alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 146.23 Terminology and classification; flocks and products. Participating flocks which have met the respective requirements specified in this section may be designated by the following terms and the corresponding designs illustrated in § 146.9 of this part: ( a ) *U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored* — ( 1 ) *Table-egg layer pullet flocks.* This program is intended to be the basis from which the table-egg layer industry may conduct a program to monitor for the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza. It is intended to determine the presence of the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza in table-egg layer pullets through routine surveillance of each participating commercial table-egg layer pullet flock. A flock will qualify for this classification when the Official State Agency determines that it has met one of the following requirements: ( i ) It is a commercial table-egg layer pullet flock in which a minimum of 11 birds have been tested negative to the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza as provided in § 146.13(b) within 21 days prior to movement; or
( ii ) It is a commercial table-egg layer pullet flock that has an ongoing active and diagnostic surveillance program for the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza in which the number of birds tested is equivalent to the number required in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section and that is approved by the Official State Agency and the Service.
( 2 ) *Table-egg layer flocks.* This program is intended to be the basis from which the table-egg layer industry may conduct a program to monitor for the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza. It is intended to determine the presence of the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza in table-egg layer through routine surveillance of each participating commercial table-egg layer flock. A flock will qualify for this classification when the Official State Agency determines that it has met the following requirements: ( i ) It is a commercial table-egg layer flock in which a minimum of 11 birds have been tested negative to the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza as provided in § 146.13(b) within 21 days prior to disposal; and either
( ii ) It is a commercial table-egg layer flock in which a minimum of 11 birds have been tested negative for the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza as provided in § 146.13(b) within a 12-month period; or
( iii ) It is a commercial table-egg layer flock that has an ongoing active and diagnostic surveillance program for the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza in which the number of birds tested is equivalent to the number required in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and that is approved by the Official State Agency and the Service.
( b ) [Reserved]
[71 FR 56328, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended at 76 FR 15796, Mar. 22, 2011; 79 FR 38765, July 9, 2014; 79 FR 71624, Dec. 3, 2014; 83 FR 28355, June 19, 2018]
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

May 31 , 2016 

Eric Leaver 

Engineer Director/DER Administration 

Cub Crafters Incorporated 

1601 Lind Avenue SW 

Renton, WA 98055-4056 

Dear Mr. Leaver: 

Exemption No. l 00 l6A 

Small Airplane Directorate 

90 I Locust Street 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106 

Regulatory DocketNo. FAA-2009-1161 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to amend Exemption No. 

I 0016. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the [revised] 

conditions and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 11 , 20 13, you notified the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office on behalf of Cub Crafters Incorporated (Cub Crafters) for 

an amendment to] Exemption No. 10016. That exemption from§ 23.562 ofTitle 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Cub Crafters to type certificate the Model CC18-18l 

aircraft with seats that have not shown compliance with the emergency landing dynamic 

conditions. Cub Crafters proposed the use of static tests on the seats. The amendment you 

request would change the aircraft model from CC 18-181 to CC 19 to avoid confusion with the 

CC18-180 series aircraft. 

In your letter, you indicate that there has been no change in the aircraft design; therefore, the 

FAA considers the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the 

basis for granting the original exemption are still valid. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of [amendment to] the exemption 

ACE-16-00002-E 
Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. I 00 16, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701 , which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions 

and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Cub Crafters Model CC 19 must maintain a stall speed of no more than 45 knots 

when in the landing configuration. 

2. This exemption is limited to the Cub Crafters Model CC 19 as equipped with 

seats, restraints, attachments and other alterations, as described in the petitioner's 

request for exemption. Significant changes to any of these elements may require 

additional testing and substantiation. 

3. Cub Crafters maintains this exemption amendment with exemption 10016. 

Sincerely, 

Pat Mullen 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

2
#### Anna COMPTON, Movant, v. PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

(March 21, 1939.)

SIDNEY TRIVETTE for movant.

STRATTON & STEPHENSON opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; judgment affirmed.
### §672. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–341, §11(h)(1), Oct. 3, 1961, 75 Stat. 757

Section, Pub. L. 85–699, title II, §202(b), Aug. 21, 1958, 72 Stat. 691, authorized appropriations for business expenses.
#### Matteo Minnelli *v.*George H. Poulos et al.

