zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
it related to a matter that warranted the variation of a food regulatory measure. 1.5 Procedure for assessment The application was assessed under the general procedure. 1.6 Decision The draft variation as proposed following assessment was approved without amendment. Thermolysin (EC 3.4.24.27) produced by A. caldiproteolyticus strain TP-7 will be listed in the table to subsection S18—9(3), permitting its use for the specific technological purpose stated below with the condition that the amount used must be consistent with good manufacturing practice (GMP). The specific technological purpose is to catalyse the hydrolysis of peptide bonds during the manufacture and/or processing of the following types of food: dairy, egg, meat, fish, protein, yeast and flavourings. The approved draft variation is at Attachment A. The variation takes effect on the date of gazettal. The related explanatory statement is at Attachment B, which is required to accompany an instrument that is lodged on the Federal Register of Legislation. 2 Summary of the findings 2.1 Summary of issues raised in submissions FSANZ called for submissions on a proposed draft variation to Schedule 18 on 12 April 2018. Three submissions were received. The Victorian Departments of Health and Human Services, and Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources and the Ministry for Primary Industries supported the application. The New Zealand Food and Grocery Council (NZFGC) supported the application, however noted the conservative position FSANZ took in relation to labelling for allergens. The issues raised by the NZFGC and FSANZ’s responses are detailed in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of issues Issue Raised by FSANZ response NZFGC considered that FSANZ has taken a conservative approach to the possible presence of fish protein in the food for final sale and the consequent requirement for labelling. In particular, NZFGC highlighted that: - data supplied by Amano Enzymes Inc. showed that any residue from the fish used in New Zealand Food and Grocery Council The applicant estimated that the use of thermolysin powder at 0.24% w/w would lead to a maximum of 7.2 mg fish extract/kg food ingredient. The statement in the Call for Submissions; “that fish must be declared where present in the final food” reflects the existing requirement in the Code. This requirement applies
Table of contents Supporting document The which informed the assessment of this Application is available on the FSANZ website: SD1 Safety Assessment Report Executive summary Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) received an Application from Monsanto Australia Limited on 14 September 2017 requesting a variation to Schedule 26 in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) to include food derived from a new genetically modified (GM) cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) line, MON88702. This cotton line has been genetically modified for protection from piercing and sucking insect pests. The primary objective of FSANZ in developing or varying a food regulatory measure, as stated in section 18 of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (FSANZ Act), is the protection of public health and safety. Accordingly, the safety assessment is a central part of considering an application. The safety assessment of MON88702 is provided in Supporting Document 1. No potential public health and safety concerns have been identified in the course of the safety assessment. Based on the data provided and other available information, food derived from cotton line MON88702 is considered to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional cotton cultivars. The FSANZ Board has approved the draft variation to Schedule 26 that inserts a reference into that Schedule to food derived from cotton line MON88702. The effect of the variation is to permit the use or sale of food derived from that cotton line in accordance with Standard 1.5.2.
