alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1164 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-084-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration  Statements  No.
33-90454, 33-96076, 33-80899, 333-02194,  333-09075,  333-34031 and 333-66997 of
FileNET  Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated January 26, 1999 (March 10,
1999 as to Note 8)  appearing  in and  incorporated  by  reference in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of FileNET  Corporation  for the fiscal year ended  December
31, 1998.



/s/   Deloitte & Touche LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 30, 1999
#### § 498.85 Procedures before the Departmental Appeals Board on review.

The parties are given, upon request, a reasonable opportunity to file briefs or other written statements as to fact and law, and to appear before the Departmental Appeals Board to present evidence or oral arguments. Copies of any brief or other written statement must be sent in accordance with § 498.17.
| Dated:      February  15, 2010 |                                                           |                          |
|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                                     |                                                           |
|                                     |                                                           |  /s/ Dwight Babcock |
|                                     | DWIGHT      BABCOCK                                            |
|                                     | CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER(Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                                     |                                                           |                          |
| Dated:      February  15, 2010 |                                                           |
|                                     |                                                           |                          |
|                                     |                                                           | /s/ Brien Ragle          |
|                                     | BRIEN      RAGLE                                               |
|                                     | CONTROLLER(Principal      Financial and AccountingOfficer)     |

----
#### § 61.13 Duration and continuation.

An award period may be any period not in excess of 2 years. The Surgeon General may make one or more continuation awards for an additional period upon a finding of satisfactory progress toward accomplishment of the purposes of the initial fellowship award. Additional support may be provided on appropriate justification after expiration of the period of support involved in the previous award.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

282 

CA 13-01682 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF PHILIP J. ROCHE, PUBLIC 

DEFENDER, COUNTY OF STEUBEN, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY 

OF STEUBEN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

ALAN P. REED, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BATH, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT PRO

SE. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Steuben County Court (Peter C.

Bradstreet, J.), entered January 10, 2013. The order denied the

application of petitioner to quash a subpoena duces tecum. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by petitioner-appellant on December 19, 2013, by respondentrespondent on December 18, 2013 and by the attorney for petitionerappellant on December 17, 2013,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
§ 493.1419 Standard; Clinical consultant responsibilities. The clinical consultant provides consultation regarding the appropriateness of the testing ordered and interpretation of test results. The clinical consultant must— ( a ) Be available to provide clinical consultation to the laboratory's clients;
( b ) Be available to assist the laboratory's clients in ensuring that appropriate tests are ordered to meet the clinical expectations;
( c ) Ensure that reports of test results include pertinent information required for specific patient interpretation; and
( d ) Ensure that consultation is available and communicated to the laboratory's clients on matters related to the quality of the test results reported and their interpretation concerning specific patient conditions.
HomeTrade Recent Actions...Trade and Investment – IPEF Supply Chain Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Japan, November 29, 2023

# 									Trade and Investment – IPEF Supply Chain Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Japan, November 29, 2023							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [108 KB]

Tags

Indo-PacificJapanTrade and Investment

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68836-68837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27430]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0485; FRL-9902-60]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Rescheduled Public 
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this notice to reschedule the 1-day 
meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review, RNAi 
Technology as a Pesticide: Problem Formulation for Human Health and 
Ecological Risk Assessment. The meeting was announced in the Federal 
Register on August 15, 2013. The Agency issued a notice of cancellation 
in the Federal Register on October 28, 2013. The new meeting date is 
January 28, 2014.

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 28, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 
approximately 6 p.m.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments and requests 
for oral comments be submitted by January 20, 2014. However, written 
comments and requests to make oral comments may be submitted until the 
date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after 
January 20, 2014, should contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional 
instructions, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharlene Matten, DFO, Office of 
Science

[[Page 68837]]

Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 564-0130; fax number: (202) 564-8382; email address: 
matten.sharlene@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A cancellation notice was published in the 
Federal Register on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64211) (FRL-9902-08). All 
other information provided in the Federal Register on August 15, 2013 
(78 FR 49750) (FRL-9393-3) remains unchanged.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 6, 2013.
Steven M. Knott,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27430 Filed 11-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
<PAGE>


                                                              EXHIBIT 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of IDS Life Insurance
Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Mark E. Schwarzmann, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Brian J. McGrane as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.



