alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 117, 119, and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1093; Amdt. Nos. 117-1, 119-16, 121-357]
RIN 2120-AJ58

Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements; Technical 
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting the effective date of a final rule 
correction for flightcrew member duty and rest requirements published 
on February 6, 2013, that required technical corrections in the 
codified text of the final flightcrew member duty and rest rule. The 
correct effective date of the rule should read January 4, 2014.

DATES: Effective date: The effective date of a final rule correction 
published in the Federal Register of February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8361), is 
corrected from January 14, 2014, to January 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Dale E. Roberts, AFS-200, Flight Standards 
Service, Air Transportation Division Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
5749; email dale.e.roberts@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert Frenzel, 
AGC-220, Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email: robert.frenzel@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 4, 2012, the FAA published a final rule entitled 
``Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements'' (77 FR 330). In that 
rule, the FAA created a new part, part 117, which replaced the then-
existing flight, duty, and rest regulations for part 121 passenger 
operations. As part of this rulemaking, the FAA also applied the new 
part 117 to certain part 91 operations, and it permitted all-cargo 
operations operating under part 121 to voluntarily opt into the part 
117 flight, duty, and rest regulations.
    Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered several issues 
requiring a technical correction in the regulatory text of the rule and 
published a final rule, technical correction on February 6, 2013 (78 FR 
8361). The FAA realized that the effective date in this rule was 
inadvertently changed from January 4, 2014, to January 14, 2014.
    This technical correction changes the effective date to January 4, 
2014.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2013.
Mark W. Bury,
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and 
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2013-03559 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00186

- CR

Asael Furquim Dearruda, Jr. a/k/a

Asael F. Dearruda a/k/a Asael

Arruda

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From t he 355 th District Court

o f Hood County ( CR 12024 )

April 11 , 2013

Opinion by Justice G abriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By_________________________________

Justice Lee Gabriel
§ 500.80 Scope of this subpart. ( a ) The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that sponsored compounds intended for use in food-producing animals be shown to be safe and that food produced from animals exposed to these compounds be shown to be safe for consumption by people. The statute prohibits the use in food-producing animals of any compound found to induce cancer when ingested by people or animals unless it can be determined by methods of examination prescribed or approved by the Secretary (a function delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs) that no residue of that compound will be found in the food produced from those animals under conditions of use reasonably certain to be followed in practice. This subpart identifies the steps a sponsor of a compound shall follow to secure the approval of the compound. The requirements of this subpart shall also apply to a request for an import tolerance under § 510.205 of this chapter. FDA guidance documents contain the procedures and protocols FDA recommends for the implementation of this subpart. These guidance documents are available from the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Requests for these guidance documents should be identified with Docket No. 1983D-0288.
( b ) If FDA concludes on the basis of the threshold assessment that a sponsor shall conduct carcinogenicity testing on the sponsored compound, FDA will also determine whether and to what extent the sponsor shall conduct carcinogenicity testing on metabolites of the sponsored compound. The bioassays that a sponsor conducts must be designed to assess carcinogenicity and to determine the quantitative aspects of any carcinogenic response.
( c ) If FDA concludes on the basis of the threshold assessment or at a later time during the approval process or during the review of a request for an import tolerance that the data show that the sponsored compound and its metabolites should not be subject to this subpart, FDA will continue to consider the compound for approval under the general safety provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for risks other than cancer or continue its review of the import tolerance request under the provisions of §§ 510.201 through 510.213 of this chapter (Subpart C—Import Tolerances for Residues of Unapproved New Animal Drugs in Food).
( d ) This subpart does not apply to essential nutrients.
[52 FR 49586, Dec. 31, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 14365, Mar. 28, 1994; 62 FR 66983, Dec. 23, 1997; 65 FR 56480, Sept. 19, 2000; 67 FR 78174, Dec. 23, 2002; 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003; 69 FR 17292, Apr. 2, 2004; 86 FR 52410, Sept. 21, 2021; 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023]
<PAGE>
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
Form S-8 (No. 33-80903) of our report dated July 3, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Unison
Software, Inc. and subsidiaries as of May 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the three
years in the period ended May 31, 1997, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
San Jose, California
August 26, 1997
###### Editorial Note on Part 369

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 369 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 369.3 Warnings required on drugs exempted from prescription-dispensing requirements of section 503(b)(1)(C).

