alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.434 Equal opportunity and nondiscrimination requirements.

(See subpart A § 1980.41.)

## Administrative

The State Director will assure that equal opportunity and nondiscrimination requirements are met. If there is indication of noncompliance with these requirements, such facts will be reported by the Compliance Reviewing Officer or Rural Development Official in writing to the Administrator, ATTN: Equal Opportunity Officer.
In response, appellants argue that the order appealed from

was the final judgment because it resolved respondents' cause of action for attorney fees and determined that they were the prevailing party entitled to such fees. We disagree. Because the order appealed from did not establish an amount of fees, but instead set a future hearing date to determine an appropriate amount of fees, the order is not appealable.' Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 2

1C241)W r
. Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge Laurie A. Yott, Settlement Judge Leverty & Associates Law, Chtd. Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd. Third District Court Clerk Supreme Court Law Librarian

IWe note that appellants have filed an appeal from the district court's order awarding a specific amount of fees and costs, docketed in this court as Docket No. 68776. Appellants are free to raise issues regarding respondents' entitlement to fees in the context of that appeal.

2 Appellants' motion to consolidate this appeal with Docket No. 68776 is denied as moot. The conditional sanction imposed against appellants' counsel is hereby vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1547A
§ 2502.4 Program eligibility. ( a ) Entities eligible to apply for and receive a grant under this part include: ( 1 ) A non-profit organization;
( 2 ) A consortium of nonprofit organizations; or
( 3 ) A consortium which includes a non-profit organization(s) and one or more of the following: agribusinesses, State and local governments, agricultural labor organizations, farmer or rancher cooperatives, and community-based organizations with the capacity to train farm workers.
( b ) Additional information about eligible entities may be included in the RFP. In addition, the RFP will specify the criteria by which an entity's capacity to train farm workers will be evaluated, but at a minimum, the entity shall be required to demonstrate that it has: ( 1 ) An understanding of the issues facing hired farmworkers and conditions under which they work;
( 2 ) Familiarity with the agricultural industry in the geographic area to be served, including agricultural labor needs and existing services for farmworkers; and
( 3 ) The capacity to effectively administer a program of services and benefits authorized by the ACE program.
( c ) An applicant will be required to submit information to OAO, as specified in the RFP and/or FOA as part of the grant application.
#### § 29.1004 Clean.

Tobacco is described as clean when it contains only a normal amount of sand or soil particles. Leaves grown on the lower position of the stalk normally contain more sand or dirt than those from higher stalk positions. (See Rule 4.)
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# jm ll-E-20 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:11 AM

Sheet 240 of 264P. 2 FIL E No . 18 7 11/2 5 '9 8 15=5 1 ID:WERNE R C O 72 4 58 8 162 1 U/2S/9 8 13:1 8 FA

X 01 9 54 1 568 9 U S EPA/BSD/CCPG PAG E 1

CONTAC T REPOR T From : Madelein

e Strum , U S EPA , OAQPS , Coating s an d Consume

r Product s Grou

p Dat e of Contact ; Novembe

r 25 , 199 8 Contact : Mr . Denni s DeSilve y Company/Agency : Th e Werne r Co , Telephon e Number : 72

4 58 8 200 0 EX

T 225 1 / FA X 72 4 58 8 162 1 G O 002/00 2

i v , ppA'AiR.oorur r .,- !
CONTAC T SUMMARY ; Mr . DeSilve

y was calle d t o discus s th e informatio

n i n the lette r sen t t o m e on Octobe

r 9 , 1998 . L i particular , w e discusse

d th e estimat

e tha t Mr . DeSilve

y provide dfo r th e amoun

t o f tim e it would tak e for operator s t o trac

k an d monito r th e amoun t o f time th e enclosur

e wouldb e ope

n durin g a n 8 hou r shift . Th e estimat e provide d i n th e lette r wa s 3 0 minutes . Thi s value wa s base d o n th e dat acollecte d durin g Werner' s stud

