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

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0858 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-183-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.

 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
# EUR-Lex - 31998R0644 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R0644

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 087 , 21/03/1998 P. 0008 - 0009 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1068/97 (2), and in particular Article 17(2) thereof,

Whereas, for certain names notified by the Member States pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, additional information was requested in order to ensure that they complied with Articles 2 and 4 of that Regulation; whereas that additional information shows that the names comply with the said Articles; whereas they should therefore be registered and added to the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 134/98 (4);

Whereas, following the accession of three new Member States, the six-month period provided for in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 is to begin on the date of their accession; whereas some of the names notified by those Member States comply with Articles 2 and 4 of that Regulation and should therefore be registered;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Regulatory Committee on Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The names in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of 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, 20 March 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 156, 13. 6. 1997, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 148, 21. 6. 1996, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 15, 21. 1. 1998, p. 6.

ANNEX

A. PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION LISTED IN ANNEX II TO THE TREATY

Fresh meat (and offal)

GERMANY

- Schwäbisch-Hällisches Qualitätsschweinefleisch (PGI)

Meat-based products

ITALY

- Greußener Salami (PGI)

Oils and fats

Olive oil

ITALY

- Toscano (PGI)

- Terra d'Otranto (PDO)

B. FOODSTUFFS LISTED IN ANNEX I TO REGULATION (EEC) No 2081/92

Beer

GERMANY

- Gögginger Bier (PGI)

- Reuther Bier (PGI)

- Wernesgrüner Bier (PGI)
§ 1471.630 May the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service impute conduct of one person to another? For purposes of actions taken under this rule, we may impute conduct as follows: ( a ) *Conduct imputed from an individual to an organization.* We may impute the fraudulent, criminal, or other improper conduct of any officer, director, shareholder, partner, employee, or other individual associated with an organization, to that organization when the improper conduct occurred in connection with the individual's performance of duties for or on behalf of that organization, or with the organization's knowledge, approval or acquiescence. The organization's acceptance of the benefits derived from the conduct is evidence of knowledge, approval or acquiescence.
( b ) *Conduct imputed from an organization to an individual, or between individuals.* We may impute the fraudulent, criminal, or other improper conduct of any organization to an individual, or from one individual to another individual, if the individual to whom the improper conduct is imputed either participated in, had knowledge of, or reason to know of the improper conduct.
( c ) *Conduct imputed from one organization to another organization.* We may impute the fraudulent, criminal, or other improper conduct of one organization to another organization when the improper conduct occurred in connection with a partnership, joint venture, joint application, association or similar arrangement, or when the organization to whom the improper conduct is imputed has the power to direct, manage, control or influence the activities of the organization responsible for the improper conduct. Acceptance of the benefits derived from the conduct is evidence of knowledge, approval or acquiescence.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

June 25, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with General Motors and NHTSA May 2, 2012, to discuss large truck 

hybrid testing and definitions

FROM: Don Kopinski, US EPA

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

EPA staff met with representatives of General Motors and NHTSA on May 2, 2012. The 

meeting was held at EPA’s NVFEL facility in Ann Arbor, to discuss potential EPA testing of 

GM’s hybrid Silverado 1500. The purpose of this testing would be to help EPA and NHTSA 

finalize key metrics for the large hybrid truck credit program, outlined in the EPA/NHTSA 

Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017-2025 

Light-Duty Vehicles.

GM attendees were Barbara Kiss and Mike Miller.

NHTSA attendees (by phone) were Jim Tamm, John Whitefoot, and Greg Powell.

EPA attendees were Byungho Lee, Ben Ellies, Jeff Cherry, Don Kopinski, James Sanchez, and 

Joe McDonald.
#### § 18.42 Expedited proceedings.

A party may move to expedite the proceeding. The motion must demonstrate the specific harm that would result if the proceeding is not expedited. If the motion is granted, the formal hearing ordinarily will not be scheduled with less than 7 days notice to the parties, unless all parties consent to an earlier hearing.
§ 91.1709 Training program approval. To obtain approval for an MU-2B training program, training providers must submit a proposed training program to the Administrator. ( a ) Only training programs approved by the Administrator may be used to satisfy the standards of this subpart.
( b ) For part 91 training providers, training programs will be approved for 24 months, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.
( c ) The Administrator may require revision of an approved MU-2B training program at any time.
( d ) A training provider must present its approved training program and FAA approval documentation to any representative of the Administrator, upon request.
THOMAS A. FORTESCUE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5114

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed May 1 , 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Hamilton County

. Andrew J. Decker , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0284 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0284

