,800

Monroe 111,150

Morgan 117,800

Noble (90,000 4/17/00; increased 10/10/01) 95,000

Ohio 118,550

Porter 123,400

Posey (added 6/12/02) 106,317

Ripley (added 6/17/02) 98,000

Rush (added 9/21/00) 96,000

Scott 89,750

Shelby 117,800

## St. Joseph (increased 12/27/01) 110,000

Steuben (added 6/30/99, increased 6/3/02) 100,000

Tippecanoe (increased 3/28/02) 119,450

Vanderburg 99,750

Wabash (added 4/3/02) 96,000

Warrick 99,750

Wells (increased 12/27/01) 102,000

White (added 4/23/02) 106,317

Whitley (increased 10/19/01) 100,000

All other counties 86,317