Table 4.4: Summary of estimated dietary exposures to carnosic acid plus carnosol from all scenarios assessed for Australians and New Zealanders Country Age group Scenario % cons to resp. Estimated consumer dietary exposure to carnosic acid plus carnosol (mg/kg bw/day) Mean P90 Australia 2 years and above Naturally-occurring 5.8 0.048 0.081 Added rosemary extract only_MPL 100 0.081 0.18 Naturally-occurring plus added rosemary extract_MPL 100 0.083 0.18 Added rosemary extract only_Usual use 100 0.042 0.089 Naturally-occurring plus added rosemary extract_Usual use 100 0.043 0.093 New Zealand 5 – 14 years Naturally-occurring 0.1 0.023 n/a Added rosemary extract only_MPL 99 0.17 0.33 Naturally-occurring plus added rosemary extract_MPL 99 0.17 0.33 Added rosemary extract only_Usual use 99 0.090 0.17 Naturally-occurring plus added rosemary extract_Usual use 99 0.090 0.17 New Zealand 15 years and above Naturally-occurring 1.1 0.18 0.30 Added rosemary extract only_MPL 98 0.075 0.15 Naturally-occurring plus added rosemary extract_MPL 98 0.077 0.16 Added rosemary extract only_Usual use 98 0.040 0.082 Naturally-occurring plus added rosemary extract_Usual use 98 0.042 0.084 Consumers as a % of total respondents. A consumer is a respondent in the national nutrition survey who consumes a food containing carnosic acid plus carnosol. A respondent is anyone in a national nutrition survey, irrespective of whether they consume a food that contains carnosic acid plus carnosol or not Based on consumption data from Day 1 and 2 Based on consumption data from Day 1 respondents only
2 July 2018 [52-18] Administrative Assessment Report – Application A1166 Reduction in minimum alcohol percentage for spirits using the geographical indication ‘Tequila’ Date received: 6 June 2018 Date due for completion of administrative assessment: 28 June 2018 Date completed: 25 June 2018 Applicant: Spirits New Zealand Inc. Application prepared by Robert Brewer (Spirits NZ Inc), John Barker (John Barker Law, Consultant) Potentially affected standards: Standard 2.7.5 Brief description of Application: To lower the minimum alcohol percentage by volume for spirits using the Tequila geographical indication (GI). Procedure: General level 1 Reason why: Simple application to resolve a discrepancy for products legally entitled to use the Tequila GI Estimated total hours: Approx. 350 hours Provisional estimated start work: Late Jan 19 Decision Application accepted Date: 25 June 2018 Has the Applicant requested confidential commercial information status? No ✔ Charges Does FSANZ consider that the application confers an exclusive capturable commercial benefit on the Applicant? No ✔ Does the Applicant want to expedite consideration of this Application? No ✔ - have confirmed this will not be a paid application Application Handbook requirements
Tier 2 Readiness Checklist *Place a check in the box that best reflects your school’s status DATA INDICATORS IN PLACE NOT IN PLACE NOTES 1. SET score of 80/80 OR 2. TFI score of 70% or higher 3. SAS Schoolwide 80% or higher 4. SAS Non-Classroom 80% or higher 5. SAS Classroom 80% or higher 6. 80% or more students in the 0-1 ODR range or within national range for school’s grade levels. 7. Consistent use of schoolwide data for making decisions as evidenced by monthly Big 5 Data Reports. 8. System in place to collect classroom minor referrals. 9. Tier 2 Team includes administrator, crossover member, behavioral expertise or desire to develop, academic expertise. 10. Effective Classroom Practices taught to all staff and evident in all classrooms. 11. Access to district level support Decision(s) based upon Readiness Analysis: Proceed w/ Tier 2 implementation Develop action plan to improve Tier 1 implementation Reconsider Tier 2 implementation at this time
Subject: Mathematic Age of the students: French:17 yo Dutch: 14 yo Topic: polynomials lesson Description of activities: math tutoring: French students explain or teach polynomials to younger Dutch students Aim of the lesson / activity: French students should be able to prepare a lesson with exercises about polynomials to explain this topic to the Dutch pupils. Time Phase / Aims Media/ resources Planned course of action Method of teaching comments Half day Introduction From the math book of Dutch students The Dutch teacher explained to french students what her students already knew about polynomials. French students chose exercises and prepared a method to solve each one and how to explain the solution to Dutch Students. The dutch teacher has been teaching the first part of polynomials with her students at the beginning of the year. We started to review what they learnt several months before. Half day activity From the math book of Dutch students In classroom, in group of six, French students presented and exposed exercises and explained method to solve them. Work in group of six: four Dutch with two french students. Two teachers of math, one Dutch and one French, oversaw the activity. Severals hours results Math book Dutch students practised math exercises with their teacher In classroom ... extension Math book French students prepared a test about what they taught to Dutch one. Dutch students took this test two weeks after with their teacher. FINISHED PLANNING THE LESSON? Please save this documenta s a pdf file. Then upload it into the appropriate folder on the etwinning space of „European Classroom“. 'Ce projet a été financé avec le soutien de la Commission européenne. Cette publication (communication) n'engage que son auteur et la Commission n'est pas responsable de l'usage qui pourrait être fait des informations qui y sont contenues.'
