alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27873]



[[Page 76479]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Electronic Distributors Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 8, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Electronic 
Distributors Association (``NEDA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: National 
Electronic Distributors Association, Alpharetta, GA. The nature and 
scope of NEDA's standards development activities are: establishing and 
publishing voluntary standards related to packaging, handling, 
labeling, shipping and tracking products and operational agreements 
between business partners in the electronic component supply chain.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27873 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JEROME RAYMOND BANKS,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 364 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 15th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
AFS

- 13

- 423

- E July 11, 2013

Exemption No.

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0 551

Mr. Rick LaCava

Parent of Rebecca LaCava

8434 Peony Circle

Buena Park, CA 90620

Dear Mr. LaCava :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decisi on

By letter received June 18, 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion (FAA)

on behalf of Rebecca LaCava for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. That exemp tion , if granted, would al low Rebecca to exceed

the specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured

by AmSafe Corporation ) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United

States (U.S.) aircraft.

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exem ption would not set a precedent and any

delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to Rebecca

.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that numerous p eople with physical challenges had previously completed flights using

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition , if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint sy stems by

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the

situation you present ; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Rebecca LaCava an exemption from § 121.311(b). In

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Rebecca is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary

to allow her to use an FAA

- approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft

.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted w ith at least one of Rebecca’s parents