**98/284/EC: Commission Decision of 8 April 1998 amending Decision 87/293/EEC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Ireland (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 128 , 30/04/1998 P. 0069 - 0069 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 8 April 1998 amending Decision 87/293/EEC authorising methods for grading pig carcases in Ireland (Only the English text is authentic) (98/284/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcases (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93 (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas the Commission, by Decision 87/293/EEC (3), as last amended by Decision 94/362/EC (4), has authorised methods for grading pig carcases in Ireland;

Whereas the Government of Ireland has requested the Commission to authorise the application of new formulas for the calculation of the lean meat content of carcases in the framework of the grading methods provided for in Decision 87/293/EEC;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 87/293/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

1. The formula under point 3 of Part 1 of Annex I is replaced by the following:

'^y = 60,91 - 0,839 x1+ 0,150 x2`.

2. The formula under point 3 of Part 2 of Annex I is replaced by the following:

'^y = 60,30 - 0,847 x1+ 0,147 x2`.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to Ireland.

Done at Brussels, 8 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 301, 20. 11. 1984, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 320, 22. 12. 1993, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 146, 6. 6. 1987, p. 66.

(4) OJ L 159, 28. 6. 1994, p. 61.
#### ABRAHAM v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 9, 1917.)

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery Court.

Heard before Hon. M. H. Screws.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for failure to file transcript.
Editorial Note on Part 1904
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-21, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration removed all amendments to part 1904 published at 81 FR 91792, Dec. 19, 2016.

§ 1904.6 Determination of new cases. ( a ) *Basic requirement.* You must consider an injury or illness to be a “new case” if: ( 1 ) The employee has not previously experienced a recorded injury or illness of the same type that affects the same part of the body, or
( 2 ) The employee previously experienced a recorded injury or illness of the same type that affected the same part of the body but had recovered completely (all signs and symptoms had disappeared) from the previous injury or illness and an event or exposure in the work environment caused the signs or symptoms to reappear.
( b ) *Implementation* — ( 1 ) *When an employee experiences the signs or symptoms of a chronic work-related illness, do I need to consider each recurrence of signs or symptoms to be a new case?* No, for occupational illnesses where the signs or symptoms may recur or continue in the absence of an exposure in the workplace, the case must only be recorded once. Examples may include occupational cancer, asbestosis, byssinosis and silicosis.
( 2 ) *When an employee experiences the signs or symptoms of an injury or illness as a result of an event or exposure in the workplace, such as an episode of occupational asthma, must I treat the episode as a new case?* Yes, because the episode or recurrence was caused by an event or exposure in the workplace, the incident must be treated as a new case.
( 3 ) *May I rely on a physician or other licensed health care professional to determine whether a case is a new case or a recurrence of an old case?* You are not required to seek the advice of a physician or other licensed health care professional. However, if you do seek such advice, you must follow the physician or other licensed health care professional's recommendation about whether the case is a new case or a recurrence. If you receive recommendations from two or more physicians or other licensed health care professionals, you must make a decision as to which recommendation is the most authoritative (best documented, best reasoned, or most authoritative), and record the case based upon that recommendation.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00219

- CR

James Euldy Serrell, III

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1415264D)

November 10, 2016

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
§ 1471.745 How is fact-finding conducted? ( a ) If fact-finding is conducted— ( 1 ) You may present witnesses and other evidence, and confront any witness presented; and
( 2 ) The fact-finder must prepare written findings of fact for the record.
( b ) A transcribed record of fact-finding proceedings must be made, unless you as a respondent and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service agree to waive it in advance. If you want a copy of the transcribed record, you may purchase it.
§ 1472.200 What must I do to comply with this part? There are two general requirements if you are a recipient other than an individual. ( a ) First, you must make a good faith effort, on a continuing basis, to maintain a drug-free workplace. You must agree to do so as a condition for receiving any award covered by this part. The specific measures that you must take in this regard are described in more detail in subsequent sections of this subpart. Briefly, those measures are to— ( 1 ) Publish a drug-free workplace statement and establish a drug-free awareness program for your employees (see §§ 1472.205 through 1472.220); and
( 2 ) Take actions concerning employees who are convicted of violating drug statutes in the workplace (see § 1472.225).
( b ) Second, you must identify all known workplaces under your Federal awards (see § 1472.230).
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Max Weil to Vacate an Assessment for Seventy fourth and Seventy-fifth Street Sewer.

Appeal by the executors of the above-named petitioner from a special term order denying a motion to revive the proceeding.