y o f the time duratio

n fo r whic h th e enclosur

e woul db e i n th e ope n positio n du e t o proces s o r

operationa l adjustment

s tha t ar e routinel y mad e o n an y give n shift. I aske

d wh y i t too k s o long t o track

thi s information . Mr . DeSilve y repliedtha

t th e operator s tracking th e infonnatio n tende dto writ e essay s wit

h regar dt o th e reason tha

t th e enclosur e woul d b e opene d W

e discusse dtha t al l th e operators ha

dt o do wa s t o chec

k th e reason (whic

h coul d b e containe

d o n the recordkeepin

g form) an dwoul d no t hav e t o writ e anythin g bu t th e time durations . Becaus e o f this , I explaine

dtha t I though t i t wouldtak e perhap s onl y 5 minutes . Mr . DeSilve

y stated tha

t he though t tha t i t migh t tak e 8-1 0 minutes , but

on average , 8 minutes woul

d b e agood overal

l estimat e sinc e for som e shift s i t coul dtak e less .
ACCURAT

E A S STATE D fy — 'o H - lf\m^Sj
§ 25.103 Area size and boundary requirements. ( a ) General eligibility requirements. A nominated area: ( 1 ) May not exceed one thousand square miles in total land area;
( 2 ) Must have one continuous boundary if located in more than one State or may consist of not more than three noncontiguous parcels if located in only one State;
( 3 ) If located in more than one State, must be located within no more than three contiguous States;
( 4 ) May not include any portion of a central business district (as such term is used for purposes of the most recent Census of Retail Trade) unless the poverty rate for each Census tract in such district is not less than 35 percent for an Empowerment Zone (30 percent in the case of an Enterprise Community);
( 5 ) Subject to paragraph (b)(4) of this section, may not include any portion of an area already included in an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community or included in an area otherwise nominated to be designated under this section;
( b ) Eligibility requirements specific to different rounds. ( 1 ) For purposes of Round I designations only, a nominated area may not include any area within an Indian reservation;
( 2 ) For purposes of applying paragraph (a)(1) of this section to Round II, Round IIS and Round III designations: ( i ) A Census tract larger than 1,000 square miles shall be reduced to a 1,000 square mile area with a continuous boundary, if necessary, after application of §§ 25.103(b)(2) (ii) and (iii);
( ii ) Land owned by the Federal, State or local government may (and in the event the Census tract exceeds 1,000 square miles, will) be excluded in determining the square mileage of a nominated area; and
( iii ) Developable sites, in the aggregate not exceeding 2,000 acres, may (and in the event the Census tract exceeds 1,000 square miles, will) be excluded in determining the square mileage of the nominated area;
( 3 ) For purposes of applying paragraph (a)(2) of this section to Round II, Round IIS and Round III designations, the following shall not be treated as violating the continuous boundary requirement nor the limit on the number of noncontiguous parcels: ( i ) Exclusion of excess area pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section;
( ii ) Exclusion of government owned land pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section; or
( iii ) Exclusion of developable sites pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section; and
( 4 ) Paragraph (a)(5) of this section shall not apply where a Round I Enterprise Community is applying either in its entirety or together with an additional area for a Round II Empowerment Zone designation.
[63 FR 19114, Apr. 16, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 53780, Oct. 7, 1998; 67 FR 13557, Mar. 25, 2002]
§ 1738.154 Security. ( a ) The broadband loan or loan/grant combination must be secured by the assets purchased with the loan or loan/grant combination funds, as well as all other assets of the Applicant and any other cosigner of the Award documents except as allowed under section 601(h)(2) of the RE Act. With respect to loan/grant combinations, all grant assets must also be covered by a security interest in favor of the Government for the average composite economic life of all project assets financed with assistance, regardless of whether the loan is paid off before the maturity date. Additionally, the sale of all such grant assets shall be governed by 2 CFR part 200, regardless of the entity type of the Awardee.
( b ) The Agency must be given an exclusive first lien, in form and substance satisfactory to the Agency, on all of the Applicant's property and revenues and such additional security as the Agency may require. The Agency may share its first lien position with another lender on a *pari passu,* prorated basis if security arrangements are acceptable to the Agency.
( c ) Unless otherwise designated by the Agency, all property purchased with loan and loan/grant combination funds must be owned by the Applicant.
( d ) In the case of loan and loan/grant combinations that include financing of facilities that do not constitute self-contained operating systems, the Applicant shall furnish assurance, satisfactory to the Agency, that continuous and efficient service that meets the broadband build-out requirements as noted in § 1738.55 will be rendered.
( e ) The Agency will require adequate financial, investment, operational, reporting, and managerial controls in the Award documents.
#### ZWERDLING v. KITROSSER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