or a caregiver accompanying her

. Rebecca LaCava may only occupy a passenger seat with no

passenger se ated behind her

. In addition, Rebecca ’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on July 31 , 201 8 , unless sooner superseded or resc inded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
```

[106th Congress Public Law 290]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ290.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 921]]

Public Law 106-290
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To expand the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to 
   include the Wills House, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 10, 
                          2000 -  [S. 1324]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress 
assembled, <<NOTE: Pennsylvania. Historic preservation.>> 

SECTION 1. GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK BOUNDARY REVISION.

    Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to revise the boundary of the 
Gettysburg National Military Park in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
and for other purposes'' approved August 17, 1990 (16 U.S.C. 430g-4) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:

    ``(b) Additional Land.--In addition to the land identified in 
subsection (a), the park shall also include the property commonly known 
as the Wills House located in the Borough of Gettysburg and identified 
as Tract P02-1 on the map entitled `Gettysburg National Military Park' 
numbered MARO 305/80,011 Segment 2, and dated April 1981, revised May 
14, 1999.''; and
            (3) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by 
        striking ``map referred to in subsection (a)'' and inserting 
        ``maps referred to in subsections (a) and (b)''.

SEC. <<NOTE: 16 USC 430g-5.>>  2. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND.

    Section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to revise the boundary of the 
Gettysburg National Military Park in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
and for other purposes'' approved August 17, 1990 (16 U.S.C. 430g-4) is 
amended by striking ``1(b)'' each place it appears and inserting 
``1(c)''.

    Approved October 10, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1324 (H.R. 2435):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-736 accompanying H.R. 2435 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-187 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 145 (1999):
                                    Nov. 19, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 146 (2000):
                                    Sept. 26, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```
§ 96.91 Dissemination of information to the public about accreditation and approval status. ( a ) The accrediting entity must maintain and make available to the public on a quarterly basis the following information: ( 1 ) The name, address, and contact information for each agency and person it has accredited or approved;
( 2 ) The names of agencies and persons to which it has denied accreditation or approval that have not subsequently been accredited or approved;
( 3 ) The names of agencies and persons that have been subject to suspension, cancellation, refusal to renew accreditation or approval, or debarment by the accrediting entity or the Secretary; and
( 4 ) Other information specifically authorized in writing by the accredited agency or approved person to be disclosed to the public.
( b ) Each accrediting entity must make the following information available to individual members of the public upon specific request: ( 1 ) Confirmation of whether or not a specific agency or person has a pending application for accreditation or approval, and, if so, the date of the application and whether it is under active consideration or whether a decision on the application has been deferred; and
( 2 ) If an agency or person has been subject to suspension, cancellation, refusal to renew accreditation or approval, or debarment, a brief statement of the reasons for the action.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 


COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 


January 4,2012 


Diane E. Austin, Ph.D. 


Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board 


Associate Research Anthropologist, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, 


University of Arizona 


P.O. Box 210030, Tucson, AZ 85719 

Dear Chair Austin, 

Thank you for your September 2011 letter presenting your position that the United States, as a party of 

the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), should work with the other 

signatories, Mexico and Canada, to come to an agreement on Transboundary Environmental Impact 

Assessment (TElA). We appreciate the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's (GNEB) attention to and 

views on this matter. 

The Obama Administration is committed to strengthening multilateral cooperation in order to achieve 

high levels of environmental quality. The United States strives to foster open communication with its 

North American neighbors regarding projects with potential or identified transboundary environmental 

impacts. That said, we recognize the concerns included in the GNEB's recent letter and agree that the 

TEIA issue should be revisited. 

In the past, differences among the federal structures ofthe three parties ofthe NAAEC presented 

significant challenges to achieving a TEIA agreement. The United States believes it is appropriate to take 

a fresh look at this issue and has initiated discussions on the subject with our Canadian and Mexican 

partners, with the goal of identifying a new and effective approach. Consistent with this view, the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality also will continue to work with the appropriate federal 

departments and agencies to facilitate increased collaboration on border environmental issues. 

Thank you again for the GNEB's ongoing work along the U.S.-Mexico border and attention to the issue 

of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessments. We look forward to working with you as we 

continue these important discussions. 

Nancy H. Sutley 

Chair 

cc: 	Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                        368
<SECURITIES>                  0         
<RECEIVABLES>                 260          
<ALLOWANCES>                  (24)        
<INVENTORY>                   210          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,003     
<PP&E>                        1,009      
<DEPRECIATION>                (418) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3,988        
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3,683 
<BONDS>                       0          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0         
<PREFERRED>                   5,078      
<COMMON>                      13,676  
<OTHER-SE>                    (18,670)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3,988      
<SALES>                       329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              329         
<CGS>                         267  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,245        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            66       
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (967)   
<INCOME-TAX>                  0              
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0                 
<DISCONTINUED>                0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0         
<CHANGES>                     0          
<NET-INCOME>                  (967) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.28) 
        


</TABLE>
-1- CASE NO. C 08-05770 MMC MEJ

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING DATE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SF/1680163v1

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

REBECCA A. HULL Bar No. 99802

rebecca.hull@sdma.com

One Market Plaza

Steuart Tower, 8th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 781-7900

