alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR THE OATS PRICING METHODOLOGY (23-CEPP-M0016)

The following is a brief description of changes to the Oats Pricing Methodology for the 2023 and succeeding crop years. 

Please refer to the Oats Pricing Methodology document below for complete information.

• The 2023 crop year is the first year that revenue coverage is offered for oats. Prior to the 2023 crop year, oats 

were insured under the Actual Production History plan of insurance. 
(1 of 1)

23-CEPP-M0016

(Released November 2022)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Oats Pricing Methodology

In accordance with the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions and the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions: Section 

II – Oats (CEPP), oats prices are derived using factors “determined by RMA.” The methods used to determine these factors are 

explained in this document. 

Oats, All States and Counties except Alaska

A 10-year simple average of monthly data is used as the 

factor methodology for oats. The factor is the same for all 

sales closing dates. To compute the factor, the National 

Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS) monthly average price 

received for oats is divided by the NASS monthly average 

price received for soft red winter wheat. An average of the 

monthly ratios for each year is computed to generate an 

annual ratio. The most recent 10 years of annual ratios are 

then averaged to create the factor. 

Oats, Alaska only

To compute Alaska’s factor, the Alaska NASS marketing 

year oats price received is divided by the U.S. NASS 

marketing year oats price received for the most recent 10 

years to derive annual ratios. These 10 annual ratios are 

averaged together. This 10-year average is then multiplied 

by the factor computed above for all states except Alaska,

to generate Alaska’s factor. 

For all states

The factors computed above use data from two years prior 

to the crop year it applies to. For example, for the 2023 CY 

the factor is calculated with data from 2012-2021.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 129 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 129

              To terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

Mr. Feingold (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Wyden,  and Mr. Johnson) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE F/A-18E/F AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

    (a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program.
    (b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds available for procurement 
and for research, development, test, and evaluation that are available 
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act for obligation for 
the F/A-18E/F aircraft program may be obligated for that program only 
for payment of the costs associated with the termination of the 
program.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2013156EN.01000402.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Sweetman and Others v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-258/11) (1)

1

(Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6 - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project - Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned - Lough Corrib site - N6 Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme)

2013/C 156/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Peter Sweetman, Ireland, Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Appellants:

Respondent: An Bord Pleanála

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court, Ireland — Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project — Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or such a project will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned — Consequences of application of the precautionary principle — Construction of a road whose route crosses an area proposed as a special area of conservation

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of sites of Community importance, in accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
### §690g. Fee contribution

#### (a) In general

To the extent that amounts are made available to the Administrator for the purpose of fee contributions, the Administrator shall contribute to fees paid by the Renewable Fuel Capital Investment companies under section 690f of this title.

#### (b) Annual adjustment

Each fee contribution under subsection (a) shall be effective for 1 fiscal year and shall be adjusted as necessary for each fiscal year thereafter to ensure that amounts under subsection (a) are fully used. The fee contribution for a fiscal year shall be based on the outstanding commitments made and the guarantees and grants that the Administrator projects will be made during that fiscal year, given the program level authorized by law for that fiscal year and any other factors that the Administrator determines appropriate.

(Pub. L. 85–699, title III, §388, as added Pub. L. 110–140, title XII, §1207, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1780.)
**Exhibit 14.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Executive Board and Supervisory Board of ARCADIS N.V.

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 relatingto the ARCADIS N.V. 2005 Long-term incentive plan (File no. 333-136561), theARCADIS G&M, Inc. 2002 Officer Stock Purchase Plan (File no. 333-104780),the ARCADIS N.V. 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (File no. 333-91646), theARCADIS N.V. 2001 Long-term Incentive Share Option Plan (File no. 333-99489),the Heidemij N.V. 1996 Incentive Plan (File no. 333-06280), the Heidemij N.V.1994 Incentive Plan (File no. 33- 76328), of our reports dated May 15, 2007,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARCADIS N.V. as of December31, 2006 and 2005 and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flowsand changes in  equity for each of theyears in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31,2006 Annual Report on Form 20-F of ARCADIS N.V.

 

Our report dated May 15,2007 on management assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2006 contains and explanatory paragraph thatstates ARCADIS N.V. acquired various companies during 2006 (together TheAcquired Companies), and management excluded from its assessment of theeffectiveness of ARCADIS N.V. internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2006, The Acquired Companies internal control over financial reportingassociated with assets representing 3% (€ 21.3 million) of consolidated assetsof ARCADIS N.V. and revenues representing 1% (€ 16.9 million) of consolidatedrevenues of ARCADIS N.V. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Ouraudit of internal control over financial reporting of ARCADIS N.V. alsoexcluded an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of TheAcquired Companies.