Drugs exempted from prescription-dispensing requirements under section 503(b)(1)(C) of the act are subject to the labeling requirements prescribed in § 310.201(a) of this chapter. Although, for convenience, warning and caution statements for a number of the drugs named in § 310.201 of this chapter (cross-referenced in the text of this part) are included in subpart B of this part, the inclusion of such drugs in §§ 369.20 or 369.21 in no way affects the requirements for compliance with § 310.201(a) of this chapter, or the provisions of an effective application pursuant to section 505(b) of the act.

[85 FR 72907, Nov. 16, 2020]
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Eddi Z. Zyko

*Eddi Z. Zyko,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided May 23, 1984

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 1 Conn. App. 517, is denied.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respectof the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM 2013-CCRE7Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Situs Holdings, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor, KeyBank National Association (as successor to KeyCorp RealEstate Capital Markets, Inc.), as Primary Servicer, Midland Loan Services, aDivision of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the MoffettTowers Mortgage Loan, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for theMoffett Towers Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asTrustee and Certificate Administrator for the Moffett Towers Mortgage Loan,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian for the Moffett TowersMortgage Loan, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor forthe Moffett Towers Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 20, 2019

 

 

/s/ Helaine M.Kaplan 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### MAHON *v.*WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Mandamus — Propriety—Necessity oe Writ.

Mandamus will not issue to compel the vacation of an order denying a temporary injunction where the return shows that a. preliminary injunction is not presently necessary to protect relator’s rights, and may never become necessary through the determination of relator’s suit upon the merits.

Mandamus by Thomas J. Mahon to compel Joseph W. Donovan, circuit judge of Wayne county, to vacate an order denying a temporary injunction.

Submitted October 6, 1908.

(Calendar No. 23,066.)

Writ denied November 2, 1908.

*Thomas J.*Mahon, in pro. per.

Navin, *Sheahan & Bourke,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

On September 19, 1908, relator presented to respondent his bill of complaint, in chancery, praying “that a preliminary injunction be issued out of and under the seal of . this court, commanding the said defendant, the Detroit Baseball Company, its officers' and agents, * * * prohibiting them and each of them from playing baseball at the grounds known as Bennett Park, and from using said park for the purpose of playing baseball on Sunday, September 20, 1908, and upon Sunday, September 27, 1908, and every other Sunday hereafter, and upon final hearing to forever prohibit the use of said grounds for the playing of baseball on Sunday by the aforesaid defendants,” etc. Respondent having refused to issue the preliminary injunction prayed for, relator applied to this court on September 22, 190.8, for the writ of mandamus to compel respondent to issue the injunction. An order to show cause was issued, return*498able October 6th, and respondent filed his return on October 5th.

Respondent’s return shows, among other things, “that he is advised upon information and belief that it is not the intention of the Detroit Baseball Company to attempt the playing during this present season of any further games of baseball on Sunday, and that consequently no further such alleged nuisance will be committed during the balance of this season. * * * This respondent respectfully shows untó the court that, after carefully considering the matter of petitioner’s motion, he has decided to grant the prayer of petitioner, by issuing an order to show cause; * * * that, in view of this respondent’s determination to issue said order to show cause, he respectfully requests this honorable court to withhold its decision in relation to this petitioner’s petition for mandamus until a return is had to the order to show cause,” etc. It is apparent that a preliminary injunction is not necessary at the present time to protect the relator’s rights, and that it may never become necessary, through the determination of relator’s suit upon the merits.

For these reasons, the writ is denied.
§ 520.1616 Orbifloxacin tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 5.7, 22.7, or 68 milligrams (mg) orbifloxacin.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 2.5 to 7.5 mg per kilogram body weight once daily.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For management of diseases associated with bacteria susceptible to orbifloxacin.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Federal law prohibits the extralabel use of this drug in food producing animals.
[71 FR 14643, Mar. 23, 2006, as amended at 75 FR 26646, May 12, 2010]
7/15/2009 Page of 

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT (IRExR) 

 Chemical ID: P090451 

 
7/15/2009 Page of 

 INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P090451 

 

 

 
7/15/2009 Page of 

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P090451 

 

 

 

 

 

 
7/15/2009 Page of 

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P090451 
7/15/2009 Page of 

LEGEND FOR NEW CHEMICALS EXPOSURE REPORT 

This new chemicals exposure report was prepared by the Exposure Assessment Branch (EAB) of the Economics, 

Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, USEPA. 

