alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Docket: ED-2014-ICCD-0105

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2015 (TIMSS:2015) Main Study

Comment On: ED-2014-ICCD-0105-0001

Document: ED-2014-ICCD-0105-0004

Comment on FR Doc # 2014-17415

Name: Randi Weingarten

Submitter's Representative: Serette Kaminski

Organization: American Federation of Teachers

August 7, 2014

Ms. Kate Mullan

Acting Director of the InformationCollection Clearance Division

U.S. Department of Education,

400 Maryland Ave. S.W., LBJ

Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E103

Washington, DC 20202

(Submitted electronically via: www.regulations.gov)

Dear Ms. Mullan:

This letter is in response to the request for comments on the proposed participation of the United States in

the 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and TIMSS Advanced main

study; published July 24, 2014, docket number ED-2014-ICCD-0105.

The American Federation of Teachers supportsthe Department of Education's participation in the

global2015 TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced and believes this data collection is necessary and within the

proper functions of the department. TIMSS does not hold undue burden because the testing process is a

random sampling done once every four years, rather than a yearly test for all 12th- grade students.

The United States last participated in the TIMSS Advanced in 1995, but did not participate in the 2008

study; we have not had a significant global study that includes U.S.student progress in advanced 

mathematics and science in almost 20 years. The results from the TIMSS Advanced study would be an

important step in assessing progress at the advanced level and informing the direction of our advanced 

programs that prepare studentsfor careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

We look forward to a responsible analysis of TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced that will help educators and the

public understand the conditions and system characteristics that contribute to excellence.

Sincerely,

Randi Weingarten

President

RW: mc opeiu#2 afl-cio
NCES RESPONSE

We are very pleased that the American Federation of Teachers supports the United State's participation 

in TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced in 2015. We agree that these studies are extremely important in 

understanding U.S. student performance in an international context and the global competitiveness of 

our nation's students. Your support of TIMSS Advanced, in particular, is greatly appreciated. We will 

work hard to ensure that our selected students, teachers, and schools also understand the value of 

participation so that our results are valid. 

Thank you for your support of TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced. 

With regards,

Stephen Provasnik, Ph.D.

TIMSS National Research Coordinator

International Activities Program

National Center for Education Statistics
#### § 985.69 Duration of immunities.

The benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred upon any person by virtue of this part shall cease upon its termination, except with respect to acts done under and during the existence of this part.
7liE pi.cr- i<r C'cr - c/NI Sr-4r-.s

iQ? 7i' j7/SrXiCr oF /'4/1 #r ) NTMc?J

iDe V(S/(2AI

HOWARP -

Pt.-ri r A

-Cv-tq--MNr

jj

el ô/.

________________________________1

- NOr/cc F C//,kNc O A'

C t1O ti T7E ?.

P.iSt..AHrT Id ) t)4L gdLe5- /3zt

4ivE, Nor,Cf

iVOflE ' 4ivu-.&i rD JIFe 7NE EiK )/ 17E

d,1 1I? ,4( ,/c77

rn'w4Rb c. 9/73) v/—/--L

C Rrici n,jr,ru r,J

/

//fPL ', 3 '),1

sSi-Fi.4y Lt.dfY'tI774)) p//s 4ry ,fN(,4ee,

' E /7

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 38 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 1 of 3
C€r'f'cAw Of cg/CE

r HowAiD c ThO1-E, Do 4C Y CETvlIFY,

iW4r 4 TRIE 4,IP C ?RCy /441,*(Z Wi?ITEW Co?y

OF 7?1& oR4o,14-, NOri'-C oF 4,4MCrE O

,4Pecs)5 k'14 iCC/ F M'(3/f1 41t'D /ZEE

Y, 5.- M,4i, 4 'T7t^-' CON(,<ivEP 4

S,G i/P7EP 3'i-oW. .bvE 771/S rH _'O41 Oi

e'(i-c'/. 2'g.