/s/  Mark E. Schwarzmann
------------------------
Name:  Mark E. Schwarzmann
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  May 9, 2006



/s/  Brian J. McGrane
---------------------
Name:  Brian J. McGrane
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 9, 2006
§ 494.150 Condition: Responsibilities of the medical director. The dialysis facility must have a medical director who meets the qualifications of § 494.140(a) to be responsible for the delivery of patient care and outcomes in the facility. The medical director is accountable to the governing body for the quality of medical care provided to patients. Medical director responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following: ( a ) Quality assessment and performance improvement program.
( b ) Staff education, training, and performance.
( c ) Policies and procedures. The medical director must— ( 1 ) Participate in the development, periodic review and approval of a “patient care policies and procedures manual” for the facility; and
( 2 ) Ensure that— ( i ) All policies and procedures relative to patient admissions, patient care, infection control, and safety are adhered to by all individuals who treat patients in the facility, including attending physicians and nonphysician providers; and
( ii ) The interdisciplinary team adheres to the discharge and transfer policies and procedures specified in § 494.180(f).
#### WAWRZYNIAK *v.*TOBICEJ.

Partnership — Parties—N on joinder.

Whether plaintiff and his father were in partnership and made a settlement of the matters in dispute, by agreement of the father, were, under disputed evidence, for the jury.

Error to Wayne; Mandell, J.

Submitted April 4, 1911.

(Docket No. 7.)

Decided June 2, 1911.

Assumpsit in justice’s court by Joseph Wawrzyniak against Joseph Tobicej and Bloisey Niezela, copartners. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*James B. Neill,*for appellant.

*Philip A. McHugh*and *William Henry Gallagher,*for appellees.

Moore, J.

Plaintiff claims that he, Joseph Wawrzyniak, purchased the stock in trade of a bakery in the city of Detroit from August Natzmann, and later secured a lease from the owners of the premises, Frank and Valentine Natzmann, parents of August Natzmann; that on the 16th day of March, A. D. 1907, plaintiff sold the bakery to the defendants for $489.48, receiving $280 in cash, the balance to be paid within a short time; that he made several demands on defendants for the payment of the balance due, and on their neglect to remit he brought suit in the justice’s court for the city of Detroit. The defendants appealed to the Wayne circuit court, where the trial resulted in a verdict for the defendants of no cause of action.

It is the theory of the defendants that the plaintiff and his father were copartners; that, at the time plaintiff sold *189the bakery to the defendants, plaintiff had done considerable damage to the bakery and the building, and that the plaintiff and his father were jointly liable as copartners to Frank and Valentine Natzmann for this damage; that the Natzmanns had instituted a suit against plaintiff and his father in the justice’s court for the city of Detroit to recover damages from the plaintiff and his father; that, at the time Constable Fox served the summons on plaintiff’s father in this action, said Constable Fox, together with Frank and Valentine Natzmann, compromised and settled this suit for damages for $200; and that Martin Wawrzyniak gave a written order to Frank and Valentine Natzmann on the two defendents for the payment of $200, which was paid. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for defendants. A motion was made for a new trial, and the motion was overruled. The case is brought here by writ of error. The judge was not requested to file his reasons for overruling the motion for a new trial, and he did not file any reasons. The attorneys say no exceptions were taken during the progress of the trial, and that the case is not in a condition to be reviewed. They also say it was properly submitted to the jury upon the merits. We agree with them as to the last proposition, and find it unnecessary to pass upon the other.

Judgment is affirmed.

Bird and Hooker, JJ., concurred with Moore, J. Ostrander, C. J., and McAlvay, J., concurred in the result.
§ 436.229 Optional targeted low-income children. The agency may provide Medicaid to— ( a ) All individuals under age 19 who are optional targeted low-income children as defined in § 436.3; or
( b ) Reasonable categories of these individuals.
[66 FR 2668, Jan. 11, 2001]
# C_2006048EN.01004701.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/47

---

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22, 28 January 2006, p. 26
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22, 28 January 2006, p. 26

(2006/C 48/86)

The Official Journal notice in Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05 should read as follows:

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2005 — Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T -130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05) (1)

(2006/C 22/52)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that Case T-183/05 be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

1

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00053

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L .D. C., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause No. F

- 1068

- 02

- 7

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observanc e. December 13, 2018
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...National Academic Partnership Initiative Focused on Conflict Anticipation and Prevention

# 									National Academic Partnership Initiative Focused on Conflict Anticipation and Prevention							

Fact Sheet

Office of the Spokesperson

November 15, 2023

On November 9, the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) launched a new national academic partnership initiative focused on conflict anticipation and prevention.  Through the Academic Centers of Conflict Anticipation and Prevention (ACCAP) initiative, universities will collaborate with CSO on research, analysis, and data that will enhance the Department of State’s ability to anticipate, prevent, and respond to conflict globally.