Subject: Mathematic Age of the students: French:17 yo Dutch: 14 yo Topic: polynomials lesson Description of activities: math tutoring: French students explain or teach polynomials to younger Dutch students Aim of the lesson / activity: French students should be able to prepare a lesson with exercises about polynomials to explain this topic to the Dutch pupils. Time Phase / Aims Media/ resources Planned course of action Method of teaching comments Before our arrival Explanations tutorials vidéo Dutch teacher Suzan sent two months before a video to explain what she expected in order to prepare french students for teaching. French students sent the chapter from the Dutch book Half day Introduction From the math book of Dutch students The Dutch teacher explained to french students what her students already knew about polynomials. French students chose exercises and prepared a method to solve each one and how to explain the solution to Dutch Students. The dutch teacher has been teaching the first part of polynomials with her students at the beginning of the year. We started to review what they learnt several months before. Half day activity From the math book of Dutch students In classroom, in group of six, French students presented and exposed exercises and explained method to solve them. Work in group of six: four Dutch with two french students. Two teachers of math, one Dutch and one French, oversaw the activity. Severals hours results Math book Dutch students practised math exercises with their teacher In classroom ... extension Math book French students prepared a test about what they taught to Dutch one. Dutch students took this test two weeks after with their teacher.
Planning Federal Materiality by Compliance Requirement (6) CFAE included the typical monetary vs. nonmonetary determinations for each compliance requirement in this program. However, auditors should tailor these assessments as appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of their entity’s operations. See further guidance below. (1) (2) (6) (6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6) Compliance Requirement Applicable per Compl. Suppl. Direct & material to program / entity Monetary or If monetary, population subject to require. Inherent risk (IR) assess. Final control risk (CR) assess. Detection risk of noncompl. Overall audit risk of noncompl. Federal materiality by compl. (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (M/N) (Dollars) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) typically 5% of population subject to requirement A Activities Allowed or Unallowed Yes M 5% B Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Yes M 5% C Cash Management Yes N 5% D RESERVED E Eligibility No F Equipment & Real Property Mgmt Yes M 5% G Matching, Level of Effort, Earmark Yes M 5% H Period of Availability (Performance) Yes M 5% I Procurement & Sus. & Debarment Yes N 5% J Program Income Yes M 5% K RESERVED L Reporting Yes N 5% M Subrecipient Monitoring No N Special Tests & Provisions Environmental Oversight Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions Environmental Reviews Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions Citizen Participation Yes N 5%
Planning Federal Materiality by Compliance Requirement (6) CFAE included the typical monetary vs. nonmonetary determinations for each compliance requirement in this program. However, auditors should tailor these assessments as appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of their entity’s operations. See further guidance below. (1) (2) (6) (6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6) Compliance Requirement Applicable per Compl. Suppl. Direct & material to program / entity Monetary or If monetary, population subject to require. Inherent risk (IR) assess. Final control risk (CR) assess. Detection risk of noncompl. Overall audit risk of noncompl. Federal materiality by compl. requirement (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (M/N) (Dollars) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) typically 5% of population subject to requirement A Activities Allowed or Unallowed Yes M 5% B Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Yes M 5% C Cash Management Yes N 5% D RESERVED E Eligibility Yes M/N 5% F Equipment & Real Property Mgmt Yes M 5% G Matching, Level of Effort, Earmark Yes M 5% H Period of Availability (Performance) Yes M 5% I Procurement & Sus. & Debarment Yes N 5% J Program Income Yes M 5% K RESERVED L Reporting Yes N 5% M Subrecipient Monitoring No N Special Tests & Provisions Maximum per Unit Subsidy and Underwriting Requirements Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions Drawdown of HOME Funds Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions Housing Quality Standards Yes N 5%
