alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAnalysis of Nd3+:glass, solar-pumped, high-powr laser systemsThe operating characteristics of Nd(3+):glass lasers energized by a solar concentrator were analyzed for the hosts YAG, silicate glass, and phosphate glass. The modeling is based on the slab zigzag laser geometry and assumes that chemical hardening methods for glass are successful in increasing glass hardness by a factor of 4. On this basis, it was found that a realistic 1-MW solar-pumped laser might be constructed from phosphate glass 4 sq m in area and 2 mm thick. If YAG were the host medium, a 1-MW solar-pumped laser need only be 0.5 sq m in area and 0.5 cm thick, which is already possible. In addition, Nd(3+) doped glass fibers were found to be excellent solar-pumped laser candidates. The small diameter of fibers eliminates thermal stress problems, and if their diameter is kept small (10 microns), they propagate a Gaussian single mode which can be expanded and transmitted long distances in space. Fiber lasers could then be used for communications in space or could be bundled and the individual beams summed or phase-matched for high-power operation.Document ID19890008484Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsZapata, L. E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Williams, M. D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1989Subject CategoryLasers And MasersReport/Patent NumberL-16085NASA-TP-2905NAS 1.60:2905Accession Number89N17855Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-41-41-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19890008484.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 3602.47 When and how may I renew my competitive contract and what is the fee? ( a ) *Applying for competitive contract renewal.* When you have paid the United States the full contract price for the mineral materials you purchased under a competitive contract, you may apply for renewal of the contract without further competitive bidding in order to purchase and extract additional material that may be available at the contract site. You must submit your request for renewal of the contract at least 90 days before it expires. You do not need to use a specific form.
( b ) *BLM's response to the application.* BLM will renew your contract if— ( 1 ) You meet all the requirements of this section;
( 2 ) Your contract is not limited under § 3602.49; and
( 3 ) BLM determines that you are able to fulfill the obligations of a new contract.
( c ) *Renewal term.* BLM will renew your contract for a maximum term of 10 additional years. The renewal may be for less than 10 years if you do not request that much time, or if BLM finds that the quantity of material involved does not justify a 10-year term.
( d ) *Number of times BLM may renew a contract.* There is no maximum number of times BLM may renew a contract.
( e ) *Fee.* BLM will charge a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in § 3000.11 of this chapter.
[66 FR 58901, Nov. 23, 2001, as amended at 70 FR 58878, Oct. 7, 2005]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998           JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998          SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,114,732           0
<SECURITIES>                                 3,906,525           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,100,641           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0           0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,840,649           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,639,958           0
<PP&E>                                      11,750,172           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,395,536           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,736,847           0
<BONDS>                                      5,343,397           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0           0
<PREFERRED>                                          0           0
<COMMON>                                       695,792           0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,553,682           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,395,536           0
<SALES>                                              0           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,690,033           71,340,343
<CGS>                                       38,478,298           27,653,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,478,298           27,653,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            43,192,796           29,713,129
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             658,388           245,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,037,628           14,289,763
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,413,170           6,026,332
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,624,458           8,263,431
<DISCONTINUED>                                 762,288           685,504
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0           0
<CHANGES>                                            0           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,386,746           8,948,935
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.5           .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.5           .15
        


</TABLE>
#### Jerome S. Isaacs, Respondent, v. Pan American Trading Company et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present— Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
### §4139. Noncompliance with affordable housing requirement

If a recipient uses grant amounts to provide affordable housing under this subchapter, and at any time during the useful life of the housing the recipient does not comply with the requirement under section 4135(a)(2) of this title, the Secretary shall take appropriate action under section 4161(a) of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–330, title II, §209, Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4035; Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §595(c), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2656; Pub. L. 106–568, title X, §1003(f)(1), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2927; Pub. L. 106–569, title V, §503(e)(1), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2962.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–568 and Pub. L. 106–569 generally amended section catchline and text identically. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "If a recipient uses grant amounts to provide affordable housing under activities under this subchapter and, at any time during the useful life of the housing the housing does not comply with the requirement under section 4135(a)(2) of this title, the Secretary shall reduce future grant payments on behalf of the grant beneficiary by an amount equal to the grant amounts used for such housing (under the authority under section 4161(a)(2) of this title) or require repayment to the Secretary of an amount equal to such grant amounts."