 

 
| /s/ KPMG ACCOUNTANTS N.V.   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |
| Amstelveen, The Netherlands |
| May 15, 2007                |

 

----
# C_2010246EN.01002402.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal De Première Instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2010 — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State — SPF Finances

(Case C-314/10)

()

2010/C 246/42

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal De Première Instance, Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hubert Pagnoul

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously contained in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude a national Law, such as that of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’Arbitrage, (1) from requiring prior recourse to the Cour Constitutionnelle by a national court which finds that a taxpaying citizen is deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated in Community law, by another national Law, namely Article 49 of the Programmatic Law of 9 July 2004, without that court being able immediately to ensure the direct applicability of Community law to the dispute before it or being able to scrutinise compliance with that convention when the Cour Constitutionnelle has recognised the compatibility of the national law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the Constitution?

1

---

(1)  Moniteur belge, 31 July 2009, p. 51617.

1

Moniteur belge

---
# C_2014045EN.01000501.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — SNIA Spa, under special administration v European Commission

(Case C-448/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputation of liability in the field of competition - Economic continuity test - Infringement of the rights of defence - Duty to state reasons)

2014/C 45/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: SNIA Spa, under special administration (represented by: A. Santa Maria, C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari and B. Gencarelli, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-194/06 SNIA v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), to the extent that the Commission imposed a fine jointly and severally on Caffaro Srl and on SNIA SpA — Rules relating to the imputability of anti-competitive practices in the case of a merger — Infringement of the rights of defence and of the duty to state reasons.

SNIA v Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders SNIA SpA, under special administration, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SNIA SpA, under special administration, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

1

---
- -

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

 RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

 STATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DATE PROJECT DESIGNATION

TELEPHONE SYSTEM - OUTSIDE PLANT

INSTRUCTION - See RUS Bulletin 381-4, 381-9 and 382-3. Show miles to nearest CONTRACT FORCE ACCOUNT

hundredth. AMENDMENT NO. FINAL INVENTORY

 AERIAL OUTSIDE PLANT AMENDMENT

NEW (Includes rebuilt miles on which substantially all poles are to be replaced.) AS PREVIOUSLY AS AMENDED APPROVED. ADDED DELETED

POLE LINE WITH LINE WIRE

POLE LINE WITH FIGURE 8 DISTRIBUTION WIRE

POLE LINE WITH CABLE

JOINT USE - ELECTRIC - LINE WIRE

JOINT USE - ELECTRIC - DISTRIBUTION WIRE

JOINT USE - ELECTRIC - CABLE

JOINT USE - OTHER THAN ELECTRIC - LINE WIRE

JOINT USE - OTHER THAN ELECTRIC - DISTRIBUTION WIRE

JOINT USE - OTHER THAN ELECTRIC - CABLE

SERVICES - AERIAL

TOTAL - NEW AERIAL

R

O

U

T

E

M

I

L

E

S

NUMBER OF SERVICES - AERIAL

 TOTAL ROUTE MILES OF MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING LINES (Includes lines 

on which a substantial number of poles are retained and which are not included in 

the above classifications.)

BURIED OUTSIDE PLANT

BURIED CABLE R

O

U

T

E

BURIED WIRE

TWO OR MORE CABLES IN SAME SLOT OR TRENCH

CONDUIT SYSTEM

UNDERGROUND CABLE

 SERVICES - BURIED

TOTAL - BURIED PLANT

M

I

L

E

S

NUMBER OF SERVICES -BURIED

NUMBER OF MANHOLES

REMOVALS

R EXISTING POLE LINE WITH OPEN WIRE

O

U

T

E

EXISTING POLE LINE WITH AERIAL CABLE

EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE

EXISTING AERIAL SERVICES

EXISTING

M

I

L

E

S TOTAL - REMOVALS

STATION EQUIPMENT

TOTAL NUMBER NEW INSTALLATIONS

TOTAL NUMBER MODIFICATIONS

TOTAL NUMBER REMOVALS

SIGNATURE OF ENGINEER

RUS Form 527 (Rev. 3-71)

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0572-0059. The time required to complete this information is estimated to average 1.25 hours per 

response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information.
September 1, 2016

Mr. M. Fontenot SkyFire Services, LLC 2255 Quail Drive Lakewood, Colorado 80215

Dear Mr. Fontenot:

Re: FAA-2015-3794

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and
have determined that we will con tinue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov , we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (T ier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federa l Register for public comments, if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final deci sion on your petition as s oon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
| **RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS (Details 1) (USD $)** | 3 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Partnership Management Fees Paid [Line Items]**  |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | $ 0            | $ 0 |
| Series One [Member]                                |           |   |
| **Partnership Management Fees Paid [Line Items]**  |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 0 |
| Series Two [Member]                                |           |   |
| **Partnership Management Fees Paid [Line Items]**  |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 0 |
| Series Three [Member]                              |           |   |
| **Partnership Management Fees Paid [Line Items]**  |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 0 |
| Series Four [Member]                               |           |   |
| **Partnership Management Fees Paid [Line Items]**  |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 0 |
| Series Five [Member]                               |           |   |
| **Partnership Management Fees Paid [Line Items]**  |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | 0              | 0 |
| Series Six [Member]                                |           |   |
| **Partnership Management Fees Paid [Line Items]**  |           |   |
| Management Fees Paid                               | $ 0            | $ 0 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Amount of management fees paid during the period.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**bctc_ManagementFeesPaid**Namespace Prefix:**bctc_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**bctc_PartnershipManagementFeesPaidLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**bctc_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 







































 
 

  Exhibit 10.13    
    


 
    Axcelis Technologies, Inc.
  Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation at March 4, 2016    
    


        This Exhibit discloses the current understandings with respect to cash compensation between Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") and each of its non-employee directors. Axcelis provides cash retainers to its non-employee directors, as follows: 

 






					
	Annual Cash Retainers, paid quarterly in advance



 
	 	 
	 
	 Board Member Retainer
	 	

$	50,000	 
	 Independent Chairman Premium
	 	

$	20,000	 
	 Committee Chairman Retainers
	 	 	 	 
	 Audit Committee Chairman
	 	

$	15,000	 
	 Compensation Committee Chairman
	 	

$	10,000	 
	 Nominating and Governance Committee Chairman
	 	

$	7,500	 
	 Technology Committee Chairman
	 	

$	7,500	 
	 Committee Member (not Chairman) Retainers
	 	 	 	 
	 Audit Committee Member
	 	

$	10,000	 
	 Compensation Committee Member
	 	

$	7,500	 
	 Nominating and Governance Committee Member
	 	

$	5,000	 
	 Technology Committee Member
	 	

$	5,000	 




 

         Non-employee
directors also receive reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings. Non-employee directors do not receive any Company-paid
perquisites. 


        The
Board of Directors may, from time to time, form committees in addition to the Audit, Compensation, Nominating and Governance and Technology Committees and set compensation for
service on such additional committees. 


1











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.13


Axcelis Technologies, Inc. Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation at March 4, 2016
#### § 73.9 Owners assume responsibility; must execute agreement prior to dipping or treatment waiving all claims against United States.

When the cattle are to be dipped under APHIS supervision or control, the owner of the cattle offered for shipment, or his agent duly authorized thereto, shall first execute and deliver to an APHIS inspector an application for inspection and supervised dipping wherein he shall agree to waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to said cattle occasioned by or resulting from dipping or other treatment under this part, or resulting from any subsequent treatment prior to their interstate shipment, or resulting from the fact that they are later found to be still scabies infested, and also for all subsequent loss or damage to any other cattle in the possession or control of such owner which may come into contact with the cattle so dipped or treated.

[41 FR 4012, Jan. 28, 1976, as amended at 56 FR 52463, Oct. 21, 1991]
#### § 11.5 Revocation of authority to represent.

Prior to the conclusion of action by the Government Accountability Office on a matter in which a principal is represented by another person whose authority to act is established under either § 11.3 or § 11.4, the principal may revoke the authority of his representative. Such revocation is not effective unless it is in writing and signed by the principal and until the written revocation is received by the Government Accountability Office. Upon notification of the death of the principal during the pendency of any matter involving representation of the principal by an attorney or other party, the Government Accountability Office will consider the representative's authority to have been automatically revoked.
§ 560.4 Designation of States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The requirements in part 331 of this chapter apply with respect to fish and fish products inspection, including: ( a ) The requirements in 9 CFR 331.3 governing the designation of States for Federal inspection under section 301(c) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 661(c));
( b ) The requirements in 9 CFR 331.5 governing the designation under section 301(c) of the Act of establishments whose operations would clearly endanger the public health; and
( c ) The requirements in 9 CFR 331.6 governing the designation of States under section 205 of the Act.