ESEA Flexibility (June 7, 2012) () ESEA Flexibility Frequently Asked Questions (August 3, 2012) () ESEA Flexibility Addendum to Frequently Asked Questions (March 5, 2013) () Letter to Chief State School Officers on Granting Administrative Flexibility for Better Measures of Success (September 7, 2012) () Letter and Enclosure on Flexibility in Schoolwide Programs (September 13, 2013) () Non-Regulatory Guidance on Title I, Part A Waivers (July 2009) () Guidance on School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Revised June 29, 2010) () Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (March 1, 2012) (). Two documents contain guidance applicable to the cross-cutting requirements affected by the Education Jobs Fund program (Ed Jobs). They include: Guidance – When to Treat Expenditures of Education Jobs Funds as State or Local Funds for Purposes of the Fiscal Requirements under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (November 2010) () Part B IDEA MOE Guidance for States on the Education Jobs Fund Program (May 2011) (). (Source: 2015 OMB Compliance Supplement, Part 4) Additional Guidance: ODE Document Library: OMB Compliance Supplements: AOS Guidance on federal sampling – Fall 2014 V. Reporting in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Removal of ARRA Programs from Clusters Many of the ARRA programs have been deleted from Parts 4 and 5 of this Supplement based on their completion or limited amount of funds still subject to audit. However, if an entity has Federal awards expended from these programs they would be treated consistent with any other programs not included in this Supplement or not part of a cluster of programs. For example, if programs were deleted from a cluster: (1) the program would not be considered as part of a cluster for periods covered by this Supplement, as this Supplement does not include the program in a cluster, and (2) if the program was part of a cluster which was audited as a major program in a prior year, the normal OMB CircularA-133 major program selection criteria and risk-based approach would apply and the program would be considered as audited in
and Federal awards received directly from a Federal awarding agency by a local government or an Indian tribal government.) 1. Obtain the entity’s procurement policies. Verify that the policies comply with applicable Federal requirements (§____.36(b)(1) and 2 CFR section 215.43). 2. Ascertain if the entity has a policy to use statutorily or administratively imposed inState or local geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals. If yes, verify that these limitations were not applied to federally funded procurements except where applicable Federal statutes expressly mandate or encourage geographic preference (§____.36(c)(2) and 2 CFR section 215.43). 3. Examine procurement policies and procedures and verify the following: a. Written selection procedures require that solicitations incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured, identify all requirements that the offerors must fulfill, and include all other factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals (§____.36(c)(3) and 2 CFR section 215.44(a)(3)). b. There is a written policy pertaining to ethical conduct (§____.36(b)(3) and 2 CFR section 215.42). 4. Select a sample of procurements and perform the following: a. Examine contract files and verify that they document the significant history of the procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis of contract price (§____.36(b)(9) and 2 CFR section 215.46). b. Verify that procurements provide full and open competition (§____.36(c)(1) and 2 CFR section 215.43). c. Examine documentation in support of the rationale to limit competition in those
Planning Federal Materiality by Compliance Requirement (6) CFAE included the typical monetary vs. nonmonetary determinations for each compliance requirement in this program. However, auditors should tailor these assessments as appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of their entity’s operations. See further guidance below. (1) (2) (6) (6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6) Compliance Requirement Applicable per Compl. Suppl. Direct & material to program / entity Monetary or nonmonetary If monetary, population subject to require. Inherent risk (IR) assess. Final control risk (CR) assess. Detection risk of noncompl. Overall audit risk of noncompl. Federal materiality by compl. requirement (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (M/N) (Dollars) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) typically 5% of population subject to requirement A Activities Allowed or Unallowed Yes M 5% B Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Yes M 5% C Cash Management Yes N 5% D Reserved E Eligibility No F Equipment & Real Property Mgmt No G Matching, Level of Effort, Earmark Yes Mat. & Ear. = M MOE = N 5% H Period of Availability (Performance) Yes M 5% I Procurement & Sus. & Debarment No J Program Income Yes M 5% K Reserved L Reporting Yes N 5% M Subrecipient Monitoring Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions Participation of Private School Children Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions Schoolwide Programs Yes N 5% (1) Taken from Part 2, Matrix of Compliance Requirements, of the OMB Compliance Supplement (). When Part 2 of the Compliance Supplement indicates that a type of compliance requirement is not applicable, the remaining assessments for the compliance requirement are not applicable.
Test mathematical accuracy of reports and supporting worksheets. Performance (not applicable) and special (applicable) reports Trace the reported data to records that accumulate and summarize data. Perform tests of the underlying data to verify that the data were accumulated and summarized in accordance with the required or stated criteria and methodology, including the accuracy and completeness of the reports. Review the supporting records and ascertain if all applicable data elements were included in the sampled reports. When intervening computations or calculations are required between the records and the reports, trace reported data elements to supporting worksheets or other documentation that link reports to the data. Test mathematical accuracy of reports and supporting worksheets. Obtain written representation from management that the reports provided to the auditor are true copies of the reports submitted or electronically transmitted to the Federal awarding agency, the applicable payment system, or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. Audit Implications (adequacy of the system and controls, and the effect on sample size, significant deficiencies / material weaknesses, and management letter comments) Results of Test of Controls: (including material weaknesses, significant deficiencies and management letter items) Assessment of Control Risk: Effect on the Nature, Timing, and Extent of Compliance (Substantive Test) including Sample Size: Results of Compliance (Substantive Tests) Tests: Questioned Costs: Actual __________ Projected __________
Planning Federal Materiality by Compliance Requirement (1) (2) (6) (6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6) Compliance Requirement Applicable per Compl. Suppl. Direct & material to program / entity Monetary or nonmonetary If monetary, population subject to require. Inherent risk (IR) assess. Final control risk (CR) assess. Detection risk of noncompl. Overall audit risk of noncompl. Federal materiality by compl. requirement (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (M/N) (Dollars) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) typically 5% of population subject to requirement A Activities Allowed or Unallowed Yes M 5% B Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Yes M 5% C Cash Management Yes N 5% D Davis-Bacon Act No E Eligibility Yes M/N 5% F Equipment & Real Property Mgmt Yes M 5% G Matching, Level of Effort, Earmark Yes M 5% H Period of Availability Yes M 5% I Procurement & Sus. & Debarment Yes N 5% J Program Income Yes M 5% K Real Property Acq. & Rel. Asst. No L Reporting Yes N 5% M Subrecipient Monitoring Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions ARRA - Subrecipient Monitoring Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions ARRA - Separate Accountability Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions ARRA - Presentation on SEFA Yes N 5%
Planning Federal Materiality by Compliance Requirement (1) (2) (6) (6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6) Compliance Requirement Applicable per Compl. Suppl. Direct & material to program / entity Monetary or nonmonetary If monetary, population subject to require. Inherent risk (IR) assess. Final control risk (CR) assess. Detection risk of noncompl. Overall audit risk of noncompl. Federal materiality by compl. requirement (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (M/N) (Dollars) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) typically 5% of population subject to requirement A Activities Allowed or Unallowed Yes M 5% B Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Yes M 5% C Cash Management Yes N 5% D Davis-Bacon Act Yes N 5% E Eligibility No F Equipment & Real Property Mgmt Yes M 5% G Matching, Level of Effort, Earmark Yes M 5% H Period of Availability Yes M 5% I Procurement & Sus. & Debarment Yes N 5% J Program Income Yes M 5% K Real Property Acq. & Rel. Asst. Yes M 5% L Reporting Yes N 5% M Subrecipient Monitoring Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions ARRA - Subrecipient Monitoring Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions ARRA - Separate Accountability Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions ARRA - Presentation on SEFA Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions Replacement of Publically Owned Real Property Yes N 5%
Planning Federal Materiality by Compliance Requirement (1) (2) (6) (6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6) Compliance Requirement Applicable per Compl. Suppl. Direct & material to program / entity Monetary or nonmonetary If monetary, population subject to require. Inherent risk (IR) assess. Final control risk (CR) assess. Detection risk of noncompl. Overall audit risk of noncompl. Federal materiality by compl. requirement (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (M/N) (Dollars) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) typically 5% of population subject to requirement A Activities Allowed or Unallowed Yes M 5% B Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Yes M 5% C Cash Management Yes N 5% D Davis-Bacon Act NO E Eligibility NO F Equipment & Real Property Mgmt NO G Matching, Level of Effort, Earmark Yes M 5% H Period of Availability Yes M 5% I Procurement & Sus. & Debarment NO J Program Income NO K Real Property Acq. & Rel. Asst. NO L Reporting Yes N 5% M Subrecipient Monitoring Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions - Participation of Private School Children Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions - Schoolwide Programs Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions - Assessment of Need Yes N 5% (1) Taken from Part 2, Matrix of Compliance Requirements, of the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement (). When Part 2 of the Compliance Supplement indicates that a type of compliance requirement is not applicable, the remaining assessments for the compliance requirement are not applicable. (2) If the Supplement notes a compliance requirement as being applicable to the program in column (1), it still may not apply at a particular entity either because that entity does not have activity subject to that type of compliance requirement, or the activity could not have a material effect on a major program. If the Compliance Supplement indicates that a type of compliance requirement is applicable and the auditor
English Welsh Scottish Northern Irish Irish Gypsy or Irish Traveller Other White background White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other mixed background Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Any other Asian background African Caribbean Any other Black/ African/ Caribbean background Arab Any other ethnic group Prefer not to say Thank you. Please return this form to: or by post to RSPB, HR DEPT, THE LODGE, SANDY, BEDFORDSHIRE, SG19 2DL.
A.14-11-003 and A.14-11-004 Sempra Utilities’ 2016 TY GRC TURN Data Request Data Request Number: TURN-SCG-9 (Corporate Real Estate, OpEx 20/20, IT, AMI) Date Sent: April 3, 2015 Response Due: April 17, 2015 Please provide an electronic response to the following questions. A hard copy response is unnecessary. The response should be provided on a CD sent by mail or as attachments sent by to the following: Bob Finkelstein The Utility Reform Network (TURN) 785 Market Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Garrick Jones JBS Energy 311 D Street, Suite A West Sacramento, CA 95605 For each question, please provide the name of each person who materially contributed to the preparation of the response. If different, please also identify the Sempra Utilities witness who would be prepared to respond to cross-examination questions regarding the response. For any questions requesting numerical recorded data, please provide all responses in working Excel spreadsheet format if so available, with cells and formulae functioning. For any question requesting documents, please interpret the term broadly to include any and all hard copy or electronic documents or records in the possession of either of the Sempra Utilities. SCG-16 – Corporate Real Estate Regarding Gas Company Tower (GCT) Rents (p. JCS-4) Please explain the term “base rent” as it appears in the testimony, and state the amount of “base rent” recorded in each year from 2009-2014, inclusive. Please provide excerpts of the contracts containing GCT Rents escalations and that set the rent expense for each year from 2012 through 2018, or the latest period covered by the contracts if they do not extend to 2018. Please divide all recorded and forecasts costs shown on p. SCG-16 of ‘ORA Request 4_B summary SCG.xlsx’ between base rent, “certain other expenses such as parking”, and “utilities, insurance and landlord provided maintenance”. Please identify and describe the top three expenses included in “certain other expenses such as parking.”