House, 0. ,T., Shapiro, Loiselle, MacDonald and Bogdanski, Js.

Argued March 5

decision released March 12, 1974

*William B. Moller,*with whom were *Wesley W. Horton*and *Brian M. Gildea,*for the appellants (defendants).

*Alfonse G. Fasano,*with whom, on the brief, was *Victor P. Fasano,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages he claimed to have sustained when he was struck by an automobile owned by the defendant George H. Poulos and operated by the defendant Andrew H. Poulos. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $180,000. The defendants moved to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was excessive. The court denied this motion. In its memorandum of decision denying the motion, the court noted that the jury could reasonably find that the plaintiff had sustained special damages exceeding $40,000, that he had a life expectancy of 23.3 years and had sustained a 75 percent permanent disability of his lower extremities. The court con-*174eluded: “In light of the above, the court was not shocked by the verdict and in its judgment felt the same was within normal limits.” The defendants appealed from the judgment, assigning as error the ruling of the court denying their motion to set aside the verdict because the damages awarded were excessive. This was the sole claim pressed on this appeal.

The ruling of a trial court on a motion to set aside a verdict is entitled to great weight. *Darling*v. *Burrone Bros., Inc.,*162 Conn. 187, 200, 292 A.2d 912. We have reviewed the evidence on the issue of damages as summarized in the appendices to the briefs and conclude that the jury could reasonably have found that the damages awarded by them constituted fair, just and reasonable compensation for the injuries which the plaintiff sustained. It cannot be held as a matter of law that the award does not fall within the necessarily uncertain limits of just damages. *Neal*v. *Shiels, Inc.,*166 Conn. 3, 20, 347 A.2d 102; *Raia*v. *Topehius,*165 Conn. 231, 239, 332 A.2d 93. We find no error in the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict.

There is no error.
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

#### § 28.40 Statement of purpose.

Proceedings before the Board shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible with due regard to the rights of the parties. Discovery is designed to enable a party to obtain relevant information needed for presentation of the party's case. These regulations are intended to provide a simple method of discovery. They will be interpreted and applied so as to avoid delay and to facilitate adjudication of the case. The parties are expected to initiate and complete needed discovery with a minimum of Board intervention.
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 – Xeda International and Pace International v Commission**

**(Case T-71/10)**

Plant protection products – Active substance diphenylamine – Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC – Withdrawal of authorisations of plant protection products containing that substance – Action for annulment – Locus standi – Admissibility – Proportionality – Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414 – Rights of the defence – Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1095/2007

1.                     *Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Procedure for
inclusion of the active substances of those products in Annex I to the directive – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial
review – Scope (Council Directive 91/414, Annex I) (see paras 69-71)*

2.                     *Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Procedure for
inclusion of the active substances of those products in Annex I to the directive – Residual scientific uncertainty as to the
existence or scope of risks to human health – Application of the precautionary principle – Scope – Limits (Art. 174(2) EC;
Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1)(b), and Annex I) (see paras 74-76)*

3.                     *Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Scientific assessment of risks – Requirement for a high level of health protection
– Scope (Art. 152(1), first para., EC) (see paras 77-78)*

4.                     *Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 91/414 – Commission decision
not to enter an active substance in Annex I to the directive – Lack of sufficient information to conclude that no risks present
– Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 5(1), and Annex I) (see paras 126-128, 132,
137)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Xeda International SA and Pace International LLC to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. JOSEPH PANGELINAN, Defendant

Criminal Case No. 101F-78

Superior Court of Guam

August 24, 1978

ABBATE, *Presiding Judge*

DECISION

This case comes before the Court on the People’s motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Code § 70.50 to be allowed to take the deposition of Baymond Gutierrez.

It should be noted that the adoption of § 70.50 broadened the area in which depositions are allowed in criminal cases. However, there must be a showing of need and special circumstances before a deposition will be allowed.

*556Examination of the grand jury transcript indicates that Gutierrez will offer testimony that is material to the issues involved herein. Furthermore, the affidavit of Kevin Mannix demonstrates that there is a distinct possibility that at the time of trial Gutierrez will be off-island and beyond the subpoena power of the Court. In view of these circumstances a deposition is warranted.

