alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 860
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 860 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008, and at 86 FR 54846, Oct. 5, 2021.

§ 860.1 Scope. ( a ) This part implements sections 513, 514(b), 515(b), and 520(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the classification and reclassification of devices intended for human use.
( b ) This part prescribes the criteria and procedures to be used by advisory committees, including classification panels, where applicable, in making their recommendations, and by the Commissioner in making the Commissioner's determinations regarding the class of regulatory control (class I, class II, or class III) appropriate for particular devices. Supplementing the general Food and Drug Administration procedures governing advisory committees (part 14 of this chapter), this part also provides procedures for manufacturers, importers, and other interested persons to participate in proceedings to classify and reclassify devices. This part also describes the type of data required for determination of the safety and effectiveness of a device, and the circumstances under which information submitted to advisory committees, including classification panels, or to the Commissioner in connection with classification and reclassification proceedings, will be available to the public.
[43 FR 32993, July 28, 1978, as amended at 86 FR 54846, Oct. 5, 2021]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExperimental Study of Convective Heating on the Back Face and Payload of a Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) AeroshellA wind tunnel test program has been conducted to define convective heating environments on the back-face of a Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator aeroshell. Wind tunnel testing was conducted at Mach 6 and Mach 10 at unit Reynolds numbers from 0.5×10(exp 6)/ft to 3.9×10(exp 6)/ft on a 6.3088 in diameter aeroshell model. Global heating data were obtained through phosphor thermography on the aeroshell back face, as well as on the payload and the aeroshell front face. For all test conditions, laminar flow was produced on the aeroshell front face, while the separated wake shear layer and aeroshell back-face boundary layer were transitional or turbulent. Along the leeward centerline of the aeroshell back face and payload centerbody, heating levels increased with both free stream Reynolds number and angle of attack. The Reynolds number dependency was due to increasing strength of wake turbulence with Reynolds number. The angle-of-attack dependency was due to movement of the wake-vortex reattachment point on the aeroshell back face. The maximum heating levels on the aeroshell back face and payload were approximately 5% to 6%, respectively, of the aeroshell front-face stagnation point. To allow for extrapolation of the ground test data to flight conditions, the back face and payload heating levels were correlated as a function of aeroshell front-face peak momentum thickness Reynolds numbers.Document ID20170002597Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsHollis, Brian R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Berry, Scott A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Hollingsworth, Kevin E.*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Hampton, VA, United States)*Wright, Sheila A.*(Jacobs Technology, Inc. Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 28, 2017Publication DateMarch 1, 2017Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsReport/Patent NumberL-20785NASA-TP-2017-219581NF1676L-20696Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 630154.02.07Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20170002597.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 556.570 Ractopamine. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of ractopamine hydrochloride is 1.25 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for ractopamine (marker residue) are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 0.09 ppm.
( ii ) Muscle: 0.03 ppm.
( 2 ) *Swine.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 0.15 ppm.
( ii ) Muscle: 0.05 ppm.
( 3 ) *Turkeys.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 0.45 ppm.
( ii ) Muscle: 0.1 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 558.500 of this chapter.
§ 607.22 How to register establishments and list blood products. ( a ) Initial and subsequent registrations and product listings must be submitted electronically through the Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing system, or any future superseding electronic system. This information must be submitted in accordance with part 11 of this chapter, except for the requirements in § 11.10(b), (c), and (e), and the corresponding requirements in § 11.30. All information submitted under this part must be transmitted to FDA electronically unless FDA has granted a request for waiver of this requirement prior to the date on which the information is due. Submission of a request for waiver does not excuse timely compliance with the registration and listing requirements. FDA will grant a waiver request if FDA determines that the use of electronic means for submission of registration and listing information is not reasonable for the registrant making the waiver request.
( b ) Waiver requests under this section must be submitted in writing and must include the specific reasons why electronic submission is not reasonable for the registrant and a U.S. telephone number and mailing address where FDA can contact the registrant. All waiver requests must be sent to the Director of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research through the Document Control Center (see addresses*in* § 600.2).
( c ) If FDA grants the waiver request, FDA may limit its duration and will specify terms of the waiver and provide information on how to submit establishment registration, drug listings, other information, and updates, as applicable.
[81 FR 60222, Aug. 31, 2016]
July 10th, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the 

FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in 

Regulatory Docket NO. FAA-2015-0173 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 

(hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography and 

videography, as well as implementation of emergency use UAS systems with 

public entities. Alaska Aerial Media requests an amendment to the exemption to 

allow for night-time operations as defined in 14 CFR 1.1. AAM would like all 

four (4) types of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) currently listed on AAM’s 

current 333 exemption be made available for night time operation. 

Based on the following FAA procedures listed below, we believe that UAS 

operations can be integrated safely during currently prohibited night time 

operations.

