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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                          ( print page 47261)    

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group; Neuroscience of Aging Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         October 8-9, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         4 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         William Cruce, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute on Aging, Scientific Review Office, Gateway Building 2c-212, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7704,                         *crucew@nia.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 9, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-22216 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Captan Focus Meeting

September 23, 2013

Captan Task Force
Captan Task Force (CTF)

• Makhteshim Chemical Works (MCW)

• Arysta LifeScience North America LLC (Arysta)

• Makhteshim Agan of North America (MANA) 

• Representatives of CTF -

- Adi Azmon and Rob Everich (MCW)

- Jim Barron and Anna Wilkins (Arysta)

- Jonathan Janis and Kristen Knox (MANA) 

- Gregg Hancock (Consultant, Waterborne Environmental, Inc.) 

- Claire Iorizzo (Coordinator, CTF)
Captan

• Captan is a broad-spectrum protectant fungicide, 

first registered for use on tree fruit in 1951. 

• Captan is used world-wide in agriculture on food 

crops. It is also used as a root dip, a seed 

treatment and as a postharvest fruit dip for 

various crops. 

• Current formulation types of captan are 50% WP, 

80% WP, 80% WDG, and 40% L.
Captan Use Discussion

• Situation (September, 2013)

• EPA Questions To Date

• Conclusions

• Path Forward
Situation In a Nutshell

• 8 TGAI Registrants: Arysta, MANA, Albaugh, 

UPI, RedEagle, Drexel, Chemtura, Cheminova. 

• >100 end use labels, distributor products.

• Arysta and MANA have formed CTF in US.

– Several other companies with captan TGAI’s not 

currently participating.
EPA Label Use Questions

• Easy questions

- Define “Lawn seed beds”

- What is “Greenhouse bench treatment”

- “Dichondra ground cover use rate”

• Hard(er) questions

- Please “characterize the use on turf”

- Address Max rates, freq & timing (food uses).

- Support of Antimicrobial uses
Captan Antimicrobial Uses

CTF will not support

• However, we don’t know what all the other 

companies are intending; and:

• We want to be sure that any other potential 

users are not deprived of opportunity.

• Case in Point-Pending Antifoulant Paint use.
Conclusions

• We are aware of EPA’s current questions and 

desire to update the captan labels.

• The “Easy” questions can be answered.

• However, Captan use patterns have been 

evolving since the 1950’s.

• “Harder” questions will take time for 

inputs/collaboration from our non CTF 

competitors and the user community.
Path Forward

• We are committed to working with the Agency to

address captan labeling concerns.

• Achieving label changes of the scope requested by 

the Agency in a consistent way across hundreds of 

captan labels will be challenging in the near term. 

• To avoid confusion in the marketplace, a process 

should be used that ensures that users have access 

to uniform labeling at all times.

• We are open to any suggestions from the Agency on 

implementing these label changes
Anticipated Data Requirements

• CTF will address the data required in the Data 

Call-in for conventional uses. 

• CTF will not support antimicrobial uses.
Summary and Next Step
Thank you !!
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,472,000
<SECURITIES>                                     2,102,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                      975,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (253,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,235,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,772,000
<PP&E>                                           2,990,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,106,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,333,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,310,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          5,000
<COMMON>                                           449,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,989,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,333,000
<SALES>                                          1,760,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,595,000
<CGS>                                            2,021,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,191,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (368,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (21,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,643,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,643,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,643,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.22)
        


</TABLE>
#### Philip EPIFANO, as Trustee, Appellant, v. TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Edward J. Nolan, Mayor, Fred E. Gierhart, Suzanne M. Boden, Thad D. Wilkins and Paul Parent, as members of and constituting the Town Council of the Town of Indian River Shores, Appellees.

No. 78-1352.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 17, 1979.

George H. Moss of Jones, Paine *&*Foster, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant.

Chester E. Clem, Jr. of Jackson & Clem, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was plaintiff below and seeks reversal of a final judgment. The suit was for a declaratory decree relating to the validity of a zoning moratorium ordinance and a rezoning ordinance passed by the Town Council of the Town of Indian River Shores, the defendant/appellee. The trial court concluded that the municipal* ordinances had been properly adopted, that they were not subject to constitutional attack, and that the City was not equitably estopped from enforcing the ordinances. The trial court also found that the plaintiff had no vested right to the particular zoning claimed.

The matter was tried before the Court without a jury. The evidence introduced was voluminous and complex.

Appellant initially contends that the ordinance was enacted in an unconstitutional manner resulting in a denial of due process. We find appellant has failed to demonstrate error in this regard.

Appellant asserts a vested right to certain zoning existed. The trial court found to the contrary and we find his conclusion supported by *City of Boynton Beach v. Carroll,*272 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), and *City of Hallandale v. State, ex rel. Sage Corp.,*326 So.2d 202 (4th DCA 1976). Appellant also contends that the zoning classification was unreasonable and arbitrary, constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws. We find this contention to be without merit. Appellant’s contentions regarding equitable estoppel were basically factual questions which were properly'determined by the trial court. We conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate error in any respect. The final judgment below is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Oyer v. Oyer

December 20, 1955.

