alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics

HomeKey Topics – Office of Environmental Quality...Air Quality

# 									Air Quality							

Office of Environmental Quality

**Background**

The health impacts of air pollution around the world result in enormous human and economic losses.  The WHO estimates that air pollution accounted for around 6.9 million deaths, or over 10% of worldwide deaths.  Most of these deaths occur in developing countries, but air pollution is still responsible annually for about 135,000 early deaths in the United States.  The World Bank found that air pollution cost the U.S. economy over $450 billion in economic welfare losses, and the world economy over $5 trillion.  International emissions can also affect air quality in the United States.

******OES Air Quality Program**

Foreign assistance funding for air quality leverages U.S. investment to drive long-term action by our partners (governments, international organizations, businesses, and NGOs). Current projects include:
        - A partnership to support testing and deployment of low-cost monitoring technologies in priority export markets;
        - Establishment of regional networks to convene governments, international organizations, NGOs, industry, and academia for air quality monitoring, training, and management;
        - A fellowship that pairs U.S. experts with foreign governments to provide air quality advice and share best practices, standards, and solutions.

**Air Quality Monitoring Program**

The Office of Management Strategy and Solutions (M/SS) of Greening Diplomacy Initiative leads theDepartment’s Air Quality Monitoring Program,which helps protect U.S. personnel overseas sharing air quality data from U.S.-made air quality monitors.Monitors are currently installed in more than 70 cities around the world. The monitoring program has furthered U.S. diplomatic efforts by:
        - Enhancing the availability of real-time outdoor air quality data around the world;
        - Demonstrating U.S. best practices in monitoring technology and data analysis, as well as a platform for posts to raise awareness about air pollution; and
        - Strengthening partnerships with host countries, universities, and the private sector.

Back to Top
§ 493.1804 General considerations. ( a ) *Purpose.* The enforcement mechanisms set forth in this subpart have the following purposes: ( 1 ) To protect all individuals served by laboratories against substandard testing of specimens.
( 2 ) To safeguard the general public against health and safety hazards that might result from laboratory activities.
( 3 ) To motivate laboratories to comply with CLIA requirements so that they can provide accurate and reliable test results.
( b ) *Basis for decision to impose sanctions.* ( 1 ) CMS's decision to impose sanctions is based on one or more of the following: ( i ) Deficiencies found by CMS or its agents in the conduct of inspections to certify or validate compliance with Federal requirements, or through review of materials submitted by the laboratory (e.g., personnel qualifications).
( ii ) Unsuccessful participation in proficiency testing.
( 2 ) CMS imposes one or more of the alternative or principal sanctions specified in §§ 493.1806 and 493.1807 when CMS or CMS's agent finds that a laboratory has condition-level deficiencies.
( c ) *Imposition of alternative sanctions.* ( 1 ) CMS may impose alternative sanctions in lieu of, or in addition to, principal sanctions.
( 2 ) CMS may impose alternative sanctions other than a civil money penalty after the laboratory has had an opportunity to respond, but before the hearing specified in § 493.1844.
( d ) *Choice of sanction: Factors considered.* CMS bases its choice of sanction or sanctions on consideration of one or more factors that include, but are not limited to, the following, as assessed by the State or by CMS, or its agents: ( 1 ) Whether the deficiencies pose immediate jeopardy.
( 2 ) The nature, incidence, severity, and duration of the deficiencies or noncompliance.
( 3 ) Whether the same condition level deficiencies have been identified repeatedly.
( 4 ) The accuracy and extent of laboratory records (e.g., of remedial action) in regard to the noncompliance, and their availability to the State, to other CMS agents, and to CMS.
( 5 ) The relationship of one deficiency or group of deficiencies to other deficiencies.
( 6 ) The overall compliance history of the laboratory including but not limited to any period of noncompliance that occurred between certifications of compliance.
( 7 ) The corrective and long-term compliance outcomes that CMS hopes to achieve through application of the sanction.
( 8 ) Whether the laboratory has made any progress toward improvement following a reasonable opportunity to correct deficiencies.
( 9 ) Any recommendation by the State agency as to which sanction would be appropriate.
( e ) *Number of alternative sanctions.* CMS may impose a separate sanction for each condition level deficiency or a single sanction for all condition level deficiencies that are interrelated and subject to correction by a single course of action.
( f ) *Appeal rights.* The appeal rights of laboratories dissatisfied with the imposition of a sanction are set forth in § 493.1844.
[57 FR 7237, Feb. 28, 1992; 57 FR 35761, Aug. 11, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 20051, Apr. 24, 1995; 85 FR 54874, Sept. 2, 2020; 88 FR 90044, Dec. 28, 2023]
SERVED JULY 31, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 