1. UAS will be equipped with standard aircraft anticollision or navigation lights 

following criteria in 14 CFR, section 23.1401. These lights will be operating 

during all phases of flight to enhance flight safety. 

2. From N JO 7210.873 Effective July 11th 2014: 

8. a. (3) (m) All UA operations must be conducted during daylight hours unless 

authorized in the COA. 

8. b. (1) (m) If installed, lights must be operational; night operations must have 

operational lights including anticollision and navigation lights, at a minimum. 
 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. wishes to operate the DJI s800 Hexacopter, DJI 

s1000 Octocopter and the Sensefly eBee RTK fixed wing under the same 

conditions contained in the previous exemption and allow for night operations 

under VFR & IFR. 

 Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning 

this request for amendment to the Exemption. 

Sincerely, 

Ryan P. Marlow 

Alaska Aerial Media 

7960 Upper OMalley Road 

Anchorage Alaska 99507 

Tele: (907)-717-9794
# C_2014102EN.01002501.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (United Kingdom) made on 10 February 2014 — East Sussex County Council v The Information Commissioner,

Property Search Group,

Local Government Association

(Case C-71/14)

2014/C 102/34

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: East Sussex County Council

Applicant:

Defendants: The Information Commissioner, Property Search Group, Local Government Association

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | What is the meaning to be attributed to Art 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) and in particular can a charge of a reasonable amount for supplying a particular type of environmental information include:






  a) | Part of the cost of maintaining a database used by the public authority to answer requests for information of that type; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

What is the meaning to be attributed to Art 5(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) and in particular can a charge of a reasonable amount for supplying a particular type of environmental information include:

1

a)

Part of the cost of maintaining a database used by the public authority to answer requests for information of that type;

| b) | Overhead costs attributable to staff time properly taken into account in fixing the charge? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Overhead costs attributable to staff time properly taken into account in fixing the charge?

| 2. | Is it consistent with Arts 5(2) and 6 of the Directive for a Member State to provide in its regulations that a public authority may charge an amount for supplying environmental information which does ‘... not exceed an amount which the public authority is satisfied is a reasonable amount’ if the decision of the public authority as to what is a ‘reasonable amount’ is subject to administrative and judicial review as provided under English law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it consistent with Arts 5(2) and 6 of the Directive for a Member State to provide in its regulations that a public authority may charge an amount for supplying environmental information which does ‘... not exceed an amount which the public authority is satisfied is a reasonable amount’ if the decision of the public authority as to what is a ‘reasonable amount’ is subject to administrative and judicial review as provided under English law?

the public authority is satisfied

---

(1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC

1

OJ L 41/26, p. 1

---
#### § 571.6 Amendment of petition.

After a petition has been filed, the petitioner may submit additional information or data in support thereof. In such cases, if the Commissioner determines that the additional information or data amounts to a substantive amendment, the petition as amended will be given a new filing date, and the time limitation will begin to run anew. If nonclinical laboratory studies are involved, additional information and data submitted in support of filed petitions shall include, with respect to each such study, either a statement that the study was conducted in compliance with the requirements set forth in part 58 of this chapter, or, if the study was not conducted in compliance with such regulations, a brief statement of the reason or the noncompliance.

[41 FR 38647, Sept. 10, 1976, as amended at 50 FR 7518, Feb. 22, 1985; 50 FR 16668, Apr. 26, 1985]
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 16 , 2015

. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00639

- CV

VILLAGE CRESTMONT HO USTON USA, L.L.C. AN D WEST CRESTMONT HOUSTON USA, L.L.C. D/B/A CRESTMONT VILL AGE APARTMENTS , Appellants

V.

JOSE J. GAITAN, INDI VIDUALLY AND D/B/A E C & J REMODELING & P AINTING , Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 04688



### ME MORANDUM OPINION NUNC PRO TUNC 1 Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Brown, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Schenck

By order of September 23, 2015, we granted appellants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Because a corporation may only appear through an attorney, we directed appellants in that same

order to file a notice designating new counsel within thirty days. See Kun stoplast of Am., Inc. v.

Formosa Plastics Corp. , 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). We cautioned

appellants that failure to timely obtain new counsel would result in dismissal of the appeal

without further notice. To date, however, appellants have not designated new counsel or

1 This memorandum opinion nunc pro tunc corrects an error in the original opinion with respect to the style of the appeal.– 2

– otherwise communicated with the Court regarding the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal.

150639F.P05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TU NC

VILLAGE CRESTMONT HOUSTON USA, L.L.C. & WEST CRESTMONT HOUSTON USA, L.L.C. D/B/A CRESTMONT VILLAGE APARTMENTS, Appellants

No. 05

- 15

- 00639

- CV V.

JOSE J. GAITAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND
D/B/A EC & J REMODELING & PAINTING, Appelle e On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 04688. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Lang

- Miers and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion nunc pro tunc of thi s date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER appellee Jose J. Gaitan, Individually and d/b/a EC & J Remodeling & Painting recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Village Crestmont Houston USA, L.L.C. & West Crestmont Houston USA, L.L.C . d/b/a Crestmont Village Apartments.

Judgment entered this 16th day of November, 2015.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, James T. Engen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LOUD Technologies Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated:   April 16, 2007 By:  /s/ James T. Engen    James T. Engen    *Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer*
Exhibit 4.7

Schedule 2 to Exhibit 4.5  Individual Deviations from Standard MTIP 2005 Invitation Letter to  Members of the Management Board

|Name                                   |  | Maximum Incentive Amount (€)
for MTIP Tranche 2005 |  |                                                   
|-------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Kai-Uwe Ricke                          |  | 750,000                                            |  |                                                   
|Dr. Karl-Gerhard Eick                  |  | 562,500                                            |  |                                                   
|Dr. Heinz Klinkhammer                  |  | 450,000                                            |  |                                                   
|René Obermann                          |  | 450,000                                            |  |                                                   
|Konrad F. Reiss (died April 6, 2005)   |  | 50,000                                             |  | (participating pro rata,
inclusive of April, 2005)
|Walter Raizner                         |  | 562,500                                            |  |                                                   
|Lothar Pauly (started October 1, 2005) |  | 337,500                                            |  |                                                   

---

Maximum incentive amounts can only be reached if both 2005 plan targets are met. Amounts are payable in early 2008, according to the
MTIP terms and conditions. Actual amounts accrued for 2005 can be found in Item 6. See Exhibits 4.4 and 4.5 for further details.

---



QuickLinks
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.140 Toasted partially defatted cooked cottonseed flour. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive toasted partially defatted cooked cottonseed flour is a product prepared as follows: Food quality cottonseed is delinted and decorticated; the meats are screened, aspirated, and rolled; moisture is adjusted, the meats heated, and the oil expressed; the cooked meats are cooled, ground, and reheated to obtain a product varying in shade from light to dark brown.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for food use made with toasted partially defatted cooked cottonseed flour may contain only diluents that are suitable and that are listed in this subpart as safe in color additive mixtures for coloring foods.
( b ) *Specifications.* Toasted partially defatted cooked cottonseed flour shall conform to the following specifications: Arsenic: It contains no added arsenic compound and therefore may not exceed a maximum natural background level of 0.2 part per million total arsenic, calculated as As. Lead (as Pb), not more than 10 parts per million. Free gossypol content, not more than 450 parts per million.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive toasted partially defatted cooked cottonseed flour may be safely used for coloring foods generally, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been promulgated under section 401 of the act, unless added color is authorized by such standards.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom and intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
mack-ex106_316.htm



Exhibit 10.6

 

April 3, 2017

Dear Yasir,

Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Merrimack”) is pleased to provide you a one-time retention bonus of $350,000 (the “Retention Bonus”), less all applicable taxes and withholdings.  A portion of the Retention Bonus is considered an advance and is not earned unless you remain continuously employed and in good standing with Merrimack based on the following terms: (i) if you terminate your employment with Merrimack on or before December 31, 2017 without Good Reason (as defined in your Employment Agreement) or Merrimack terminates your employment on or before December 31, 2017 for Cause (as defined in your Employment Agreement), you shall be required to repay $233,333.33 of the Retention Bonus, minus any applicable taxes and withholdings that you were required to pay with respect to such amount, within 60 days after your termination, and (ii) if you terminate your employment with Merrimack on or after January 1, 2018 but on or before June 30, 2018 without Good Reason or Merrimack terminates your employment on or after January 1, 2018 but on or before June 30, 2018 for Cause, you shall be required to repay $116,666.67 of the Retention Bonus, minus any applicable taxes and withholdings that you were required to pay with respect to such amount, within 60 days after your termination, in each case, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.  You shall not be required to repay any portion of the Retention Bonus if you terminate your employment with Merrimack at any time for Good Reason or if Merrimack terminates your employment at any time without Cause.

This letter contains all of the understandings and representations between Merrimack and you relating to the Retention Bonus and supersedes all prior understandings, representations and agreements with respect to any retention bonus payments.  The opportunity for you to receive the Retention Bonus under the terms set forth in this letter shall not be construed as a guarantee of employment for any specific period of time, and your employment shall remain at-will.

We are excited to continue working with you.  If the terms set forth in this letter are acceptable to you, please sign this letter and return it to me.  If you have any questions do not hesitate to reach out. 

 


	
	
Best regards,

	
 

	
/s/ Shelley Phelps

	
Shelley Phelps, Talent Team

	
 

	
Accepted and Agreed:

	
 

	
/s/ Yasir Al-Wakeel

	
Yasir Al-Wakeel