*Charles E. Miller,*for app’lts; *George L. Sterling,*for the mayor, etc., of Xew York, resp’ts.

*754Bartlett, J.

This case differs from the *Matter of Barney (ante,*p. 752), heard at the present term, chiefly in the fact that no testimony has ever been taken in the proceedings, and that no order has ever been made purporting to vacate the assessment. The conclusions reached in that matter, however, apply equally to this, and require an affirmance of the order appealed from.

Van Brunt, Oh., j., and Macomber, J., concur.
# L_2007059EN.01008401.xml

| 27.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 59/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/84

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 225 of 12 August 1998
  )

On page 17, Article 2(3)(b)(ii):

for:

| ‘(ii) | the number of categories of workers to be made redundant;’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(ii)

the number of categories of workers to be made redundant;’,

read:

| ‘(ii) | the number and categories of workers to be made redundant;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(ii)

the number and categories of workers to be made redundant;’.

---
#### SEGAL v HORWITZ BROS etc.

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3284.

Decided Feb 4, 1929

LeBlond, Morrissey & Terry, Cincinnati, for Segal.

Bates, Stewart & Skirvin, Cincinnati, for Horwitz Bros.

*261ROSS, J.

If goods are sold, by one who knows them to be stolen, to an innocent purchaser, the vendor must be presumed to intend the natural and logical consequences of his own acts, and, in our opinion the arrest, prosecution, indictment, and trial of a vendee in possession of stolen goods under such circumstances is a natural and logical consequence of the sale to such vendee of stolen goods. The fact that the vendor knows the the vendee to be wholly innocent will not prevent prosecution of the vendee. A prosecution by the owner of the goods is a natural r.esult to be anticipated by the vendor of stolen goods. Such owner in most cases could not be held to respond in damages for such a prosecution, because it would not be difficult under such circumstances, as in the instant case, to show probable cause.

Adopting the definition of proximate cause, set out in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, wherein they quote from Moge v. The Society, 167 Mass, 298, - “a direct and proximate cause is the active and efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events which brings about a result, without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source” - we think the facts in the case at bar fit the definition. The sale of the stolen goods set in motion a train of events. The prosecution by the State was a logical result and a perfectly natural result. The owner’s affidavit or information to the State was but an incident, not an intervening force started and working actively from a new arid independent source.

Proximate cause has been defined in this State too often to again define it. Railway Co. v Hebler, 91 Ohio St. 241.

In the case at bar the injuries and damage to plaintiff could not have occurred had it not been that the stolen goods were placed in his hands by the defendant.

In conclusion we think that one who viciously and wholly in disregard of the rights of an innocent purchaser sells merchandise, which he knows to be stolen, cannot be heard to say that the arrest and prosecution with incident costs and expenses are not the natural and logical result of such sale; or that the prosecution by the state is an intervening cause not to be anticipated.

The judgment of the court of common pleas will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Hamilton, PJ and Cushing, J, concur.
#### § 1602.39 Records to be made or kept.

On or before November 30, 1974, and annually thereafter, every public elementary and secondary school system or district, including every individually or separately administered district within a system, with 15 or more employees and every individual school within such system or district, regardless of the size of the school shall make or keep all records and information therefrom which are or would be necessary for the completion of report EEO-5 whether or not it is required to file such a report under § 1602.41. The instructions for completion of report EEO-5 are specifically incorporated herein by reference and have the same force and effect as other sections of this part.[1] Such records and the information therefrom shall be retained at all times for a period of 3 years at the central office of the elementary or secondary school system or district, or at the individual school which is the subject of the records and the information therefrom, where more convenient, and shall be made available if requested by an officer, agent, or employee of the Commission under section 710 of title VII, as amended. It is the responsibility of every such school system or district, to obtain from the Commission or its delegate necessary instructions in order to comply with the requirements of this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0003)

[38 FR 26719, Sept. 25, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 30832, Aug. 26, 1974; 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981]

###### Footnotes -
  1602.39

[1] Note: Instructions were published as an appendix to the proposed regulations on June 12, 1973 (38 FR 15463).
#### STATE ex BURTZALFF v VICKERY et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21716.

Decided May 29, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

ACTIONS

(10 P2) Where the original jurisdiction of this court is invoked to obtain a writ of prohibition to restrain the enforcement of a judgment rendered in the court of. appeals, on the ground that the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the cause in that court, and where it also appears that an error proceeding is pending in this court seeking a review of the judgment rendered in the court of ■ appeals, which error proceeding properly presents the question of the jurisdiction of the court of appeals, the writ of prohibition will be denied.

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur.