alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OFMIClIlGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LANSINCi
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM GOVERNOR

Mr. Bharat Mathur Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77WestJackson Boulevard (R-19J) Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507 Dear Mr. Mathur: STEVEN E. CHESTER DIRECTOR

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is submitting a numberof new Michigan Air Pollution Control rules, rule revisions, and a rule rescission as a revision to Michigan's State Implementation Plan (SIP) and requests yourapproval of the revised SIP. The submittal consists ofthree separate rules packages including the revised Part2 NewSource Review (NSR) permitting rules and the rescission ofthe outdated nonattainment rule, the addition ofthe Part 19 rules revising Michigan's NSRfor Major sources in nonattainmentareas to include the federal NSR reforms, and other revisions that are affected bythefederal NSR rules. The Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules included in the three rules packages are as follows:

• Part 1. General Provisions. Revisions include amendments to R 336.1102 to R336.1105, R 336.1109, R 336.1112 to R 336.1114, and R 336.1122. These revisions were made to modifythe definitionsthat impactthe new NSR permitting rules in Part 19 as well as modifythe definition ofvolatile organic compound.

• Part2. Air Use Approval. Revisions include amendments to R 336.1201, R 336.1202, R 336.1205, R336.1207, R 336.1211, R336.1213, R 336.1214, R 336.1214a, R 336.1219, R 336.1240, R 336.1241, R 336.1278, R 336.1281, R 336.1284, R336.1285, R336.1288, and R 336.1299. Rule 336.1277 has been added, and R 336.'1220 has been rescinded and replaced by new NSR and Prevention ofSignification Deterioration permitting rules in Parts 19 and 18, respectively. In addition, all relevant citations in the 

### Purl 2 rules have been changed to reflectthe state's new permitting authority in the new Part 18 and Part 19 rules.

• Part 19. NSRfor MajorSources Impacting NonattainmentAreas. These are new rules: R 336.2901, R 336.2901a, R336.2902, R 336.2903, R 336.2907, R 336.2908, and R 336.2910.

CONSTITUTION HI\LL' 525 WEST J\LLEGI\N STREET' P.O. BOX 30473' LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7973 www.michigan.gov • (!lOO) 662-9278Mr. Bharat Mathur -2- March 24, 2009

We requestthatthese rules, with the exception of R 336.1211, R 336.1213, R 336.1214, R 336.1214a, R 336.1277, and R 336.2910, be approved as part ofthe SIP. In addition to action on these rules packages, we are requesting thatthe "reasonable possibilities" provision in R 336.2818(3)(f), submitted in a rules package on September30, 2008, be approved as part ofthe SIP. This requestwas originally made in the September30 submittal to the EPA, butthe EPA is asking thatwe makethe formal request again. We appreciate yourattention to this matter. Ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Robert Irvine, AQD, at 517-373-7042.

Steven E. hester Director 517-373-7917 Enclosures cc: Ms. Cheryl Newton, EPA Region 5 Mr. John Mooney, EPA Region 5 Mr. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ Mr. G. Vinson Hellwig, MDEQ Mr. Robert Irvine, MDEQ Ms. MaryAnn Dolehanty, MDEQ Mr. Jeffrey Rathbun, MDEQ
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

TheBoard of Directors and Stockholders 

Corvis Corporation: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-47104) on Form S-8 of Corvis Corporation of our reports dated January 27,2003, except as to Note 16(c), which is as of February 24, 2003 and Note 17 which is as of February 22, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Corvis Corporation as of December 29, 2001 and December 28, 2002, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended December 30, 2000, December 29, 2001 and December 28, 2002, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in theDecember 28, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Corvis Corporation. 

 

As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, Corvis Corporation changed its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets to adopt the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.” 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

McLean, Virginia 

March 22, 2004
# C_2019093EN.01000702.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2019 — European Commission v United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp.

