alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
公平监管部

NRCS

什么是公平?

公平是指以公平、公正和不偏不倚的方

式一致和系统性地对待所有个人,包括

那些属于被剥夺 这些待遇的社区的

人。NRCS 客户是 该机构最重要的访

客。员工依靠我们的客户来保持一个成

功和有成就的联邦实体。面对如此深刻

的形势,NRCS 必须为所有客户提供学

习、成长和发展的机会,无论他们的情

况如何。计划历史并不反映对服务不足

的农民和牧场主的持续认可和奖励。如

果没有 公平, 系统性的认可和资源分配

往往会落到那些已经为成功做好准备的

人身上......有了 公平,NRCS 将改变这

一点。

我们必须首先了解并能够识别公平维度

及其影响。 

尽管“平等”和“公平”这两个术语有时可

以互换使用,但两者传达了截然不同的

想法。

公平是指公平,平等是指相似。

2021 年 1 月发布的第 13985 号行政命

令“通过联邦政府促进种族平等并支持服

务不足的社区”,指示联邦机构检查其提

供的服务并制定计划以解决以下问题:

• 阻碍充分和平等参与根据本命令第

5(a) 节确定的计划的任何障碍;和

• 根据本命令第 5(b) 节查明的阻碍充

分和平等参与机构采购和承包机会

的任何障碍。

2023 年 2 月发布的 EO 14091“通过

联邦政府进一步促进种族平等和对服

务不足社区的支持”以 EO 13985 和其

他行政命令和指令为基础,通过要求

联邦机构:将公平纳入规划和决策。

NRCS 与机构合作伙伴的合作对于审

查我们的服务至关重要。确定和定义

NRCS 合作伙伴、利益相关者、部落

实体、社区组织以及其他服务不足的

社区以及国家、地区、州和地方各级

的相关机构所扮演的角色是必要的。

转型要求以遇到问题的人们为解决不

平等问题的核心,而不是 而不是由专

家来替他们做出决定。地方性的实

地、区域和国家公平工作是谨慎的,

但它需要与社区建立伙伴关系、联

合、联盟和合作来实现公平。

使命、愿景和核心价

值观

使命 – 倡导并更好地将

机构公平纳入 NRCS 的

工作和实践,以确保每

个 USDA-NRCS 客户都

能在多元化的政府世界

中取得成功,并特别感

受到机构计划和服务的

包容性。

愿景 – 通过我们的计划

为每位客户提供多元化

和包容性。

核心价值观 – 相信通过

改善代理计划外展,努

力实现共同利益和目

标,NRCS 客户的代理

计划机会和利益会得到

加强;NRCS 通过保护

机会和福利改善客户的

生活公平和平等代理计

划机会和利益会得到加

强;NRCS 通过保护机

会和福利 改善客户的生

活公平和平等。

基本信息

基本信息

行政命令 14091

美国农业部公平委员会

美国农业部公平行动计划 

NRCS -公平行动计划

NRCS -公平政策 

声明及海报

2023 年 3 月 帮助人们帮助土地 nrcs.usda.gov
NRCS 公平监管部 2

公平焦点

Justice40

NRCS 的目标是每年将计划参与率提高 10%,直到该

机构达到或超过拜登总统承诺中概述的 Justice40 目

标。

实施《通货膨胀削减法案》的公平性

2022 年《通通货膨胀削减法案》(IRA) 是对气候和保

护性农业的一项历史性投资。

通过与合作伙伴的合作实现公平

与内部和外部合作伙伴、利益相关者和各个社区的合

作对于成功促进 NRCS 计划、政策和服务的公平性和

消除不平等至关重要。

公平和技术服务提供商计划

NRCS 正在利用多管齐下的方法来改善对服务不足社区

的技术援助。我们不断努力扩大保护技术专家的数

量,他们可以为历史上服务不足的生产者提供技术援

助和一对一的保护建议。

英语水平有限

英语水平有限是指不以英语为主要语言且英语读、说、

写或理解能力有限的人。法律和法规禁止联邦计划中的

排斥参与、剥夺福利和歧视。

保护外展合作协议中的公平

保护公平外展合作协议资助为期两年的项目,以扩大

向刚接触农业、低收入、被认为是一个或多个边缘化

种族或族裔和/或退伍军人的生产者提供保护援助。

公平关键术语

偏见:支持或反对某个人或群体的偏见,

通常被认为不公平。

歧视:对一个人或某一类人的不利或不公平待遇。

多样性:包括人们的许多社区、身份、种族、民族、

背景、能力、文化和信仰,包括服务不足的社区的实

践。

平等:每个人或群体都享有相同的 资源或治疗。

公平:以公平、公正和无差别的方式一致和系统性地

对待所有个人,包括属于被剥夺这种待遇的社区的

人。

不平等:缺乏公平或正义;当每个人都没有相同的机会

和资源时就会发生这种情况。

正义:系统性、主动地强化政策、实践和态度,为所

有人带来公平的权力、访问机会、机会、待遇和结

果。

偏见: 由于种族、民族、性别、宗教或其他人际差异

而对某个人或群体产生不公平的信念或厌恶感。

种族主义: 相信种族是人类特征和能力的基本决定因

素,种族差异产生了特定种族的固有优越性。

服务不足的社区:具有特定特征的人群以及地理社

区,被系统性地剥夺了参与经济、社会和公民生活各

方面的充分机会。

为什么 实现公平是首要之务

实现公平是 NRCS 的首要之务,因为本届政府已将公

平确定为各级联邦政府的首要任务。从白宫到美国农

业部再到 NRCS,我们将在我们的计划和服务中实现公

平。

公平不仅是公平、平等地分配资源,而是同时考虑到

人或社区之间的差异。

平等是平均分配资源,但不考虑需求和能力的差异。

实现公平的途径不会通过平等对待每个人来实现。它

将通过公平对待每个人来实现,而不仅仅是根据情况

而定。

所有 NRCS 员工将负责在我们所做的一切工作中实现