Shughart, P. J.,

An examination of the complaint in the above captioned action in divorce reveals that there is no averment that the action is not collusive, which is required by Pa. R. C. P. 1126(7). It does appear from the evidence that there was no collusion and the master made a finding in his conclusions of law to that effect.

Whilé we feel that the requirements of Pa. R. C. P. 1126 are mandatory because of the use of the word “shall” we think that this is a defect which can be corrected; we will, therefore, permit the filing of an amended complaint nunc pro tunc.

*759The complaint in this case was signed by plaintiff, rather than by her attorney which is required by Pa. R. C. P. 1023 and 1121(6),. This matter, likewise, can be corrected nunc pro tunc.

Pa. R. C. P. 1126 sets forth -the things that should be contained in a complaint in divorce; it is recommended that complaints in divorce follow the suggested form therein set forth.

And now, December 20, 1955, at 9 a.m., permission to amend the complaint, in the respects referred to above, is granted. When the amended complaint has been filed, the matter may be once again submitted to the court.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                       GATEFIELD CORPORATION
                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                            (unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED        NINE MONTHS ENDED
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)                           SEPTEMBER 30,            SEPTEMBER 30,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1997         1996         1997          1996
<S>                                                        <C>          <C>         <C>            <C>
Loss attributable to ordinary stockholders                   $ (4,345)    $(11,366)    $(11,830)     $(20,322)
Preferred Stock Dividend (see Note 4)                             (76)           -          (76)            -
                                                             --------     --------     --------      --------
                                                             $ (4,421)    $(11,366)    $(11,906)     $(20,322)
                                                             --------     --------     --------      --------
                                                             --------     --------     --------      --------

Net loss per share                                           $  (0.13)    $  (0.56)    $  (0.42)     $  (1.01)
                                                             --------     --------     --------      --------
                                                             --------     --------     --------      --------
Weighted average shares outstanding                            32,884       20,404       28,460        20,083
                                                             --------     --------     --------      --------
                                                             --------     --------     --------      --------
</TABLE>

See Note 5 of Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

                                       11
HomeOffice of International Religious FreedomRemarks & Releases...International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance Statement on Afghanistan

# 									International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance Statement on Afghanistan							

Joint Statement

Office of International Religious Freedom

September 10, 2021

As members, friends, and observers of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, we call on all parties in Afghanistan to work in good faith to establish an inclusive and representative government, with the meaningful participation of women and minority groups, including members of religious minority groups, that respects the rights of all individuals.

We hold grave concerns for the human rights of the people of Afghanistan and in particular for members of religious minority groups who are at risk, including Shi’a and Ismaili Muslims, Hazaras, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, non-believers, and others. We call upon all parties and international agencies to recognize the vulnerabilities of these individuals being targeted because of their faith or belief.

We call for adherence to obligations under international human rights law, including the rights of members of religious minority groups, and obligations under international humanitarian law.

We affirm our enduring commitment to the people of Afghanistan, including through a renewed humanitarian effort by the international community.

Albania, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Kosovo, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sovereign Order of Malta, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Tags

AfghanistanHuman RightsOffice of International Religious FreedomReligious Freedom

Back to Top
Home2017 Treaties and Agreements...Kenya (17-406) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Threat Reduction Biological Engagement Programs and Extension of Agreement

# 									Kenya (17-406) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Threat Reduction Biological Engagement Programs and Extension of Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

April 6, 2017

Weapons: Proliferation

Agreement signed at Nairobi July 24, 2015; entered into force April 6, 2017.

Extension of agreement of July 24, 2015 signed at Nairobi April 5, 2022; entered into force April 5, 2022.
Download attachment						 [2 MB]

Tags

KenyaProliferationTreatiesWeapons

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Public Designation of Former Maltese Public Officials Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri Due to Involvement in Significant Corruption

# 									Public Designation of Former Maltese Public Officials Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri Due to Involvement in Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

December 22, 2021

Today, the U.S. Department of State announces the public designation of former Maltese public officials Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri due to their involvement in significant corruption. In their official capacities as Minister of Energy and Conservation of Water and Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Mizzi and Schembri were involved in corrupt acts that included using their political influence and official power for their personal benefit. Specifically, there is credible information that Mizzi and Schembri were involved in a corrupt scheme that entailed the award of a government contract for the construction of a power plant and related services in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. Their actions undermined rule of law and the Maltese public’s faith in their government’s democratic institutions and public processes.

This designation is made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2021.  In addition to Mizzi and Schembri, the Department of State is designating Mizzi and Schembri’s immediate family members: Mizzi’s wife, Sai Mizzi Liang, and his two minor children; Schembri’s wife, Josette Schembri Vella, his daughter Juliana Schembri Vella, and his minor child.  This action renders Mizzi and Schembri, and each of these members of their immediate families, ineligible for entry into the United States.

This designation reaffirms the U.S. commitment to supporting the rule of law and strengthening democratic institutions in Malta.  The Department will continue to use authorities like this to promote accountability for corrupt actors in this region and globally.

For more information, please contact INL-PAPD@state.gov.

Tags

7031(c)Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCorruptionMaltaOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
UNAUTHORIZED LEASE MADE BY EXECUTORS.

Court of Appeals for Muskingum County.

#### J. L. Swingle et al v. H. Ellsworth Staker and Charles E. Russell, as Executors of the Estate of John Staker, Deceased.

Decided, April 15, 1920.

*Estates of Decedents*— Executors *Without Authority to Mortgage, Lease, Bent, or in any way Encumber Beal Estate Belonging to the Decedent, Unless.*

A contract or lease covering real estate, executed by an executor not authorized so to do by Ihe will of bis decedent, is not enforcible.

*C. T. Marshall*and *II. E. Buker,*for plaintiffs.

*G. L. Post, G. F. Kibble*and *E. F. O’Neal,*for defendants.

Houck, J.

This case is here on appeal from the common pleas court of Muskingum county, Ohio, and is submitted to this court on demurrer to the petition and the two supplements thereto.

The question to be determined by this court is: Do the petition and the two supplements thereto state a cause of action ¥

The allegations and facts stated in said pleadings are well known to counsel and for that reason will not be set out in detail in this opinion.

It is practically conceded by counsel that, if the paper writing upon which the petition is based is a lease, then the executors *565were and are without authority in law to make and enter into such contract contemplated thereby, leasing the real estate of their decedent.

This brings us directly to the question: What is the paper writing now before us and what is its force and effect in law, as applied to the parties hereto ?

A careful examination of all the authorities cited by counsel, as well as an examination of some not cited, clearly convince us that in Ohio, the paper writing in question is a lease with all the elements incident thereto.

We think the rule is so well known that it needs no comment here, that an executor has no right to mortgage, lease, rent, or in any way encumber the real estate of his decedent, unless such executor is so authorized and empowered in the will of his decedent. ! j

If the paper writing now before us for construction be properly executed, it in law would be a lease, and even then, no authority having been given the executors of the will of John Staker, deceased, to make such contract or execute a lease on the real estate of which he died seized, it follows that said executors were and are without'power or authority in the premises.

We do not think it necessary to discuss any of the other questions raised by counsel in the instant case, because the one already passed upon and determined by this court is decisive of the case so far as the demurrer is concerned.

Thus it follows, and we are unanimous in our conclusion, that the demurrer is well taken and must be sustained.

Demurrer sustained.

Shields, J., and Patterson, J., concur.
# Update on Kazakh Dual Language Labeling Law

 

The enforcement deadline for a requirement that all productssold in Kazakhstan be labeled in both the Russian and Kazakh languages has beendelayed until early next year. As of February 1, 2000, the import of goodswithout dual language labeling will be prohibited. Distribution of goods notcorrectly labeled within Kazakhstan is to be prohibited as of April 1, 2000.The Kazakhstan Government order on dual language labeling, originally set to gointo effect on October 1, 1999, implements the 1997 Law on Languages. Theresponsible government agency is the Ministry of Energy, Industry and Trade(MEIT). The enforcement bodies are the Customs Committee and the Committee onStandards, Metrology and Certification.

 

MEIT is currently drafting a regulation, “On Requirements forProduct Information in Kazakh and Russian Languages on Labels,” thatincorporates the suggestions and amendments of importers into Kazakhstan andKazakhstani producers. These groups had expressed concerns and requests on thelabeling requirement’s provisions. 

 

The contents of the original government order have notchanged. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service in Almaty analyzed the orderwhen it was passed in May. It noted that the new labeling regulations requiredall goods subject to compulsory certification under Kazakhstan’s certificationlaw to be labeled in both the Kazakh and Russian languages. The labels mustcontain the following information: (1) name of goods and ingredients, (2) countryof origin, (3) producer, (4) production date, (5) expiration date, (6) storagedirections, (7) directions for usage, and (8) nutrition information (for foodproducts only). The information must be printed on the original label orpackaging, included in accompanying leaflets or directions for use (one perunit), or attached in any other way depending on the type of good and inaccordance with corresponding standards and laws.

 

The new labeling requirements need to be implemented byproducers, importers (organizations and individuals), or the sellers of theimported goods. Delivery of imported goods and supply contracts must containprovisions for labeling in accordance with the new regulations.

 

*Tocontact the **Kazakhstan State Committeeon Standardization, Metrology and Certification** in Almaty, tel: +7 (3272)21-65-41 or fax: +7 (3272) 28-56-55. To contact the **Kazakhstan Customs Committee** in Astana, tel: +7 (3172) 75-04-47 orfax: +7 (3172) 75-30-16.*

 

*Formore information, contact the **U.S.Commercial Service-Almaty** at tel: +7 (3272) 58-79-16, fax: 58-79-22, email:[email protected], or visit www.usis.kz/csalmaty or **BISNIS Online** atwww.bisnis.doc.gov/bisnis/isa/isa-cert.htm.*

* *