In The Matter Of: 

ANTHONY TREMBLAY 

Respondent 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHIN9TON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0780 

Case No. 2012-NE-700040 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On July 25, 2012, the Respondent, Anthony Tremblay, filed a one-page letter in 

which he withdrew his Request for Hearing and Appeal. In his letter, Mr. Tremblay 

stated that the parties had reached a settlement. There is no hearing currently set in this 

matter. 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

1) Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.215, the Respondent, Anthony Tremblay, has 

Withdrawn his Request for Hearing and Appeal, and this proceeding is 

dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

2= I <.j 
FDMS No. FAA-2012-0780 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL . 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Anthony Tremblay, Respondent 

5 Jade Road 

Merrimack, NH 03054 

ONE COPY 

Christopher Waterman, Respondent's Counsel 

Demeo & Associates, P.C . 

. One Lewis Wharf 

Boston, MA 02110 

TEL: 617-263-2600 

FAX: 617-263-2300 

Vincent J. Bennett, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

New England Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803-5299 

TEL: 781-238-7058 

FAX: 781-238-7044 

The Honorable J .E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 · 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

.. 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Dock,et Clerk, AGC-430. 

-'-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7834

JAMES A. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-98-423-AM)

Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In his informal brief, Smith asserts that the failure of

prison authorities to timely pay the fee was not his fault, because

he directed payment upon receipt of the district court’s orders.

Also, two payments totaling $8.00 were received after the dismissal

of his action. This court is not the appropriate forum in which to

raise these claims; rather, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a party may

move the district court for relief from a final judgment or order

based upon any reason justifying relief.

2

PER CURIAM:

James A. Smith appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998)

complaint. The district court ordered Smith to pay a partial,

initial filing fee with the remainder of the fee to be paid in

installments from Smith’s prison account. The district court could

properly require such collection from an inmate under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1915 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Accordingly, the court’s dismissal of the action, without prejudice, when Smith failed to comply

with its order was not an abuse of discretion.* We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1798 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility 

of designating the Ka’u Coast on the island of Hawaii as a unit of 

the National Park System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability 

and feasibility of designating the Ka’u Coast on the 

island of Hawaii as a unit of the National Park System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. KA’U COAST STUDY; REPORT. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Ka’u Coast Preservation Act’’. 

6 (b) STUDY.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Inte8 rior shall complete a study to determine the suit9 ability and feasibility of designating the Ka’u Coast 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1798 IH

1 on the island of Hawaii, as a unit of the National 

2 Park System. 

3 (2) STUDY AREA.—The study area shall extend 

4 generally from Kapaoo Point to Kahuku Point, Ha5 waii. 

6 (3) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAW.—Para7 graphs (2) and (3) of section 8(c) of Public Law 91– 

8 383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)(2) and (3); commonly 

9 known as the National Park System General Au10 thorities Act) shall apply to the study. 