However, the taking of depositions by the prosecution always raises the danger that the defendant may be denied his right to confront adverse witnesses. Therefore, prior to the introduction of the Gutierrez deposition at trial the People will be required to demonstrate that they have utilized all good faith efforts to procure the attendance of Mr. Gutierrez for trial.

The People’s motion to be allowed to take the deposition of Raymond Gutierrez is granted.

SO ORDERED.
### §714n. Transfer of assets of Commodity Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation

The assets, funds, property, and records of Commodity Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation, are transferred to the Corporation. The rights, privileges, and powers, and the duties and liabilities of Commodity Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation, in respect to any contract, agreement, loan, account, or other obligation shall become the rights, privileges, and powers, and the duties and liabilities, respectively, of the Corporation. The enforceable claims of or against Commodity Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation, shall become the claims of or against, and may be enforced by or against, the Corporation: Provided, That nothing in this subchapter shall limit or extend any period of limitation otherwise applicable to such claims against the Corporation.

(June 29, 1948, ch. 704, §16, 62 Stat. 1075.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exceptions From Transfer of Functions

For exception of functions of corporations of Department of Agriculture from transfer of functions to Secretary of Agriculture by Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1953, see Exceptions From Transfer of Functions note set out under section 712a of this title.
# PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST

Hull and Propellers All hull screws are securely fastened to the body of the UAS All propellers are securely fastened to the motors Transmitters and accompanying wires are securely fastened to the hull Camera(s), gimbal(s), and acocmpanying wires are securely fastened to the hull There are no loose parts, wires, screws, or extremities that can fall from the UAS Operator Notes:

Safety Check The operator performed a visual review of the area of operation The operator is aware of aerial obstructions (i.e. poles, structures, utility wires, trees). The operator is not within 3-miles of an airport The operator clearly marked a takeoff/landing zone with 4 orange caution cones The operator has clearly announced that the UAV is preparing for flight The operator has ensured no persons or animals are near the caution zone Weather permits the safe operation of the UAS (i.e. little to no wind, no precipitation, VFR Wx Cond.) If working in pairs, the second operator has a pair of binoculars to maintain line of sight Operator Notes:

Power to System The battery being placed into the UAS has a full capacity charge. The batteries inside the RC controller have a sufficient charge There is a spare UAS battery with a full charge There are spare batteries for the RC controller with a full charge The UAS battery is securely fastened within the UAS hull The UAS powers up completely indicating a normal audible chime of operability All lights on the UAS are operating normally Operator Notes:

RC/WIFI/FPV Connectivity There is a steady connection between the RC controller and the UAS There is a steady connection between the video transmitter and the FPV receiver The UAS is responding accurately and efficiently to RC commands Video equipment is responding accurately and efficiently to FPV commands FPV OSD is operational RC Controller is placed into the appropriate flight mode for takeoff Operator Notes:

Satellite Connectivity UAS is indicating full satellite/GPS connectivity UAS has set the "home" location Following take-off, UAS successfully completes a 10-second hover with minimal drift After hover check, UAS responds to all directional movements and returns to hover upon release of CL. Operator Notes:

UAS Operator's Signature:

_________________________ UAS Observers Signature:________________________

Job/Invoice Number: _______________ Date of flight:

_______________ Time: _______________ * All Aerovisible UAS Operators MUST perform this pre-flight checklist prior to every respective flight.
§ 93.206 Declaration and other documents for poultry. ( a ) The certificates, declarations, and affidavits required by the regulations in this part shall be presented by the importer or his or her agent to the collector of customs at the port of entry, upon arrival of poultry at such port, for the use of the veterinary inspector at the port of entry.
( b ) For all poultry offered for importation, the importer or his or her agent shall first present two copies of a declaration which shall list the port of entry, the name and address of the importer, the name and address of the broker, the origin of the poultry, the number, breed, species, and purpose of the importation, the name of the person to whom the poultry will be delivered, and the location of the place to which such delivery will be made.
( c ) Any declaration, permit, or other document for poultry required under this subpart may be issued and presented using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.
[55 FR 31495, Aug. 2, 1990, as amended at 81 FR 40151, June 21, 2016]
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD SUBJECT: Meeting with State-EPA Roundtable DATE: Friday, May 9, 2014 TIME: Noon – 1:00 PM Participants: EPA –Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Janita Aguirre ACWA/States – Melissa McCoy (ACWA), Sean Rolland (ACWA), Scott Stoner (New York), Martha Clark Mettler (Indiana), Lindsay Patterson (Wyoming) Summary of Meeting: Catch-up call for those that missed the May 6, 2014 meeting. Participants discussed options derived from public comments received.

