alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 417.211 Debris analysis. ( a ) *General.* A flight safety analysis must include a debris analysis. For an orbital or suborbital launch, a debris analysis must identify the inert, explosive, and other hazardous launch vehicle debris that results from normal and malfunctioning launch vehicle flight.
( b ) *Launch vehicle breakup.* A debris analysis must account for each cause of launch vehicle breakup, including at a minimum: ( 1 ) Any flight termination system activation;
( 2 ) Launch vehicle explosion;
( 3 ) Aerodynamic loads;
( 4 ) Inertial loads;
( 5 ) Atmospheric reentry heating; and
( 6 ) Impact of intact vehicle.
( c ) *Debris fragment lists.* A debris analysis must produce lists of debris fragments for each cause of breakup and any planned jettison of debris, launch vehicle components, or payload. The lists must account for all launch vehicle debris fragments, individually or in groupings of fragments whose characteristics are similar enough to be described by a single set of characteristics. The debris lists must describe the physical, aerodynamic, and harmful characteristics of each debris fragment, including at a minimum: ( 1 ) Origin on the vehicle, by vehicle stage or component, from which each fragment originated;
( 2 ) Whether it is inert or explosive;
( 3 ) Weight, dimensions, and shape;
( 4 ) Lift and drag characteristics;
( 5 ) Properties of the incremental velocity distribution imparted by breakup; and
( 6 ) Axial, transverse, and tumbling area.
§ 91.1071 Crewmember: Tests and checks, grace provisions, training to accepted standards. ( a ) If a crewmember who is required to take a test or a flight check under this subpart, completes the test or flight check in the month before or after the month in which it is required, that crewmember is considered to have completed the test or check in the month in which it is required.
( b ) If a pilot being checked under this subpart fails any of the required maneuvers, the person giving the check may give additional training to the pilot during the course of the check. In addition to repeating the maneuvers failed, the person giving the check may require the pilot being checked to repeat any other maneuvers that are necessary to determine the pilot's proficiency. If the pilot being checked is unable to demonstrate satisfactory performance to the person conducting the check, the program manager may not use the pilot, nor may the pilot serve, as a flight crewmember in operations under this subpart until the pilot has satisfactorily completed the check. If a pilot who demonstrates unsatisfactory performance is employed as a pilot for a certificate holder operating under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter, he or she must notify that certificate holder of the unsatisfactory performance.
# EUR-Lex - 31996R1756 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R1756

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1756/96 of 10 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1598/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for additional import duties in the milk and milk products sector **

*
Official Journal L 230 , 11/09/1996 P. 0006 - 0006 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1756/96 of 10 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1598/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for additional import duties in the milk and milk products sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Article 15 (4) thereof,

Whereas the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1598/95 (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2931/95 (4), is valid only until 30 June 1996; whereas the arrangements should be made permanent and the deadline should be abolished;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1598/95 the words 'applicable from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1996` are hereby deleted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 September 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.

(2) OJ No L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 21.

(3) OJ No L 151, 1. 7. 1995, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 307, 20. 12. 1995, p. 10.
#### Sawyer *vs.*Wood.

Where a cause is removed by *certiorari*from the common pleas into this court, no proceedings can be had here until the return day, although the *certiorari*be actually returned *previous*to the return day.

It is otherwise in the common pleas in respect to a *certiorari*to a justice’s court. UIUI

[632] This cause was removed by certiorari from the Schoharie common pleas to this court. It was at issue and ready for trial when the cer*332tiorari was sued out. It was returnable the first day of October term, 1836. The plaintiff caused it to be returned previous to the return day; and, noticed the cause for trial at the Schoharie circuit, October 24th, when the cause was called regularly on the calendar, and an inquest taken.

*S. Stevens*

now moved to set aside the inquest for irregularity, on the ground that the writ could not be returned so as to possess this court of the cause, till the return day.

*D. Cady,*contra,

relied on the words of the statute. (2 *R. S.*390, § 10, 11.) He said it was the constant course to proceed upon these returns from a justice’s court to the common pleas, before the.return day. (2 *R. S.*§ 177, 180.)

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The statute cited is, that the clerk shall make return of the certiorari, annexing certain papers; the supreme court may compel a return; and “upon the same being made,” the like proceedings shall be had as if the cause had been commenced in that court, beginning where the proceedings ended in the court below. “ Upon the same being made,” means *regularly made.*It is of the nature of process that it cannot be returned so as to take effect previous to the return day. *(Smith*v. *Bush,*2 *Wendell,*279.) In this respect the statute has made no alteration. The statute cited relative to a certiorari to a justice from the common pleas, requires the justice to return within ten‘’days after the writ is served on him, (§ 177;) and § 180 authorizes immediate proceedings on the return being made. This depends on the peculiar provisions of the statute, which has thus expressly altered the effect of the process. It requires a return before the return day, if that lie beyond the ten days. Such a proceeding is anomalous. I remember no other case like it by statute or at common law. Motion granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

THE VINCENT J. FUMO IRREVOCABLE

CHILDREN'S TRUST AGREEMENT FOR

THE BENEFIT OF ALLISON FUMO

PETITION OF: VINCENT J. FUMO

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### § 101.41 Informal procedures for obtaining opinions on jurisdictional questions.

Although a formal petition is necessary to obtain an advisory opinion from the Board, other avenues are available to persons seeking informal and, in most cases, speedy opinions on jurisdictional issues. In discussion of jurisdictional questions informally with Regional Office personnel, information and advice concerning the Board's jurisdictional standards may be obtained. Such practices are not intended to be discouraged by the rules providing for formal advisory opinions by the Board, although the opinions expressed by such personnel are not to be regarded as binding upon the Board or the General Counsel.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.71 Duration of Certificate; change of status. ( a ) A Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate, AC Form 8050-6, expires 1 year after the date it is issued. Each additional certificate expires on the date the original certificate expires.
( b ) The holder of a Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate must immediately notify the Registry of any of the following— ( 1 ) A change of name;
( 2 ) A change of address;
( 3 ) A change that affects status as a citizen of the United States; or
( 4 ) The discontinuance of business.
[31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41983, July 20, 2010]
#### CLEVELAND RAILWAY CO. v DUFFY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.

No 10055.

Decided June 3, 1929

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, for Ry. Co.

Krieg, Sammon & Stendel, Cleveland, for Duffy.

*414VICKERY, PJ.

This Court has had the question of unusual jolt of a street car in a number of cases and we think our holdings have been consistent. We recognize, however, the fact that a street car cannot come to a standstill from a moving position without more or less of a jar, nor can it start from a standing position to proceed forward without causing more or less of a jar or jolt, and it does not make it actionable because it is characterized as a “violent and unusual jerk”, without any other testimony than that; and when one analyzes the statement of the plaintiff,— for she had no corroborative witnesses,— it simply .amounted to the fact that after she g.ot on the car and was going up the steps, the car started forward and, as she says, “with a jerk such as she had never known before”, and she fell on her f,ace.

Now it does not take much of a jolt in the starting of a car to throw a person who is about to step upward into the car when holding on to nothing, and so the evidence of this unusual jerk is the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff without the showing of any other circumstances in connection with it. This court has held that a street car does not have to wait after a passenger has safely gotten on to ,a car and the door is closed, until the passenger is seated, before it can proceed forward without being liable, for the starting of a street car cannot be accomplished without more or less jolting, and a party falling down under such circumsances would not be entitled to recover if this were all that could be proven.

In the cases where an action based upon “a violent and unusual jerk” has been sustained, there has been corroborative evidence by showing, the prostration of other. passengers, or the jerking of them out of their seats, to corroborate the statement; but the mere expression by the party who is injured, surely cannot make a liability; for if it did, if a person fell down in the car, .all he would have to do would be to sue the Cleveland Railway Company making allegation and then testifying that it was an unusual .and violent jerk, and the Company would be put upon its defense and a verdict might even be obtained against it.

We think that in this case, at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony, there being no other testimony except her own statements, the motion should have been granted and a judgment been entered for the defendant company; and after that was overruled, it was again made at the close of the testimony and we think again it should have been granted, because nothing was added to strengthen the plaintiff’s case.

Perhaps the plaintiff may be able to procure more testimony if it is tried again and, therefore, instead of entering up a final judgment, the case will be remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
#### § 49.15 Fees for recording.

(a) The fees charged for recording conveyances under this part are as follows:

| (1) Conveyance of aircraft— | |
| --- | --- |
| For each aircraft listed therein | $5.00 |
| (2) Conveyance, made for security purposes, of a specifically identified aircraft engine or propeller, or any assignment or amendment thereof, or supplement thereto, recorded under Subpart D— | |
| For each engine or propeller | 5.00 |
| (3) Conveyance, made for security purposes, of aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or spare parts, maintained at a designated location or locations, or any assignment or amendment thereof, or supplement thereto, recorded under Subpart E— | |
| For the group of items at each location | 5.00 |

(b) There is no fee for recording a bill of sale that accompanies an application for aircraft registration and the proper fee under Part 47 of this chapter.

(c) Each conveyance must be accompanied by the proper fee, that may be paid by check or money order to the Federal Aviation Administration.

[Doc. No. 1996, 29 FR 6486, May 19, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 49-1, 31 FR 4499, Mar. 17, 1966; Doc. No. 8084, 32 FR 5769, Apr. 11, 1967]
#### § 102.57 Extension of date of hearing.

Upon the Regional Director's own motion or upon proper cause shown, the Regional Director issuing the compliance specification and Notice of Hearing may extend the hearing date.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02999**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 02999\02999_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02999\02999_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 02999\02999_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 02999\02999_PartA.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 02999\02999_PartB.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 02999\02999_PartC.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 02999\02999_PartD.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 02999\02999_PartH.XLS Plant submitted survey file

02999\Certification Statement Plant ID 02999.pdf Plant certification statement x 02999\Supplemental Documentation\02999_email.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02999\Supplemental Documentation\BP Harbor Drawings\02999_MAP-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02999\Supplemental Documentation\BP Harbor Drawings\02999_WB-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02999\Supplemental Documentation\BP Harbor Drawings\02999_WB-22.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 91.1425 CAMP: Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration programs. Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP must have an inspection program and a program covering other maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations that ensures that— ( a ) Maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed by its personnel, or by other persons, are performed under the program manager's manual;
( b ) Competent personnel and adequate facilities and equipment are provided for the proper performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations; and
( c ) Each aircraft released to service is airworthy and has been properly maintained for operation under this part.
#### ELLIOTT v. TARTT.

(Decided April 20, 1916.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. John C. Pugh.

No counsel marked for appellant. J. W. PATTON, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed on, certificate.
#### § 93.315 Requirements for commercial Special Flight Rules Area operations.

Each person conducting commercial Special Flight Rules Area operations must be certificated in accordance with Part 119 for Part 135 or 121 operations and hold appropriate Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area operations specifications.

[65 FR 17732, Apr. 4, 2000]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1090]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Firmenich, Inc. (Flavor 
and Fragrance Products), Plainsboro and Port Newark, New Jersey

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 49, has made application to the Board for authority 
to establish special-purpose subzone status at the flavor and fragrance 
manufacturing facilities of Firmenich, Inc., located in Plainsboro and 
Port Newark, New Jersey (FTZ Docket 43-99, filed 9/1/99);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (64 FR 49441, 9/13/99); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the flavor and fragrance manufacturing facilities of 
Firmenich, Inc., located in Plainsboro and Port Newark, New Jersey 
(Subzone 49H), at the locations described in the application, and 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including 
Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of May 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12206 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v NICHOLS

Case No. 89-327-AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

March 28, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Anita J. Gay, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Standford Blake, Esquire, for appellee.

Before BARAD, NADLER, WILSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BARAD, J.

This is an appeal from a County Court order granting appellee’s motion to suppress Blood Alcohol Reading. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.

This appellate court hesitates to “second-guess” the trial judge. The trial judge was in the best position to hear the argument of counsel, *38and to hear the testimony and to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. The ruling of the trial court on a Motion to Suppress is clothed with a presumption of correctness where the trial judge’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence and the rule of law is correctly applied. *State v Rizo,*463 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); *State v Navarro,*464 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). This court concludes that the trial judge’s ruling is supported by the evidence and does correctly apply the rule of law concerning chemical breath tests.

Numerous facts lend support to the trial court’s rulings. Sections 315.1932(l)(b) and 316.1934(3), Florida Statutes (1987), provide that an analysis of a person’s breath, in order to be considered valid, must be performed substantially in accordance with the methods approved by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.). *State v Donaldson,*15 F.L.W. D1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The officer in the case at bar did not substantially comply with the prescribed procedures. The officer indicated by his testimony at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress that he lacked independent knowledge and recollection of facts surrounding the arrest. The officer could not even recall whether or not in this particular arrest Mr. Nichols was administered the breath test. Since the arresting officer failed to create a flow sheet documenting the procedures and events involved with the arrest, the officer had nothing with which to refresh his recollection.

Additionally, from the evidence, it is unclear whether the officer observed Mr. Nichols for the required twenty minutes before taking a breath sample as required by the Code. Fla. Admin. Code § 10D-42-024(l)(f). It is unclear when the officer assembled the breathalyzer and began the warm-up process. It is clear that the officer did *not*check the color band on the crimper device to see if it was properly warmed up.

Accordingly, we affirm the order suppressing the results of the breathalyzer test.

AFFIRMED.

(NADLER and WILSON, JJ., concur).
§ 435.13 Transfer of a reentry license. ( a ) Only the FAA may transfer a reentry license.
( b ) An applicant for transfer of a reentry license shall submit a reentry license application in accordance with part 413 of this subchapter and satisfy the applicable requirements of this part. The FAA will transfer a reentry license to an applicant who has obtained all of the approvals and determinations required under this chapter for a reentry license. In conducting its reviews and issuing approvals and determinations, the FAA may incorporate any findings made part of the record to support the initial licensing determination. The FAA may modify a reentry license to reflect any changes necessary as a result of a reentry license transfer.