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635

Attorneys for Defendant

Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Whereas, the Court by Order dated February 12, 2010, has required the parties to submit 

supplemental filings, with plaintiff’s filing due by February 22, 2010, and defendant’s filing due by 

March 1, 2010; 

Whereas counsel for defendant has requested that plaintiff stipulate to an extension of two 

days for defendant’s supplemental filing, to Wednesday, March 3, 2010, due to extreme weather 

conditions in New York City which have resulted in unavailability of a key individual for the 

defendant, who works in New York and whose input is needed before the defendant’s brief can be 

finalized and filed with the Court;

Whereas counsel for plaintiff is willing to agree to the requested extension in light of the 

circumstances;

HANNA ZEWDU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITIGROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY 

PLAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C 08-05770 MMC MEJ

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATE 

FOR DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING 

BRIEFING DATE

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 65 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 2
-2- CASE NO. C 08-05770 MMC MEJ

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING DATE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SF/1680163v1

Whereas neither party is prejudiced by the proposed change;

Therefore, the parties now stipulate, and request that the Court order, that defendant’s 

supplemental filing shall be made on or before Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.

DATED: February 26, 2010 SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS LLP

By: Michelle Roberts (as authorized 2/26/10) 

Michelle Roberts

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Hanna Zewdu

DATED: February 26, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

By: Rebecca A. Hull 

Rebecca A. Hull

Attorneys for Defendant

Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________________________________

Hon. Maria-Elena James

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

March 1, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 65 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Corker *v.*Neely.

September 26, 1912.

Processioning. Before Judge Hammond. Burke superior court. June 23, 1911.

*F. S. Burney*and *O. B.*Garlich, for plaintiff in error.

*H. J. Fullbright,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

The assignments of error upon the excerpts from the charge are not meritorious. In view of the charge given, it was not error to refuse the requested instructions. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Estelle Handel, Respondent, v. Bernard Handel, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to stay, pending appeal, the payments of temporary alimony as directed by the order appealed from, denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles P. Evans, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 25, 1977, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### § 9.15 Assistance to the Historian's Office.

All elements of the Department shall assist the Historian's Office in its preparation of the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series such as by providing prompt access to and, when possible, declassification of information deemed appropriate for inclusion in the FRUS.
#### § 312.210 To whom must I distribute my drug-free workplace statement?

You must require that a copy of the statement described in § 312.205 be given to each employee who will be engaged in the performance of any Federal award.
§ 96.77 Responsibilities of the accredited agency, approved person, and accrediting entity following adverse action by the accrediting entity. ( a ) If the accrediting entity takes an adverse action against an agency or person, the action will take effect immediately unless the accrediting entity agrees to a later effective date.
( b ) If the accrediting entity suspends or cancels the accreditation or approval of an agency or person, the agency or person must immediately, or by any later effective date set by the accrediting entity, cease to provide adoption services in all intercountry adoption cases. In the case of suspension, it must consult with the accrediting entity about whether to transfer its intercountry adoption cases and adoption records. In the case of cancellation, it must execute the plans required by §§ 96.33(e) and 96.42(d) under the oversight of the accrediting entity, and transfer its intercountry adoption cases and adoption records to other accredited agencies, approved persons, or a State archive, as appropriate. When the agency or person is unable to transfer such intercountry adoption cases or adoption records in accordance with the plans or as otherwise agreed by the accrediting entity, the accrediting entity will so advise the Secretary who, with the assistance of the accrediting entity, will coordinate efforts to identify other accredited agencies or approved persons to assume responsibility for the cases, and to transfer the records to other accredited agencies or approved persons, or to public domestic authorities, as appropriate.
( c ) If the accrediting entity refuses to renew the accreditation or approval of an agency or person, the agency or person must cease to provide adoption services in all intercountry adoption cases upon expiration of its existing accreditation or approval. It must take all necessary steps to complete its intercountry adoption cases before its accreditation or approval expires. It must also execute the plans required by §§ 96.33(e) and 96.42(d) under the oversight of the accrediting entity, and transfer its pending intercountry adoption cases and adoption records to other accredited agencies, approved persons, or a State archive, as appropriate. When the agency or person is unable to transfer such intercountry adoption cases or adoption records in accordance with the plans or as otherwise agreed by the accrediting entity, the accrediting entity will so advise the Secretary who, with the assistance of the accrediting entity, will coordinate efforts to identify other accredited agencies or approved persons to assume responsibility for the cases and to transfer the records to other accredited agencies or approved persons, or to public domestic authorities, as appropriate.
( d ) The accrediting entity must notify the Secretary, in accordance with procedures established in its agreement with the Secretary, when it takes an adverse action that changes the accreditation or approval status of an agency or person. The accrediting entity must also notify the relevant State licensing authority as provided in the agreement.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
### §3057m. Payments

Payments may be made under this subchapter (after necessary adjustments, in the case of grants, on account of previously made overpayments or underpayments) in advance or by way of reimbursement in such installments and on such conditions, as the Assistant Secretary may determine.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VI, §642, formerly §632, as added Pub. L. 100–175, title I, §171, Nov. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 963; amended Pub. L. 103–171, §3(a)(13), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1990; renumbered §642, Pub. L. 106–501, title VI, §604(2), Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2288.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–171 substituted "Assistant Secretary" for "Commissioner".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1987, except not applicable with respect to any area plan submitted under section 3026(a) of this title or any State plan submitted under section 3027(a) of this title and approved for any fiscal year beginning before Nov. 29, 1987, see section 701(a), (b) of Pub. L. 100–175, set out as an Effective Date of 1987 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.