OFF/CE OF YN (C/ O1 77? Covr

U,virE2 S?4T3 DSiR/-iP.sr oc.'ce 2 7/(

Mrc roi?y L i4-

T4,i/c1 w. M4P,X,,J

O FF/CE oc 1W 417-ogwcy

414 i3,4,44 S'77T ,44? (Ic: /( S1 171 U-I'Q '1

k7OM6'flY, 4'4'4M4 .3 1 /3' -

/.-C- C V -

//ow,q p . 7-? rn-ic 5-L.

L1L/SS S.4fr1 MfL'- j7v5'

C1Vi,y, R'P4 3.2 '1. '

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 38 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 2 of 3
PRO VWEO TO

WASHINGTON CI ON

JAN 28 2008

FOR MAIUNj7

//OW4 g L7 T'OLE,517'3.

W.4SNi,VrrJ 444t. /Tw73,.J

S4' ,M r< NELL

,cz) ' 1 P'9 3Z2 4isA

i- fi -

orF1 E Of CLE'R/< OF 171 Cou-r

UN/TED 5i4rci Disr7'cr Czr

cST QF/c Box 71/

,4484fr4 3(eJoi-c17/'

I I It I I I

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 38 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 3 of 3
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08-13-00292-CR

§

BRIAN ANTHONY ENGLETON, AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

Relator. IN MANDAMUS

§

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brian Anthony Engleton, a Texas inmate, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus 

alleging that the Honorable Maria Salas-Mendoza, Judge of the 120th District Court of El Paso 

County, Texas, has not ruled on a pre-trial motion to quash the indictment or a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus.1 Relator is currently appealing a murder conviction in cause number 08-13-

00077-CR and is represented by court-appointed counsel, Ruben P. Morales, in that appeal.

A party seeking a writ of mandamus in a criminal case must make two showings: (1) that 

there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm; and (2) that the act the relator 

seeks to compel must be ministerial rather than discretionary in nature. See e.g. Board of 

Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 

483 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); In re State of Texas, 304 S.W.3d 581, 583 

 

1

 Relator mailed the petition for writ of mandamus to Judge Salas-Mendoza even though the writ is directed to the 

Eighth Court of Appeals. Judge Salas-Mendoza forwarded the petition to the Clerk of the Court who filed it on 

October 10, 2013.
- 2 -

(Tex.App.--El Paso 2010, orig. proceeding). Although mandamus will not issue to compel a 

particular result in what is manifestly a discretionary decision, mandamus may be appropriate to 

impel consideration of a motion or the issuance of a ruling, the doing of which is not 

discretionary. White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586, 593–94 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); State ex rel. 

Rodriguez, 196 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding).

With regard to Relator’s complaint that the trial court has not ruled on his pre-trial 

motion to quash the indictment, we addressed that issue in a prior mandamus proceeding and 

denied relief. See In re Brian Engleton, No. 08-12-00350-CR, 2012 WL 6013428 (Tex.App.--El 

Paso November 30, 2012, orig. proceeding). We will not revisit the issue. Relator also seeks 

mandamus relief because the trial court has allegedly failed to rule on a post-conviction writ of 

habeas corpus. Neither a trial court nor an appellate court should entertain an application for 

writ of habeas corpus when, as in this case, there is an adequate remedy by appeal. Ex parte 

Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Because Relator has not established his 

entitlement to mandamus relief, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

October 18, 2013

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
#### § 97.800 Publication of public variety descriptions.

Voluntary submissions of varietal descriptions of “public varieties” on forms obtainable from the Office will be accepted for publication on the Plant Variety Protection Office website (*https://www.ams.usda.gov/PVPO*). Such publication shall not constitute recognition that the variety is, in fact, distinct, uniform, and stable.

[85 FR 433, Jan. 6, 2020]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**857 CA 13-01754**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW OF THE ASSESSMENTS BY FFT SENIOR COMMUNITIES, INC., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

TOWN OF CANANDAIGUA AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR TOWN OF CANANDAIGUA, COUNTY OF ONTARIO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

LACY KATZEN LLP, ROCHESTER (JOHN T. REFERMAT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

BIERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, P.A., MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA (DAN BIERSDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered June 17, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7. The order, among other things, granted petitioner’s motion seeking to establish the value of its property for three assessment dates.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 24 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 24 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                        620,817 
<SECURITIES>                  564,235   <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                 133,961  
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        12,154,114  <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                2,883,806 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                10,888,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0
<BONDS>                       6,364,875     <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      3,323,313    <F4>
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  10,888,057  
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              811,489     <F5>
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 418,901   <F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              47,132   <F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            281,362 
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0       
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  64,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0


<FN>
<F1>   "SECURITIES" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE
<F2>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]
<F3>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MORTGAGES PAYABLE
<F4>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS CAPITAL
<F5>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F6>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES LESS INTEREST
EXPENSE
<F7>   "OTHER EXPENSES" REPRESENTS INTEREST IN JOINT VENTURES'
NET INCOME/LOSS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3358 

To suspend temporarily the duty on gemifloxacin, gemifloxacin mesylate, 

and gemifloxacin mesylate sesquihydrate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2006 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on gemifloxacin, 

gemifloxacin mesylate, and gemifloxacin mesylate 

sesquihydrate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. GEMIFLOXACIN, GEMIFLOXACIN MESYLATE, 

4 AND GEMIFLOXACIN MESYLATE 

5 SESQUIHYDRATE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3358 IS 

‘‘ 9902.05.68 Gemifloxacin (CAS No. 

175463–14–6); gemifloxacin 

mesylate (CAS No. 210353– 

53–0); gemifloxacin mesylate 

sesquihydrate (CAS No. 

210353–56–3) (the foregoing provided for in subheading 2933.99.46) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

3 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or with4 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

5 January 1, 2005. 

6 (2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwith7 standing section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

8 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon 

9 proper request filed with U.S. Customs and Border 

10 Protection before the 90th day after the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal 

12 from warehouse for consumption, of any good— 

13 (A) that was made on or after January 1, 

14 2005, and before the date of the enactment of 

15 this Act, and 

16 (B) with respect to which there would have 

17 been no duty if the amendment made by sub18 section (a) applied to such entry or withdrawal, 

19 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such amend20 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

338 

CA 14-01305 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THOMAS J. TUDISCO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAWNMARIE MINCER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

BECKERMAN AND BECKERMAN, LLP, ROCHESTER (STEVEN M. BECKERMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

BARRETT GREISBERGER, LLP, WEBSTER (MARK M. GREISBERGER OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (J.

Scott Odorisi, J.), entered September 30, 2013. The order, insofar as

appealed from, granted in part the motion of defendant for summary

judgment dismissing the complaint and dismissed the third and fourth

causes of action. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied

and the complaint is reinstated in its entirety. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to enforce

an alleged oral agreement concerning the purchase of residential

property. Several months after defendant filed an answer, defendant

moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR

3211 (a) (5) and CPLR 3212 on the ground that the alleged agreement

was not enforceable because of the statute of frauds (see General

Obligations Law § 5-703 [1]). Supreme Court granted defendant’s

motion in part and dismissed the third and fourth causes of action. 

Plaintiff contends that defendant’s motion should have been treated as

a CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment. We agree with that

contention. The parties’ course of litigation shows that they were

“deliberately charting a summary judgment course” and treated the

motion as a CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment (Nowacki v Becker,

71 AD3d 1496, 1497 [4th Dept 2010]).

We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in granting

defendant’s motion in part. “The failure of [defendant] to support

[her] motion with a copy of the pleadings requires denial of the

motion, regardless of the merits of the motion” (D.J. Enters. of WNY v

Benderson, 294 AD2d 825, 825; see CPLR 3212 [b]; Notaro v Bison

Constr. Corp., 32 AD3d 1218, 1219). In light of our determination, we 
-2- 338 

CA 14-01305 

do not address plaintiff’s remaining contentions. 

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### In the Matter of Alisa R. Kantor, Respondent, v Richard P. Schmidt, Individually and as the Present President of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel Richard P. Schmidt, President of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, to grant, produce and deliver to the petitioner a Baccalaureate Degree in Arts, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 20, 1979, which granted the petition and directed the appellant to approve, authorize and confer upon the petitioner the degree of Bachelor of Arts *nunc pro tunc*as of May, 1979. By order dated December 24, 1979, this court affirmed the judgment. Appellant subsequently moved for reargument of the appeal, or in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from this court’s order of affirmance. On March 19, 1980 this court granted the motion "to the extent of ordering that the appeal be restored to the calendar * * * for reargument”. Reargument is granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this court, both dated December 24, 1979 are recalled and vacated and the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. The parties to this reargument have informed the court that since the appeal was first heard the petitioner has earned her diploma by fulfilling the credit requirements demanded by the university. The appellate issue having thus been rendered moot, it is unnecessary for us to reach the question of the applicability of *Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ.*(49 NY2d 408), as raised by the appellant on reargument. Nor, under the circumstances, should we pass upon the propriety of our earlier affirmance since the relief directed in it also has been mooted. We see no judicially cognizable significance in the difference in diploma dates. Accordingly, this court’s earlier decision is recalled, and the appeal is dismissed as academic. We express no view as to the correctness of the decision at Special Term. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.
EX-33 (h)
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

SERVICER'S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE


Washington Mutual Bank (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006
through December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") of the Platform Transactions
(as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122), except the following criteria 1(iii) and
3(i)(C) and (D), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the
servicing of the mortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a
"Mortgage Loan"), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to the
Mortgage Loans (such criteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions,
the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The transactions covered by this
Servicer's Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that
were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007 for
which the Asserting Party performed servicing functions set forth in Item
1122(d), that included one or more classes of publicly offered securities
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, and for which the Asserting Party has an obligation to
deliver an Assessment of Compliance pursuant to Item 1122 (the "Platform
Transactions").

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable Servicing
Criterion, and has concluded that it has complied in all material respects with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans.

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report on the Asserting Party's assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

Dated: March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK


By:    /s/ H. John Berens
Name:  H. John Berens
Title: Senior Vice President
**Q500 and Q500 4K Prefight Checklist**

**Preflight** 1. Visually inspect all surfaces. 2. Check blade tightness and A, B orientation. 3. Remove camera gimbal security cover. 4. Firmly seat battery in the Q500 and make sure battery door is secure. 5. Confirm that the ST10 Ground Station is selected to the angle mode. 6. Turn the ST10 Ground Station On and allow start up to complete 7. Place drone in clear area (8 Meters) and turn drone On 8. Confirm that connection is complete between the Drone and ST10 ground station. (FPV will be displayed and Welcome Pilot on the top of the ST10 display) 9. Engage rotors and bring up to a ten foot hover, verify controllability. 10. Commence flight in accordance with the 333 Exemption Rules **Post Flight** 1. After completion of flight and landing, disengage rotor system and allow blades to stop. 2. Turn off Drone first and remove battery. 3. Shut down the ST10 Ground Station. 4. Remove blades and install camera gimbal security cover. 5. Visually inspect all surfaces for any damage and stow all components.
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 1 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 2 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 3 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 4 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 5 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 6 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 7 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 8 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 9 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 10 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 11 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 12 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 13 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 14 of 15

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM     Document 10      Filed 08/16/2006     Page 15 of 15
1408.802 Policy.       (a) *Duplicating* is the mass reproduction of materials beyond the capabilities of typical office copiers. Volumes are of sufficient mass quantities up to 5,000 single-page and 25,000 production units in the aggregate of multiple pages. Such duplicating units shall require Departmental approval to be processed through the Department of the Interior Publishing Council (DOIPC).          (b) *Copying* is distinguished from “duplicating” in that such work is administrative in nature, produced on office copying equipment and produced as necessary, in limited quantities. Volumes typically range from 1 to 500 single-pages to 2,500 production units in the aggregate of multiple pages. This volume standard is referred to as the “500/2500” rule. Reproduction work exceeding the “500/2500” rule is duplicating, and requires a waiver from the nearest servicing GPO office. Employees should consult with their bureau printing officer or the DOIPC representative to secure such a waiver.          (c) The DOIPC has been designated as the Department's liaison with the Joint Committee on Printing and GPO. Requirements for printing and related supplies shall be coordinated with the DOIPC or the designated bureau publications liaison officer in accordance with 314 DM 1.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1408.8 - Acquisition of Printing and Related Supplies