1. Bills and Notes (§497*)—Bona Fide Holdeb—Fraudulent Divebsion —Presumptions—Evidence.

Where defendant gave evidence that as between himself as maker of the note sued on and the payee there had been a fraudulent diversion of the notes, such evidence overcame the presumption that plaintiff, indorsee, was a bona fide holder for value, as provided by Negotiable Instruments Law (Consol. Laws, c. 38) §§ 91, 94, 98.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1448, 1675-1681, 1683-1687; Dec. Dig. § 497.*]

2. Bills and Notes (§ 537*)—Action by Indorsee—Bona Fide Holder— Question fob Juby.

In an action on certain notes, where the evidence that plaintiff was a bona fide holder for value was unsatisfactory, it was error to direct a verdict for plaintiff.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1862-1893; Dec. Dig. § 537.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by Max Zwerdling against Hyman Kitrosser. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff on a directed verdict, defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Goldstein & Goldstein, of New York City (Abraham Lipton, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Reuben Dorfman, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

BIJUR, J.

[1] Plaintiff sued upon promissory notes. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that as between himself as maker and the payee there had been a fraudulent diversion of the notes. This overcame the presumption that plaintiff, the indorsee, was a bona fide holder for value. See Negotiable Instruments Law, §§ 91, 94, 98.

[2] The evidence thereupon adduced by plaintiff, to the effect that he had bought the notes in good faith for value and without notice of the infirmity, was, to say the least, quite unsatisfactory, and very plainly presented an issue to be determined by the jury. In this respect the case differs manifestly from Eisenberg v. Lefkowitz, 142 App. Div. *100569, 127 N. Y. Supp. 595, where, the direction of a verdict in favor of plaintiff was sustained.

The judgment must be reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
(April 28, 1969)

#### In the Matter of City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property, Bounded by Ewen Avenue and Other Streets, in the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, Duly Selected as a Site for John F. Kennedy High School and Recreational Purposes. Wembley Realty Corp. et al., Respondents-Appellants; Mobil Oil Corp., Respondent.

Final decree entered April 5, 1968, unanimously modified on the law to provide that the interest shall be 4% from the date of vesting and 6% from August 1, 1966 and otherwise affirmed, without costs and disbursements. (See *Matter of City of New York [Manhattan Civic Center Area],*32 A D 2d 530.) Settle order on notice. Concur—'Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewieh. and Bastow, JJ.
# DJI Inspire 1 Remote Control station consist of: 1 DJI Inspire Remote 1 Apple iPad Air connected via Apple Lightning cable to USB The maximum transmission distance of the Inspire 1 remote controller is 2km. The remote controller also allows you to control the landing gear or activate Return to Home with a tap. Other buttons allow instant photo capture, video recording, picture review and gimbal control. Operating Frequency 5.725 ~ 5.825 GHz 2.400 ~ 2.483 GHz 10dBm@900M 13dBm@5.8G 20dBm@2.4G
▪ Output Power:9W
▪ Battery: 6000 mAh LiPo 2S
▪ Max Mobile Device Width:170mm
Subject: Change 4 to MEASUREMENT, 

CONSTRUCTION, AND 

MAINTENANCE OF SKIDRESISTANT AIRPORT 

PAVEMENT SURFACES

Date: 02/03/2005

Initiated by: AAS-100 

AC No: 150/5320-12C 

Change: 4 

1. PURPOSE. Appendix 4 has been revised to update contact information regarding FAA approved 

Continuous Friction Measuring Equipment. 

2. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. The following principal changes have been made: 

a. To update information in Appendix 4.

PAGE CONTROL CHART 

Remove Pages Dated Insert Pages Dated 

Appendix 4

Chg 3 08/25/04 Appendix 4Chg 4 02/03/05

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation

Administration

Advisory 

Circular

for

DAVID L. BENNETT 

Director of Airport Safety and Standards 

02/03/05 AC 150/5320-12C

Appendix 4

Change 4

APPENDIX 4. FAA APPROVED CFME 

AIRPORT SURFACE FRICTION TESTER INDUSTRIES AB 

Metallgatan 7 

271 39 Ystad, Sweden 

SWEDEN

AIRPORT SURFACE FRICTION TESTER

+46 0 411 651 00

FAX +46 0 411 190 12

sales@asft.se

AIRPORT TECHNOLOGY USA 

NO LONGER AVAILABLE

SAFEGATE FRICTION TESTER 

DYNATEST CONSULTING, INC., 

(FORMERLY K.J. LAW ENGINEERS, INC.) 

13952 US Highway 301 South 

Starke, FL 32091 

RUNWAY FRICTION TESTER (M6800)

(904) 964-3777

FAX (904) 964-3749 

FINDLAY, IRVINE, LTD. 

42-44 Bog Road, Penicuik 

Midlothian EH 26 9 BU 

SCOTLAND 

GRIPTESTER FRICTION TESTER

+44 1968 672111

FAX +44 1968 671237

www.findlayirvine.com

INTERTECH ENGINEERING 

NO LONGER AVAILABLE 

TATRA FRICTION TESTER

DOUGLAS EQUIPMENT LTD

Douglas House, Village Road 

Arle, Cheltenham 

Gloucestershire 

GL51 0AB UK 

MU METER

+44 1242 531219

FAX +44 1242 571667

email: spd@douglas-equipment.com

NORSEMETER 

P.O. Box 125 

Bogstadvien 

0323 0310 

NORWAY 

RUNAR RUNWAY ANALYSER AND 

RECORDER

+47 23 20 1270

FAX + 47 23 20 1271 

PATRIA VAMMAS AEC 

P.O. Box 18 Vammaksentie 

FIN-38201 Vammala 

FINLAND 

BV-11 SKIDDOMETER

+ 358 20 4694041

FAX +358 20 4694250

www.patria.fi
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00525-CR

Rodney Dwayne Lewis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 52,001, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

The appeal is dismissed.

Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 25, 2001

Do Not Publish
#### § 27.4 Obligations and rights under Act: not affected by regulations.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as relieving any party to a basis grade contract of any obligation imposed upon the party, or as depriving the party of any right to which the party might be entitled under any provision of the contract or exchange rule made a part thereof which shall not be inconsistent with the act or the regulations made under the Act.

[48 FR 49210, Oct. 25, 1983]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
RALPH GILBERT, GLORIA GILBERT, MICHELLE TORGERSON, EDWIN TORGERSON, MELDA BITTORF, BEVERLY COX, WILLIAM COX, KIMBERLY MILES, CLEA FOCKLER, JOHN FOCKLER, LINDA ECKERT, SCOTT ECKERT, WILLIAM STRINE, KENNY JASINSKI, DENNIS JASINSKI, KATHRYN JASINSKI, JOSEPH JASINSKI, PATRICIA UNVERZAGT, MEGAN JACOBS, BARBARA UNVERZAGT, DONNA PARR, JEFF FODEL, WENDY FODEL, JENNIFER JASINSKI, JOHN JASINSKI, JUDY QUEITZSCH, JEAN FRY, RICK MCSHERRY, JOHN FREESE, DONNA LYNN FREESE, JEFF VAN VOORHIS, SUSAN LEE FOX, TERRENCE FANCHER AND DONNA FANCHER, Respondents

v. SYNAGRO CENTRAL, LLC, SYNAGRO MID-ATLANTIC, GEORGE PHILLIPS, HILLTOP FARMS AND STEVE TROYER,
Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 358 MAL 2014

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 9th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED

. The issue is:

Did the Superior Court incorrectly interpret the Pennsylvania [RTFA] by requiring a jury trial to determine that the land application of biosolids falls within the Act’s definition of a “normal agricultural operation,” which was contrary to the Act and this Court’s precedent that statutes of repose and statutory interpretation present questions of law for resolution by courts, not juries? M.D. Appeal Dkt. 121 2014
§ 247.36 Confidentiality of applicants or participants. ( a ) *Can the State or local agency disclose information obtained from applicants or participants to other agencies or individuals?* State and local agencies must restrict the use or disclosure of information obtained from CSFP applicants or participants to persons directly connected with the administration or enforcement of the program, including persons investigating or prosecuting program violations. The State or local agency may exchange participant information with other health or welfare programs for the purpose of preventing dual participation. In addition, with the consent of the participant, as indicated on the application form, the State or local agency may share information obtained with other health or welfare programs for use in determining eligibility for those programs, or for program outreach. However, the State agency must sign an agreement with the administering agencies for these programs to ensure that the information will be used only for the specified purposes, and that agencies receiving such information will not further share it.
( b ) *Can the State or local agency disclose the identity of persons making a complaint or allegation against another individual participating in or administering the program?* The State or local agency must protect the confidentiality, and other rights, of any person making allegations or complaints against another individual participating in, or administering CSFP, except as necessary to conduct an investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding.
#### § 28.461 Leaf Grade 1.

Leaf Grade 1 is leaf which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Good Middling, effective July 1, 1987.”
§ 1970.16 Mitigation. ( a ) The goal of mitigation is to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for the adverse environmental impacts of an action. The Agency will seek to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from Agency actions. All mitigation measures will be included in Agency commitment or decision documents.
( b ) Mitigation measures, where necessary for a FONSI or a ROD, will be discussed with the applicant and with any other relevant agency and, to the extent practicable, incorporated into Agency commitment documents, plans and specifications, and construction contracts so as to be legally binding.
( c ) The Agency, applicable lenders, or any intermediaries will monitor implementation of all mitigation measures during development of design, final plans, inspections during the construction phase of projects, as well as in future servicing visits. The Agency will direct applicants to take necessary measures to bring the project into compliance. If the applicant fails to achieve compliance, all advancement of funds and the approval of cost reimbursements will be suspended. Other measures may be taken by the Agency to redress the failed mitigation as appropriate.
§ 25.603 Grant approval and obligation of funds. Grants may be made at such time as the nominated area has been designated and such other prerequisites as USDA shall determine have been met, including but not limited to: ( a ) The empowerment zone or enterprise community has entered into a memorandum of agreement satisfactory to USDA;
( b ) The empowerment zone or enterprise community has conformed its strategic plan to be consistent with the level of federal grant aid available and such conforming amendments (if any) have met with the approval of the Office of Community Development and the funding official;
( c ) Completion of the environmental review process, including all appropriate public notices;
( d ) The proposed grantee has agreed, in form and substance satisfactory to the Office of Community Development, to any funding conditions imposed by USDA;
( e ) The grantee has submitted a request for obligation of funds, in form and substance satisfactory to the Office of Community Development, inclusive of the following certification:
“The grantee certifies that it and all direct or substantial subrecipients are in compliance and will continue to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, executive orders and other generally applicable requirements, including those contained in 7 CFR part 25, 2 CFR part 200, and 2 CFR chapter IV and any agreement to meet funding conditions, in effect at the time of the grant or as subsequently amended.”
[67 FR 13558, Mar. 25, 2002, as amended at 85 FR 31938, May 28, 2020]
98-1429.

#### State v. Brown.

Franklin App. Nos. 97APA10-1368 and 97APA10-1369. *Sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-1533, *supra,*and held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.
#### Maggie Ruzo, Also Known as John Tarquinio, Respondent, v Robert Granato et al., Defendants, and Richard J. Coburn, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 13, 1979, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Time for completion of pretrial discovery of defendant-appellant is extended for 45 days after entry of a copy of this court’s order, and, if not complied with, the complaint is dismissed. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
## Welcome and Opening Remarks 11 th Conference on Air Quality Modeling Research Triangle Park, NC Chet Wayland OAQPS - AQAD Director
8/12/2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Bu ilding Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

**Amendment to Exemption 11441**

Eagle UAV Services, LLC currently holds exemption number 11441 for the commercial operation of a

Sensefly eBee UAS to be used for mapping and survey operations . We are requestin g that our

exemption be amended to include the operation of a DJI Phantom 3, a UA that is curr ently operated

under several exemptions issued by the Department of Transportation. The DJI Phantom 3 will be used

for aerial photography. We do not intend to conduct closed set filming or oper ations that require the

close proximity of non

- participating persons to t he UA

.

Aaron Rose

President

Eagle UAV Services, LLC

432 Cherry Orchard Road

Canton, Michigan 48188