11 (c) REPORT.—Upon completion of the study required 

12 by subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior shall trans13 mit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House 

14 of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 

15 Natural Resources of the Senate a report containing the 

16 conclusions of the study. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 12(a)

                            TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Year Ended December 31,
                                                                              -----------------------
                                                             1997         1996            1995        1994          1993
                                                                     Thousands of Dollars, Except Ratios
<S>                                                       <C>          <C>             <C>         <C>           <C>
EARNINGS:
  Net income before preferred dividends                   $  688,437   $  806,964      $(53,731)   $  644,682    $  483,892
  Add:  Total federal income taxes                           376,898      375,232       (60,035)      326,638       209,544
        Fixed charges (see detail below)                     854,822      851,482       732,313       752,892       782,439
                                                          ----------   ----------      --------    ----------    ----------
          Total earnings                                  $1,920,157   $2,033,678      $618,547    $1,724,212    $1,475,875
                                                          ==========   ==========      ========    ==========    ==========

FIXED CHARGES:
  Interest on mortgage bonds                              $  439,539   $  486,935      $527,131    $  567,543    $  611,090
  Interest on other long-term debt                           124,227       96,404       102,138        92,524       109,458
  Amortization of debt discount, (premium)
    and expense                                               13,146       13,239        10,649         9,591         7,080
  Amortization of loss on reacquired debt                     24,753       23,124        20,881        19,379        13,283
  Other interest charges                                     161,272      178,191        45,384        37,838        11,891
  Preferred trust securities distributions                    69,701       33,001         1,801            --            --
  Rentals representative of the interest factor               22,184       20,588        24,329        26,017        29,637
                                                          ----------   ----------      --------    ----------    ----------
          Total fixed charges                             $  854,822   $  851,482      $732,313    $  752,892    $  782,439
                                                          ==========   ==========      ========    ==========    ==========
 
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                               2.3          2.4           0.8           2.3           1.9
                                                                 ===          ===           ===           ===           ===
</TABLE>
41217.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. WHITEHEAD et al.

Submitted March 1, 1965

Decided May 7, 1965.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, E. J. Summerour, F. Douglas King, Assistant Attorneys General, Howard P. Wallace, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John R. McCannon,*for plaintiff in error.

*John L. Respess, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The questions raised in this appeal are identical to those raised in *State Hwy. Dept. v. Respess,*111 Ga. App. 421 (142 SE2d 73), and the rulings in that case control the exceptions in this case. Upon authority of the above case the judgments of the trial court as to the identical issues are

*Reversed in part and affirmed in part.*

*Jordan and Russell, JJ., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Inaugural Meeting of U.S.-UK Comprehensive Dialogue on Technology & Data

# 									Inaugural Meeting of U.S.-UK Comprehensive Dialogue on Technology & Data							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

January 12, 2023

Senior representatives from the United States and the United Kingdom governments met in Washington, D.C., for the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-UK Comprehensive Dialogue on Technology and Data. The Dialogue was jointly launched by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and UK Secretary of State for the Department of Digital Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Michelle Donelan in October 2022, building on the commitment of President Biden and then Prime Minister Johnson at the Carbis Bay meeting in 2021.

Four senior U.S. and UK officials led the dialogue: Grant Harris, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce; Nathaniel Fick, Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy, U.S. Department of State; Susannah Storey, Director General for Digital and Media Policy, UK DCMS; and Chris Jones, Director, Technology & Analysis Directorate, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. The inaugural discussions focused on three work streams: Data; Critical and Emerging Technologies; and Secure and Resilient Digital Infrastructure.

The United States and United Kingdom identified deliverables to address in 2023, including:

Collaborate to facilitate global trusted data flows, including multilateral discussions with the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules Forum.

Finalize and implement a data bridge for U.S.-UK data flows.

Promote open, interoperable, reliable, and secure telecommunication systems, such as open radio access networks (Open RAN), and work to ensure a complementary and cooperative approach to telecommunications R&D.

Hold roundtable discussions on next-generation license exempt technologies in the 6 GHz band.

Champion the new OECD Global Forum on Technology in support of our shared ambition to build a wider community of partners committed to ensuring technology is designed, developed, and deployed, in a way that reflects our values.

Identify opportunities for cooperation between the UK and the U.S. semiconductor industry on skills, investments and R&D.

Strengthen UK-U.S. collaboration on AI technical standards development and tools for trustworthy AI – including through joint research and information sharing, and support for commercial cooperation.

The four senior U.S. and UK principals agreed to review progress on a quarterly basis and to identify future areas of cooperation on technology and data. The next formal Dialogue will take place in January 2024.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDataOffice of the SpokespersonTechnologyUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1222 Provider-enrollee communication.