公平,从项目到就业、技术援助到客户服务,我们将

为所有人提供平等的机会!

了解更多信息

股权主页: nrcs.usda.gov/about/priorities/equity.

美国农业部是一个平等提供机会的供应商、雇主和贷款机构。 nrcs.usda.gov
AFS-11-004-E November 19, 2010 Exemption No. 7926D Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-13291

Mr. Steven L. Hotle Director/Testing Center Supervisor Pulaski Technical College Aerospace Technology Center 1600 West Maryland Avenue

North Little Rock, AR 72120

Dear Mr. Hotle:

We are pleased to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 7926, as amended. This letter explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for our Decision By letter dated September 28, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Pulaski Technical College (PTC) for an extension of Exemption No. 7926, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) permits PTC to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

In your petition, you indicate that the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the exemption have not changed.

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 PTC.2

Our Decision The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7926, 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 termination date of Exemption No. 7926, as amended, to November 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 7926 remain the same. This letter will be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 7926.

Sincerely,

/s/ John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
Consent of Independent Accountants


Symons International Group, inc.
Indianapolis, Indiana

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
Symons International Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-44643 and 333-71093)
of our reports dated March 31, 2001, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of Symons International Group, Inc.
as of December 31, 2000 and 1999,  and for the years then ended,  which  reports
are incorporated by reference or included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/BDO Seidman, LLP
Grand Rapids, Michigan
April 16, 2001
# C_2004300EN.01002203.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/22

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 21 October 2004

in Case C-445/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

1

(Failure of a State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Requirements imposed by the host Member State on undertakings which deploy within its territory salaried workers who are nationals of non-member countries)