CSO has engaged multiple public and private research institutions from across the United States to participate in ACCAP, including the following:  
        - University of Notre Dame, Keough School of Global Affairs
        - Florida International University, Steven J. Green School of International & Public Affairs
        - George Mason University, Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution
        - Georgetown University, Institute for Women, Peace, and Security
        - University of Alabama, Global Water Security Center
        - University of Utah, International and Area Studies
        - University of California, Berkeley,Institute of International Studies

Students at participating institutions, known as ACCAP scholars, will be afforded an opportunity to work on real-world requirements at the unclassified level to help address existing and emerging conflicts.  Their contributions will further CSO’s ongoing efforts to support key Biden-Harris Administration priorities, including implementation of the bipartisan Global Fragility Act.  ACCAP scholars will work directly with staff from across CSO’s regional and thematic offices, and on occasion, they will participate in briefings and other select opportunities to inform U.S. policymakers in the Department of State and across the U.S. government interagency.

Participation in ACCAP is open to public and private research institutions.  The Department of State is committed to providing equal opportunities to access the policymaking process to students and faculty at our nation’s institutions of higher education.  

For further information, contact the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations’ Office of Public Affairs at csopublicaffairs1@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization OperationsConflict PreventionConflictsEducationEducation ProgramsOffice of the SpokespersonStabilization

Back to Top
### AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA - XXXX - XXXX Directorate ID: **2009 -**  **SW -**  **19 -**  **AD** 

### Helicopter Model: **Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S -**  **92A** 

### Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 42 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : This amendment is prompted by a report of a main - landing gear that would not retract. The manufacturer reports that certain actuators w ere manufactured below the specified hardness on the lock dow n keys. This condition, if not corrected could lead to a landing gear collapse following a roll - on landing that exceeds 50 knots groundspeed. The AD limits the maximum groundspeed for a normal landing or takeoff from 65 knots to 50 knots for helicopters with a certain serial - numbered landing gear retr act actuator (actuator). Instead of limiting the groundspeed, replacing the affected actuator with a modified actuator would be terminating action for this AD’s requirements. 

### Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 7,841 

### Labor per Helicopter (XX x $85/work - hour ) 8 work hour s X $80 ///////////// per work hour = Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ Total US Fleet Cost $ Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Polici es and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: First Last

We estim ate that this AD will affect 42 helicopters. It will take a minimal amount of time to make the limitation changes. If the operator replaces an affected actuator with a modified actuator, it will take about 8 w ork hours at an average labor rate of $80 per wo rk hour. Required parts will cost about $7,841 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $356,202, assuming all the helicopter operators install modified actuators.This amendment adop ts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Model S - 92A helicopters. This

action requires making pen and ink changes, inserting a copy of this AD, or inserting specified temporary revisions into the Limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manu al (RFM) limiting the maximum groundspeed for a normal landing or takeoff from 65 knots to 50 knots for helicopters with a certain serial numbered landing gear retract actuator (actuator). Instead of limiting the groundspeed, replacing the affected actuat or with a modified actuator w ould be terminating action for the requirements of this AD. This amendment is prompted by a report of a main landing gear that would not retract. The manufacturer reports that certain actuators were manufactured below the spe cified hardness on the lock - down keys. This condition, if not corrected could lead to a landing gear collapse following a roll - on landing that exceeds 50 knots groundspeed. These actions are intended to prevent landing gear collapse and subsequent loss o f control of the helicopter.
#### William BOSHEARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. LL-311.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 15, 1979.

*726Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment against appellant for sexual battery of a child under the age of eleven years, finding his two substantive points to be without merit. First, the trial court did not err in failing to grant a mistrial simply because two of the potential jury members stated in voir dire that they had been rape victims. *Stevens v. State,*251 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Second, the court did not err in restricting certain discovery and cross-examination of the victim because there was no showing that the excluded matter had any relevance to the disputed issues in the trial or to the victim’s credibility. Contrast *Jenkins v. State,*349 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); *Lombardi v. State,*358 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

There was error, however, in the court’s failure to specify appellant’s jail-time credit in the sentence. *Randall v. State,*352 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we remand for that correction but appellant need not be present at that time.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J., and ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.