(Case C-265/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Merger control - Acquisition of TNT Express by UPS - Commission Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement - Econometric model developed by the Commission - Failure to disclose amendments made to the econometric model - Infringement of the rights of the defence))

(2019/C 93/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, H. Leupold and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: United Parcel Service, Inc. (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, F. Hoseinian, advokat, W. Knibbeler, S.A. Pliego and P. van den Berg, advocaten, and F. Roscam Abbing, advocate), FedEx Corp. (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, G. Bushell, Solicitor, and N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

TRIBUNAL GENERAL DE JUSTICIA

TRIBUNAL DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA

CENTRO JUDICIAL DE San Juan

SALA SUPERIOR DE San Juan

SISTEMA DE RETIRO DE LA UNIVERSIDAD 

DE PUERTO RICO Y OTROS &$621Ò0 6-&96$/Ï1

VS

UNIVERSIDAD DE PUERTO RICO Y OTROS SOBRE: SENTENCIA DECLARATORIA

A: JUNTA DE GOBIERNO DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE PUERTO RICO

127,),&$&,Ï1

A: -(66,&$(67+(50e1'(=&2/%(5*

JESSICA@EMMANUELLI.LAW

JUNTA DE GOBIERNO DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE PUERTO RICO

1187&$//()/$0%2<È16$1-8$138(5725,&200926

RAFAEL MALDONADO PEREZ

RMALDONADOLAW@GMAIL.COM

52/$1'2(00$18(//,-,0e1(=

ROLANDO@EMMANUELLI.LAW

UNIVERSIDAD DE PUERTO RICO

1187&$//()/$0%2<È16$1-8$138(5725,&200926

=2e&5,67,1$1(*5Ï1&20$6

ZOE@EMMANUELLI.LAW

(O/D6HFUHWDULRDTXHVXVFULEHFHUWLILFD\QRWLILFDDXVWHGTXHFRQUHODFLyQDOD

OD'(6(67,0$&,Ï1>@HVWH7ULEXQDOHPLWLyXQD25'(1HOGHPD\RGH

6HWUDQVFULEHODGHWHUPLQDFLyQDFRQWLQXDFLyQ

3DUWHGHPDQGDQWHH[SRQJDVXSRVLFLyQVREUHODPRFLyQGHGHVHVWLPDFLyQHQRDQWHVGHO

GHPD\RGH3RGUiH[SRQHUODHQFRUWHDELHUWDGXUDQWHODYLVWDGHOGHPD\R

de 2023.

[13]

ŵ	ŜB

SE LE ADVIERTE que al ser una parte o su representante legal en el caso sujeto a esta 

25'(1XVWHGSXHGHSUHVHQWDUXQUHFXUVRGHDSHODFLyQUHYLVLyQRFHUWLRUDULGH

FRQIRUPLGDGFRQHOSURFHGLPLHQWR\HQHOWpUPLQRHVWDEOHFLGRSRUOH\UHJODR

reglamento.

&(57,),&2TXHODGHWHUPLQDFLyQHPLWLGDSRUHO7ULEXQDOIXHGHELGDPHQWHUHJLVWUDGD\

DUFKLYDGDKR\GHPD\RGH\TXHVHHQYLyFRSLDGHHVWDQRWLILFDFLyQDODV

personas antes indicadas, a sus direcciones registradas en el caso conforme a la 

normativa aplicable. En esta misma fecha fue archivada en autos copia de esta 

QRWLILFDFLyQ

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 23 de mayo de 2023.

GRISELDA RODRIGUEZ COLLADO Por: f/VANESSA NIEVES MORALES

Nombre del (de la)

Secretario(a) Regional Nombre y Firma del (de la)

Secretario(a) Auxiliar del Tribunal

2$7)RUPXODULRÒQLFRGH1RWLILFDFLyQ6HQWHQFLDV5HVROXFLRQHVÏUGHQHV\0LQXWDV

(Noviembre 2016) / SUMAC

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24302-55 Filed:05/24/23 Entered:05/24/23 13:30:00 Desc:

Appendix Notice of Order Dkt 13 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                    3,046
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            21,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                              81,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        209,162
<PP&E>                                   84,609
<DEPRECIATION>                           45,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          333,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   278,878
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                    303
<OTHER-SE>                             (280,523)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            333,642
<SALES>                                 653,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        653,100
<CGS>                                   376,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           376,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       29,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (94,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (94,444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            (94,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (3.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0


</TABLE>
----

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1) (2)

(2005/C 289/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

GERMANY

Operating licences granted

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

----

(1)OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

----
AFS-10-408-E October 14, 2010 Exemption No. 6002H Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12804

Mr. Matthew S. Zuccaro

President Helicopter Association International

1635 Prince Street Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Zuccaro:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6002, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Septem ber 14, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Helicopter Association Inte rnational (HAI) and the Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS) for an extension of Exemption No. 6002. That exemption from § 43.3 (g) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows HAI and AAMS to remove and reinstall Liquid Oxygen System (LOX) containers in their aircraft. Pilots may do this after receiving and documenting appropriate training in this task by a properly certificated airframe mechanic, subject to certain conditions and limitations stated therein.

In your petition, you indicate there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to HAI and AAMS.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6002, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 6002, as amended, to January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 6002, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 6002.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: PELI POPOVICH HUNT,

Debtor.

______________________________
PELI POPOVICH HUNT, individual and Trustee,

Appellant,

v.

ELISSA D. MILLER, Chapter 7 Trustee; et al.,

Appellees. No. 14

- 55776

D.C. No. 2:13

- cv

- 02705

- MMM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017 **

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming

* This disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 55776

the bankruptcy court’s order granting the chapter 7 trustee’s motion to sell real

property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the

district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same

standard s of review applied by the district court

. In re Thorpe Insulation Co.

, 677

F.3d 869

, 879 (9th Cir. 20 12 ). We affirm.

T he bankruptcy court h ad jurisdiction to approve the sale of the real property

because an order approving the sale of estate property is enumerated as a core

bankruptcy proceeding that bankruptcy judges are empowered to hear and

d etermine. See 11 U.S.C. § 157(b ). Hunt’s interest in the property became

property of the bankruptcy estate upon the filing of her bankruptcy petition

. See 11

U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); Turner v. Cook , 362 F.3d 1219, 1225

- 26 (9th Cir. 2004) (all

legal or equitable interests of a debtor in property become property of the

bankruptcy estate upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case)

.

Contrary to Hunt’s contention

, the t rustee ’s motion was timely noticed

.

Hunt was not entitled to the additional three days provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P.

9006(f) because the deadline to oppose the trustee’ s motion was fixed by the

scheduled hearing date, and not the date of service. See Bankr. C.D. Cal. R. 9013

-

1(f) (setting a par ty’s deadl ine to oppose a noticed motion)

.
To the extent Hunt challenges the bankruptcy court’s order as the

representative of a separate legal entity, the appeal is dismissed because “ a non

-3 14

- 55776

lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.’” Johns

v. County of San Diego , 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope

Equity Trust v. United States , 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987))

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.

Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

We reject Hunt’s contentions that the bankrup tcy court and district court

demonstrated bias.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1030 PLATE 3

100

8

3

MEDIAN DIAMETER 300

IN MILLIMETERS,

1- .167
fe 2 .193

MEDIAN DIAMETER
IN MILLIMETERS,

a A
80 1- 0.240
fe? =

2- (288

MEDIAN DIAMETER
IN MILLIMETERS.

1- 0.160

IF 3 160
Ss

MEDIAN DIAMETER
N MILLIMETERS:

80 1-0.217
Uy 3 [220
3- .232

8

8
—

3 .165
3 .165

8
SS
»
8

8

8

8

A

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

&

SS
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

8
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

&

es
CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

&

a 3) HH
5 A 05 1.0 5 A 5 a 05 08 a 05
DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS

HOLE 59-53 HOLE 85-53 HOLE 92-53 HOLE 122-53

&
2
S

0,
Lo

EXPLANATION

@
Pleistocene deposits

100;
190 | MEDIAN DIAMETER ©

IN MILLIMETERS Upper Miocene deposits

1-0.174
I-|..219 @

if 3- 350 Undifferentiated phosphatic

sand and clay

yi MEDIAN DIAMETER

IN MILLIMETERS.
vA 1- 0.156
/ | 2.203
2- 1192

L 4 .250

MEDIAN DIAMETER
IN MILLIMETERS,

80 1- 0.105

1 116

2- 154

60 TPT 2- 175

MEDIAN DIAMETER

Vie IN MILLIMETERS
Fa
bp

hi

1- 0.148
3- .210
3 196
4 .218

oN

meSQ A

40 [ ®
Hawthorn formation

2 L)

° o4
a4 ‘ Bs p78

0 oO

1.0 5 a 05 1.0 5 a 05 10 5 a 05 %o 5 a

DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS
HOLE 62-53 HOLE 86-53 HOLE 94-53 HOLE 124-53

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT
&
mm
me

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT
&
i

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

100

8
3

MEDIAN DIAMETER
IN MILLIMETERS
1-0.174
oe 1 1168
1- .175
2- ‘243
248

MEDIAN DIAMETER
IN MILLIMETERS.
1-0.113
2- 176
4 147

MEDIAN DIAMETER
IN MILLIMETERS

1-0.223
3- .202

3- .320
/ v2) 4 152

MEDIAN DIAMETER
IN MILLIMETERS

30.185
ha 7 3.180
I 3 1188

8
=

8
Ke»

8

—__|
-

8
PKS

8
re

8

np
8

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT

[ Zi

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT
6
—
SI

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT, IN PERCENT
&
mTM

0 A |
1.0 5 A 05 1.0 5 1 05 5 1 05 ‘
r z : J : t cr 1.0 5 a r
aad iN rae DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS DIAMETER IN MILLIMETERS, ~
HOLE 90-53 HOLE 117-53 HOLE 126-53

a)
°

CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY CURVES OF SAMPLES FROM 12 AUGER HOLES

378283 © -56 (In pocket)
#### § 1217.101 Applicability.