(2004/C 300/46)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-445/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents: S. Schreiner, assisted by A. Rukavina) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 21 October 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by imposing on service providers established in another Member State who wish to deploy in its territory workers who are nationals of non-member countries a requirement of individual work permits, the issuance of which is subject to considerations relating to the employment market, or a requirement of a collective work permit, which is granted only in exceptional cases and only when the workers concerned have, for at least six months prior to the deployment, been in a relationship with their undertaking of origin through a contract of employment of indefinite duration, and by requiring those service providers to provide a bank guarantee, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by imposing on service providers established in another Member State who wish to deploy in its territory workers who are nationals of non-member countries a requirement of individual work permits, the issuance of which is subject to considerations relating to the employment market, or a requirement of a collective work permit, which is granted only in exceptional cases and only when the workers concerned have, for at least six months prior to the deployment, been in a relationship with their undertaking of origin through a contract of employment of indefinite duration, and by requiring those service providers to provide a bank guarantee, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Otto, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



Date: August 12, 2005



/s/ RICHARD E. OTTOName:

Richard E. OttoTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer




---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert T. Atwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



Date: August 12, 2005



/s/ ROBERT T. ATWOODName:

Robert T. AtwoodTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Conservation Practice Standard Overview

September 2015

Controlled Traffic Farming (334)

Controlled traffic farming (CTF) is confining all 

high load wheel/track traffic from farm 

equipment to specific lanes or tramlines (traffic 

pattern) in crop fields year after year.

Practice Information

This practice is used to limit heavy wheel and 

track axel loads to confined traffic lanes. 

If heavy axel traffic loads are applied over the 

entire soil surface by following random traffic 

patterns much of the soil surface and subsoil 

becomes compacted and results in poorer 

crop yields.

Conservation benefits may include but are not 

limited to:

 Improving soil health by limiting wheel 

traffic compaction to limited traffic lanes 

(less than 30% of the soil surface).

 Improving nutrient use efficiency

 Improving crop yields

 Improving soil water availability

Common Associated Practices

Controlled Traffic Farming (334) is commonly 

applied with practices such as Conservation 

Crop Rotation (328) Cover Crop (340), 

Residue and Tillage Management, No Till 

(329), and Residue and Tillage Management, 

Reduced Till (345).

For further information, contact your local 

NRCS field office. 

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Natural Resources Conservation Service
LEGEND

I.7 (+) Quality of 

aquatic habitats

I.6 (+/-) Stream baseflow

C.3 (+/-) Recreational 

opportunities

C.2 (-) Local drawdown 

of aquifer

Mitigating practice

I.4 (+) Potential income

Irrigation Water 

Management (449)

I.3 (+) Crop 

and/or livestock

production

I.2 (+) Health of 

livestock and plant

vigor

1. A hole drilled, dug, driven, bored, jetted, or 

otherwise constructed into an aquifer for

groundwater supply.

Water Well (642)

D.4 (-) Use of existing 

surface water sources

D.1 (+) Infrastructure, 

operation and

maintenance costs

Livestock Pipeline (516)

Watering Facility (614)

Irrigation Pipeline (430)

Pumping Plant (533)

Start

Initial setting: Area where ground water is 

available in sufficient quantity and quality 

and existing sources of water are 

insufficient or unsuitable to meet a 

conservation need.

I.5 (-) Groundwater 

levels

D.3 (+) Potential 

for groundwater 

contamination

D.2 (+) Access to and use 

of groundwater for

agricultural purposes

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2020

Associated practice

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

C.1 (+/-) Income 

and income stability

(individuals and 

community)

I.1 (+/-) Net 

return to 

producer
Presidential Documents

6645 

Federal Register 

Vol. 80, No. 25 

Friday, February 6, 2015 

Title 3— 

The President 

Order of February 2, 2015 

Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2016 Pursuant to Section 

251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

Act, as Amended 

By the authority vested in me as President by the laws of the United 

States of America, and in accordance with section 251A of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (the ‘‘Act’’), as amended, 2 U.S.C. 

901a, I hereby order that, on October 1, 2015, direct spending budgetary 

resources for fiscal year 2016 in each non-exempt budget account be reduced 

by the amount calculated by the Office of Management and Budget in 

its report to the Congress of February 2, 2015. 