The State must ensure, through its contracts, that each MCO, PIHP, and PAHP protects communications between providers and enrollees in accordance with the terms of § 438.102 of this chapter.
Home2022 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Henick, Jonathan – Republic of Uzbekistan – June 2022

# 									Henick, Jonathan – Republic of Uzbekistan – June 2022							

Certificate of Competency

June 1, 2022

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination:  Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign ServiceAct, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:Republic of Uzbekistan

CANDIDATE:Jonathan Henick

Jonathan Henick, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as the U.S. Department of State Chair at the College of Information and Cyberspace at the National Defense University.  Previously, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau for South and Central Asian Affairs where he was responsible for the countries of Central Asia, as well as for Press and Public Diplomacy for all of South and Central Asia.  Earlier, he served as Acting Deputy Coordinator of the Global Engagement Center where he helped to lead U.S. interagency efforts to counter disinformation from Russia, China, and Iran.  He also served as the Principal Deputy Coordinator and Acting Coordinator for the Bureau for International Information Programs.  His other assignments include serving as the Minister Counselor for Public Affairs in Turkey, the Deputy Chief of Mission in Timor-Leste, as well as in other positions in Azerbaijan, Turkey, Portugal, and Uzbekistan.  He has worked as a Fellow and Visiting Professor at George Washington University and as a Diplomat-in-Residence at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.  Henick’sdeep and substantive background in Central Asian Affairs, fluency in Russian and Turkic languages, experience countering disinformation, demonstrated ability to lead interagency teams, and extensive expertise in public diplomacy, all make him a well-qualified candidate for Ambassador to the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Henick has received the Public Diplomacy Alumni Association Achievement Award, as well as multiple State Department performance awards, including three Senior Foreign Service Performance Awards.  A native of New York, he speaks Russian, Portuguese, Turkish, and Azerbaijani, and holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Hawaii and a Master’s degree in International Affairs from Columbia University.

Back to Top
#### James L. NANCE v. Dennis F. FISHER et al.

No. 65078.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re James L. Nance, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. No. 13,885.

Writ denied.
§ 486.110 Condition for coverage: Inspection of equipment. Inspections of all X-ray equipment and shielding are made by qualified individuals at intervals not greater than every 24 months. ( a ) *Standard—qualified inspectors.* Inspections are made at least every 24 months by a radiation health specialist who is on the staff of or approved by an appropriate State or local government agency.
( b ) *Standard—records of inspection and scope of inspection.* The supplier maintains records of current inspections which include the extent to which equipment and shielding are in compliance with the safety standards outlined in § 486.108.
[34 FR 388, Jan. 10, 1969. Redesignated at 42 FR 52826, Sept. 30, 1977. Further redesignated and amended at 60 FR 2326, Jan. 9, 1995; 60 FR 45086, Aug. 30, 1995; 60 FR 50447, Sept. 29, 1995]
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50369 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Alexi Lenin Argueta**

**- Urbina,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:19

- CR

- 1087

- 1

Before **Southwick, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Alexi Lenin Argueta

- Urbina appeals the 57

- month, within guidelines range sentence imposed after his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry by a removed alien, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Argueta

- Urbina contends that his sentence is unconstitutiona l because § 1326(b)(1), which was used to

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 19, 2021

Ly le W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50369 Document: 00516060883 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2021No. 21

- 50369

2 enhance his sentence based on his having been previously deported following a conviction for a felony offense, is no longer valid in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 5 30 U.S. 466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013). Argueta

- Urbina concedes that this issue i s foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for future review. The Government m oves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a merits brief. The parties are correct that Argueta

- Urbina’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (“ We recently acknowledged that the Almendarez

– Torres exception survived Alleyne. ”); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007) (“ Almendarez

- Torres remains binding precedent until and unle ss it is officially overruled by the Supreme Court. ”). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED**

. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s alternative motion for an extensio n of time is **DENIED** as unnecessary
. **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-50369 Document: 00516060883 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2021