1998—Pub. L. 105–276 made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 4135(a)(2) of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1997, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 107 of Pub. L. 104–330, set out as a note under section 4101 of this title.
#### Stilwell *v.*Watkins.

Atkinson, J.

1. A bill of exceptions reciting that it was tendered within thirty days from the adjournment of the court, and' followed by the usual certificate of the judge, will not be dismissed, although not actually certified by the judge until after the time allowed by law for tendering the same had expired, unless it be made to appear that the failure of the'judge to certify the same within the period allowed for tendering the bill of exceptions was due to some act of the plaintiff iñ error or his counsel. *Dyson*v. *Southern Ry. Co.,*113 *Ga.*327 (38 S. E. 749) ; *Proctor*v. *Piedmont Portland Cement & Lime Co,*134 *Ga.*391 (67 S. E. 942).

2. Where a bill of exceptions is duly and regularly certified according to law, an additional certificate following the one required by statute will be ignored and treated as surplusage. *Dyson*v. *Southern Ry. Co.,*supra; *Atkins*v. *Winter,*121 *Ga.*75 (48 S. E. 717) ; *Cordray*v. *Savannah Union Station Co.,*134 *Ga.*865 (68 S. E. 697).

*150September 23, 1910.

Affidavit to eject. Before Judge Morris. Gilmer superior court. May 21, 1009.

*J. Z. Poster*and *A. li. Burtz,*for plaintiff in error.

*William, Butt, J. P. Brooke,*and *D. W. Blair,*contra.

3. Under the ruling in *Southern Mining Co.*v. *Brown,*107 *Ga.*264 (33 S. E. 73), the bill of exceptions will not be dismissed on the ground that there was no bona fide effort to brief the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions.

4. In a proceeding under the Civil Code, § 4808, against an intruder, the defendant can not be evicted if in good faith he claims a right to the possession of the land. *Thompson*v. *Glover,*120 *Ga.*440 (47 S. E. 935); *Lane*v. *Williams,*114 *Ga.*124 (39 S. E. 919). Under this rule, the evidence, being conflicting, was not of such character as to authorize the direction of a verdict against the defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 57949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21713]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Cancellation of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Pathobiochemistry 
Study Section, October 15, 2004, 8 a.m. to October 15, 2004, 5 p.m., 
Four Points by Sheraton Bethesda, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 
20814 which was published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2004, 
69 FR 546994-54696.
    The meeting is cancelled due to a lack of quorum.

    Dated: September 22, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-21713 Filed 9-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHigh-Speed Research Surveillance Symbology Assessment ExperimentTen pilots flew multiple approach and departure scenarios in a simulation experiment of the High-Speed Civil Transport to evaluate the utility of different airborne surveillance display concepts. The primary eXternal Visibility System (XVS) display and the Navigation Display (ND) were used to present tactical and strategic surveillance information, respectively, to the pilot. Three sensors, the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, radar, and the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system, were modeled for this simulation and the sensors surveillance information was presented in two different symbology sets to the pilot. One surveillance symbology set used unique symbol shapes to differentiate among the sensors, while the other set used common symbol shapes for the sensors. Surveillance information in the form of escape guidance from threatening traffic was also presented to the pilots. The surveillance information (sensors and escape guidance) was either presented head-up on the primary XVS display and head-down on the ND or head-down on the ND only. Both objective and subjective results demonstrated that the display concepts having surveillance information presented head-up and head-down have surveillance performance benefits over those concepts having surveillance information displayed head-down only. No significant symbology set differences were found for surveillance task performance.Document ID20000038235Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKramer, Lynda J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Norman, R. Michael*(Boeing Co. Long Beach, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 2000Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:210107L-17957NASA/TM-2000-210107Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 577-60-10-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20000038235.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
118 South McCrary Road, Columbus, MS 39702

August 27, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations

Reference (a) FAA Letter dated August 11, 2015 notifying deficiency in response to 

11.81from Brittany Newton

(b) CFR Title 14, chapter 1, subchapter B, Part 11, Subpart A, 11.81

Ms. Newton,

In reply to reference (a), and In accordance with reference (b), ONVOI submits the following 

additional information regarding how granting the exemption would benefit the public. 

During the past year the FAA has acknowledged the significant technological advances in small 

UAS have led to a fast developing commercial market for products produced by small UAVs and 

also technology that supports providing a safe operating environment for SUAS for other aircraft 

in the NAS. 

The use of small unmanned aircraft will lead to more efficient methods of performing certain 

commercial tasks that are currently performed by other methods. Proposed Rule 107 lists 

ONVOI’s sUAS initiatives as operations that can be safely conducted under a framework similar 

to that proposed by ONVOI. 

Recently the FAA acknowledged the experience that military pilots bring to the UAS field. ONVOI’s

executive management team is comprised of retired military pilots with thousands of hours 

operating aircraft in the NAS and conducting military UAS operations in combined airspace. 

Additionally, we have conducted large military UAS operations safely from International airports 

under ICAO flight rules in controlled/combined airspace. We understand the impact UAS 

operations have on general aviation operations. 

All of our UAS operators are FAA certificated pilots. As a Veteran Owned Small Business, we 

focus on hiring veterans and only recruit personnel to support our UAS division with military UAS 

experience. We understand aviation operations and the unique impact small UAS operations can 

have on the airspace. 

ONVOI will share data collected during UAS operations with the FAA which will allow 

organizations to become much more efficient, productive, and contribute to reducing risks to the 

aviation operations within the NAS.

Sincerely,

David Ricker, COO
377 P.2d 100

#### Leo A. CALHOUN, Petitioner, v. Harold A. COX, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary and The State of New Mexico et al., Respondents.

No. 15 HC.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 7, 1963.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ, NOBLE and MOISE, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the request for free process be and the same is hereby granted and the motion for delayed appeal be and the same is hereby denied.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of In Vivo Medical  Diagnostics,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, In
Vivo Medical  Diagnostics,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to In Vivo Medical Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Lapis
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.

February 3, 2005                            /s/ Bernard Turner
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Bernard Turner
                                            Chief Financial Officer
### [Subpart H—Repealed]
§ 4.1377 Petition for discretionary review of initial decision. ( a ) Any party may file a petition for discretionary review of an initial decision of an administrative law judge issued under § 4.1375 with the Board within 30 days of receipt of the decision. An untimely petition shall be dismissed.
( b ) The petition for discretionary review shall set forth specifically the alleged errors in the initial decision, with supporting argument, and shall attach a copy of the decision.
( c ) Any party may file a response to the petition for discretionary review within 30 days of its service.
( d ) The Board shall issue a decision denying the petition or granting the petition and deciding the merits within 60 days of the deadline for filing responses.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe symbolic computation and automatic analysis of trajectoriesResearch was generally done on computation of trajectories of dynamical systems, especially control systems. Algorithms were further developed for rewriting expressions involving differential operators. The differential operators involved arise in the local analysis of nonlinear control systems. An initial design was completed of the system architecture for software to analyze nonlinear control systems using data base computing.Document ID19910019473Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeOther - Collected WorksAuthorsGrossman, Robert*(Illinois Univ. Chicago, IL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1991Subject CategoryNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:188159NASA-CR-188159Accession Number91N28787Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG2-513Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910019473.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitleN91-28788 through N91-28790Workvisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-4123 Directorate Identifier: 2016-NE-06-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

One time 

inspection,

Both hubs affected

16 $1,360.0

0

$0 $1,360.00 279 $378,080.00

One time 

inspection,

Only one hub 

affected

8.0 $ 680.00 $0 $ 680.00 389 $264,520.00

Stage 1 Hub (pn 

2A5001) 

replacement (prorated)

$ 0.00 $50,271 $50,271.00 284 $14,276,964.

00

Stage 2 Hub (pn 

2A4802) 

replacement (prorated)

$ 0.00 $40,063 $40,063.00 284 $11,377,892.

00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $26,297,456

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:
Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### Arpad Plesch et al. v. Banque Nationale de la Republique d’Haiti.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 224.]