All sequestrations shall be made in strict accordance with the requirements 

of section 251A of the Act and the specifications of the Office of Management 

and Budget’s report of February 2, 2015, prepared pursuant to section 251A(9) 

of the Act. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 2, 2015. [FR Doc. 2015–02539 

Filed 2–5–15; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F5 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PRESDOC2OB#1.EPS</GPH>
# C_2004262EN.01003203.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/32

---

Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Compagnie Maritime Belge N.V./S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-276/04)

(2004/C 262/63)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2004 by Compagnie Maritime Belge N.V./S.A., established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 30 April 2004 in cases COMP/D232.450 and 32.448 imposing a fine on the applicant for infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, or at least substantially reduce the fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 30 April 2004 in cases COMP/D232.450 and 32.448 imposing a fine on the applicant for infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, or at least substantially reduce the fine;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By Decision 93/82/EEC of 23 December 1992, the Commission imposed on, inter alia, the applicant a fine in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 (now Articles 81 and 82) of the EC Treaty. The applicant brought an action against that decision and the Court of Justice, by judgment of 16 March 2000 (1), annulled the decision in so far as it imposed a fine on the applicant. Following that judgment, the Commission adopted the contested decision, which imposed a fine of EUR 3 400 000 on the applicant for the same infringements.

1

In support of its application for annulment of the latter decision, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission adopted its second decision at a time when the period within which it could reasonably do so had elapsed and that it is therefore estopped from taking action. The applicant also claims that the Commission breached its rights of defence by re-opening the procedure solely in relation to the question of the fine. According to the applicant, where the Commission imposes a fine, it must re-assess the infringements as at the date of its new decision and cannot, as in the present case, have regard to assessments of the facts made 12 years ago. The applicant also claims that the fine is unjustified, as the infringements have not been established. Lastly, the applicant argues that the fine is discriminatory and disproportionate, that it was imposed in breach of the Commission's customary practice and that it amounts to an abuse of power. The applicant maintains that it received virtually the entire fine imposed for alleged abuses of a dominant position by a conference in which it held less than one third of the rights.

---

(1)  Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.b



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|November 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |  | Principal Financial Officer
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2004314EN.01002301.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Action brought on 6 October 2004 by MobilCom Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-397/04)

(2004/C 314/55)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 2004 by MobilCom Aktiengesellschaft, Büdelsdorf (Germany), represented by K. Jacobsen, U. Wellmann and T. Sharpe.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 July 2004 concerning aid C5/03 (ex N 239/03); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 July 2004 concerning aid C5/03 (ex N 239/03);

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 July 2004 concerning aid C5/03 (ex N 239/03), in so far as it is stated in the final clause ‘ ... provided that Germany satisfies the condition referred to in Article 2 of this Decision’, and annul Articles 2 and 3 of that decision in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 July 2004 concerning aid C5/03 (ex N 239/03), in so far as it is stated in the final clause ‘ ... provided that Germany satisfies the condition referred to in Article 2 of this Decision’, and annul Articles 2 and 3 of that decision in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision, State aid granted to the applicant by Germany was declared to be compatible with the common market, subject to compliance by Germany with the condition referred to in Article 2 of that decision. As a result of that condition, the applicant is required to close its ‘online shop’ for seven months.

The applicant submits, first, that the Commission has no material competence. Since the applicant exercises its activity as an intermediary for the sale of mobile telephony contracts exclusively in Germany, the grant of State aid cannot prejudice trade between the Member States.

Moreover, the applicant argues that there is no appropriate legal basis for the imposition of such a condition and that there has therefore been an infringement of the EC Treaty or a provision to be applied in implementing the Treaty.

According to the applicant, the condition imposed on the applicant is arbitrary as the reasons given for it are inadequate. The applicant therefore alleges that the Commission either erred in the exercise of it discretion or failed to exercise that discretion. Furthermore, the Commission failed to show clearly that the contested decision is necessary, appropriate and also the least restrictive measure and thus failed to comply with the principle of proportionality.

---