The goals of these reports are to calculate conservative (protective) estimates of exposure endpoints for consumers, 

the general population, and the environment. 

For each exposure scenario to industrial releases, the following three endpoints are calculated: 

(1) maximum possible acute concentrations and doses 

(2) maximum possible chronic concentrations and doses 

(3) for water releases ≥ 20 days, the probability of exceedence of the aquatic concentration of concern 

These endpoints are identified by abbreviations on the Release Activity line, e.g., (1) max ADR, (2) max 

LADD, (3) max PDM. Depending on the release inputs, these endpoints may be calculated and presented on 

the same page or different pages. That is, a release activity ID of mfg; max ADR, max PDM, max LADD

indicates that all the exposure endpoints were calculated from common manufacturing release values; 

conversely, a release activity ID of mfg &proc; max ADR indicates that only the maximum acute exposure 

values were calculated for manufacturing and processing releases that occurred at the same site. 

For each consumer product use exposure scenario, whether exposure is to the user directly or to the general 

population/environment, the maximum exposure values are calculated and presented together. 

In addition to the exposure values above, EPA policy directs that exposure and release values be compared to 

criteria threshold values for Exposure-based and PBT Exposure-based cases. 

Exposure-based (YX) cases (those with ≥ 100,000 kg/yr production volume) 

Criteria are exceeded under the following conditions: 

 Presence in consumer product with likely exposure 

≥ 3E-3 mg/kg/d exposure via air, fish ingestion or drinking water 

≥ 10,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment) 

≥ 1,000 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment) 

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) chemicals of P2B2 rating or higher and production volume ≥ 20,000 kg/yr 

Criteria are exceeded as for YX cases, with the following differences: 

≥ 2,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment) 

≥ 200 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment) 

Bolding rules in the Report: Values for endpoints above that are also health or eco concerns are bolded.
§ 520.1326b Mebendazole and trichlorfon paste. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each gram of paste contains 100 milligrams of mebendazole and 454 milligrams of trichlorfon.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in horses* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 8.8 milligrams of mebendazole and 40 milligrams of trichlorfon per kilogram of body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* It is used in horses for treatment of infections of bots (*Gastrophilus intestinalis* and *G. nasalis*), large roundworms (*Parascaris equorum*), large strongyles (*Strongylus edentatus, S. equinus, S. vulgaris*), small strongyles, and pinworms (*Oxyuris equi*).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not administer more than once every 30 days. Do not treat sick or debilitated animals, foals under 4 months of age, or mares in the last month of pregnancy. Trichlorfon is a cholinesterase inhibitor. Do not administer simultaneously or within a few days before or after treatment with, or exposure to, cholinesterase-inhibiting drugs, pesticides, or chemicals. Do not administer intravenous anesthetics, especially muscle relaxants, concurrently. Not for use in horses intended for food. Consult your veterinarian for assistance in the diagnosis, treatment, and control of parasitism.
[51 FR 13212, Apr. 18, 1986, as amended at 62 FR 61625, Nov. 19, 1997; 78 FR 28824, May 20, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 106
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 106 appear at 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

§ 106.5 Current good manufacturing practice. ( a ) The regulations set forth in this subpart define the minimum current good manufacturing practices that are to be used in, and the facilities or controls that are to be used for, the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of an infant formula. Compliance with these provisions is necessary to ensure that such infant formula provides the nutrients required under § 107.100 of this chapter and is manufactured in a manner designed to prevent its adulteration. A liquid infant formula that is a thermally processed low-acid food packaged in a hermetically sealed container is also subject to the regulations in part 113 of this chapter, and an infant formula that is an acidified food, as defined in § 114.3(b) of this chapter, is also subject to the regulations in part 114 of this chapter.
( b ) The failure to comply with any regulation in this subpart in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of an infant formula shall render such infant formula adulterated under section 412(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350a(a)(3)); the failure to comply with any regulation in part 113 of this chapter in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of a liquid infant formula shall render such infant formula adulterated under section 412(a)(3); and the failure to comply with any regulation in part 114 of this chapter in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of an infant formula that is an acidified food shall render such infant formula adulterated under section 412(a)(3).
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael E. Seifert, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southwall Technologies Inc.;

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.