This part applies to qualifying articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption in the customs territory of the United States, and to articles brought into the customs territory of the United States by NASA from space or from foreign country as part of the NASA international program.
#### W. C. McDonald, Mayor, *et al., Appellants,*v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, *Appellee.*

Opinion Filed March 11, 1913.

A public highway crossing or a right to such a crossing should be established in some manner authorized by law before a railroad company may be required under Chapter 6233 Acts of 1911 to build, construct, maintain and keep in good condition a highway crossing over the railroad track.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Jackson County.

Decree affirmed.

*C. L. Wilson,*for Appellants;

*Panel Carter,*for Appellee.

Whitfield, J.

Chapter 6233, Acts of 1911, requires railroad companies owning or operating a line of railroad to “build, construct and maintain and keep in good condition highway crossings at all points where said line of railroad *is crossed*by any public, county or settlement road or by any street where required by the Board of County Commissioners or Town Council;” and provides that upon failure or refusal of the railroad company *311to construct suck crossing on a street within a time specified by the Town Council, the Council shall build the crossing at the expense of the railroad company. The Town Council of Cottondale directed the Louisville & Nashville Eailroad Company to build and maintain a crossing at the point where a street of the town “intercepts” the railroad. Upon failure of the railroad company to construct the crossing, the town authorities proceeded to build a crossing and were enjoined. This appeal is from the injunction.

It appears that the street North of the railroad track has been used for many years, and that the street has within three or four years been opened South of the railroad right-of-way; but it does not appear that a crossing at the railroad track was ever established by consent, or by governmental authority, or in fact made or used by the public as a part of the street, though there has been some crossing by pedestrians and occasionally by an empty vehicle. Under these circumstances, the street appears to be intercepted. by the railroad track, and not crossed by the railroad. Consequently the statute referred to is not applicable.

It appears that a crossing, or a right to a crossing, has not been established in any manner authorized by law so as to make the building and construction of a suitable means of crossing obligatory on the railroad company under the statute here sought to be enforced.

The decree is affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er J. J., concur.
§ 1213.105 Interviews. ( a ) Only spokespersons designated by the Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, or his/her designee, are authorized to speak for the Agency in an official capacity regarding NASA policy, programmatic, and budget issues.
( b ) In response to media interview requests, NASA will offer articulate and knowledgeable spokespersons who can best serve the needs of the media and the American public. However, journalists may have access to the NASA officials they seek to interview, provided those NASA officials agree to be interviewed.
( c ) NASA employees may speak to the media and the public about their work. When doing so, employees shall notify their immediate supervisor and coordinate with their public affairs office in advance of interviews whenever possible, or immediately thereafter, and are encouraged, to the maximum extent practicable, to have a Public Affairs Officer present during interviews. If Public Affairs Officers are present, their role will be to attest to the content of the interview, support the interviewee, and provide post-interview follow up with the media, as necessary.
( d ) NASA, as an Agency, does not take a position on any scientific conclusions. That is the role of the broad scientific community and the nature of the scientific process. NASA scientists may draw conclusions and may, consistent with this policy, communicate those conclusions to the media. However, NASA employees who present personal views outside their official area of expertise or responsibility must make clear that they are presenting their individual views—not the views of the Agency—and ask that they be sourced as such.
( e ) Appropriated funds may only be used to support Agency missions and objectives consistent with legislative or presidential direction. Government funds shall not be used for media interviews or other communication activities that go beyond the scope of Agency responsibilities and/or an employee's official area of expertise or responsibility.
( f ) Media interviews will be “on-the-record” and attributable to the person making the remarks, unless the interviewee is authorized to do otherwise by the Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs or Center Public Affairs Director, or their designees. Any NASA employee providing material to the press will identify himself/herself as the source.
( g ) Audio recordings may be made by NASA with consent of the interviewee.
( h ) NASA employees are not required to speak to the media.
( i ) Public information volunteered by a NASA official will not be considered exclusive to any one media source and will be made available to other sources, if requested.