TOPIC TIME LEAD__________ 1. Roll Call 10 min Aguirre 2. Roundtable Input on Options 60 min Roundtable 3. Questions & Answers 15 min Roundtable 4. Reminders for next Roundtable meeting 5 min Aguirre
§ 81.4 Requests for identifiable records. ( a ) A request to inspect or obtain a copy of an identifiable record of GAO must be submitted in writing to the Chief Quality Officer, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548. Requests also may be emailed to *recordsrequest@gao.gov .* The Chief Quality Officer will either acknowledge or honor the request within 20 days of receipt.
( b ) The Chief Quality Officer will honor requests for expedited processing before all other requests in cases in which the person requesting the records demonstrates a compelling need. A demonstration of compelling need shall be made by a statement certified by the requester to be true and correct to the best of the requester's knowledge and belief.
( c ) In the event of an objection or doubt as to the propriety of providing the requester with a copy of the record sought, every effort will be made to resolve such problems as quickly as possible, including consultation with appropriate GAO elements. If it is determined that the record should be withheld, the Chief Quality Officer shall inform the requester in writing that the request has been denied, shall identify the material withheld, and shall explain the basis for the denial.
( d ) A person whose request is denied in whole or part may administratively appeal the denial within 60 days after the date of the denial by submitting a letter to the Comptroller General of the United States at the address listed in paragraph (a) of this section, explaining why the denial of the request was unwarranted.
[68 FR 33832, June 6, 2003, as amended at 76 FR 12550, Mar. 8, 2011]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000835663
<NAME> THE GLENMEDE FUND
<SERIES NUMBER>  1
[NAME] GOVERNMENT CASH PORTFOLIO
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12 MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR END>                  31-Oct-99
<PERIOD-END>                       31-Oct-99
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                 406,875,166
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                406,875,166
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,018,847
<ASSETS-OTHER>                              1,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        407,895,289
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS LIABILITIES>               1,987,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                     1,987,841
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>              405,871,807
<SHARES-COMMON-CURRENT>               405,871,807
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                 430,129,444
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                  71,402
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                   (35,761)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                        0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                        0
<NET-ASSETS>                          405,907,448
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                               0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      24,157,732
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  0
<EXPENSES-NET>                            513,703
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                23,644,029
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                        0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                       0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                  23,644,029
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>              23,644,029
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                        0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                           0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>             3,829,650,837
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>         3,853,935,896
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                        27,423
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                (24,257,637)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                    71,402
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                 (35,761)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                         0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                      0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                           0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                           513,703
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                  485,173,188
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
<PER-SHARE-NII>                              0.49
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                      0.00
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                         0.49
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                    0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                         0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                              0.10%



</TABLE>
§ 500.8 Procedures for rescinding or refusing approval of marks, labels, and containers. ( a ) FSIS may rescind or refuse approval of false or misleading marks, labels, or sizes or forms of any container for use with any meat, poultry, or egg product, under section 7 of the FMIA, under section 8 of the PPIA, or under sections 7 or 14 of the EPIA.
( b ) FSIS will provide written notification that: ( 1 ) Explains the reason for rescinding or refusing the approval;
( 2 ) Provides an opportunity for the establishment to modify the marking, labeling, or container so that it will no longer be false or misleading; and
( 3 ) Advises the establishment of its opportunity to submit a written statement to respond to the notification and to request a hearing.
( c ) If FSIS rescinds or refuses approval of false or misleading marks, labels, or sizes or forms of any container for use with any meat, poultry, or egg product, an opportunity for a hearing will be provided in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Practice, 7 CFR subtitle A, part 1, subpart H.
[64 FR 66546, Nov. 29, 1999, as amended at 85 FR 68673, Oct. 29, 2020; 85 FR 81340, Dec. 16, 2020]