of the “basic,” “minimum” rights secured by the PSOPBRA. (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 135.) We do not construe the statute or Baggett as permitting a court to exempt a municipality from this requirement based on the asserted fairness of its disciplinary procedure as a whole. In sum, as Morgado points out, the City’s “home rule” argument rests upon a flawed premise: the City’s procedures do not meet, let alone “exceed,” the “minimum mandates” of the PSOPBRA, because they do not allow for “an opportunity for administrative appeal” from the “punitive action” ultimately taken against Morgado—i.e., his termination by the Commission. (See § 3304, subd. (b); Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 135 [The PSOPBRA “is a catalogue of the minimum rights (§ 3310) the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ 3301).” (Italics added.)].) For the foregoing reasons, we reject the City’s “home rule” argument. III. DISPOSITION The trial court’s judgment and accompanying injunctive order are affirmed. _________________________ Streeter, J. We concur: _________________________ Ruvolo, P.J. _________________________ Rivera, J.
Graph the Cosecant, Secant and Cotangent Functions and any transformations of it. Find the exact value of an Inverse Trigonometric Function Find the approximate value of an Inverse Trigonometric Function Analytic Trigonometry (8 days) Be able to establish a trigonometric identity B. Use sum & difference formulas to find exact values and establish identities C. Use double and half angle formulas to find exact values and establish identities D. Use product to sum formulas and sum to product formulas E. Solve Trigonometric Equations using all trig identities V. Applications of Trigonometry (8 days) A. Solve right triangles (direct and application problems) Use the Law of Sines to solve SAA, ASA and SSA triangles Use the Law of Cosines to solve SAS and SSS triangles Find the area of SAS and SSS triangles using the appropriate formulas for each scenario Determine the amplitude and period of sinusoidal functions Find the equation of a sinusoidal graph Determine the phase shift of a sinusoidal graph Graph sinusoidal functions VII. Polar Coordinates (4 days) A. Plot points using polar coordinates Convert between polar and rectangular coordinates Graph and identify polar equations by converting to rectangular equations Graph polar equations using a graphing utility VI. Exponential and Logarithmic Functions (8 days) A. Composite & Inverse Functions B. Evaluate & graph exponential functions Change exponential expressions to logarithmic expressions Change logarithmic expressions to exponential expressions Evaluate logarithmic functions Use the change of base formula to evaluate logarithms Solve logarithmic equations using properties of logarithms Solve exponential equations Solve compound interest problems Solve exponential growth and decay problems Solve Newton’s Law of Cooling Problems
_________________________ Reardon, Acting P.J. _________________________ Streeter, J. Cummings v. Dessel et al. (A144212) Gayle S. Cummings v. Jennifer Dessel et al. (A144212) Trial Court: Humboldt County Trial Judge: Honorable W. Bruce Watson Counsel for Defendants and Appellants Jennifer Dessel and Emily Seal Jennifer Dessel, in pro. per.; and Emily Seal, in pro. per. Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent Gayle S. Cummings Floyd Law Firm, Bradford C. Floyd and Carlton D. Floyd.
himself at the marital standard of living.” (§ 4331, subd. (a).) And section 4331 is in a chapter of the Family Code entitled “Spousal Support Upon Dissolution or Legal Separation.” Taken together, this suggests that there can be good cause for a vocational examination under section 4331 only if the examination is relevant to a determination of spousal support. Put another way, if support is not at issue, there is no need for the inquiry that a vocational examination is intended to address, and no “good cause” to order one. A leading practical treatise apparently takes a similar view, reasoning that absent a definition of good cause, “any showing that the spouse seeking support or the spouse contesting a support award (as the case may be) is capable of working but is unemployed or underemployed will suffice” to justify a vocational examination. (Hogoboom et al. Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 6:846, p. 6-429.) Here, there was no pending motion for support and no good cause to order a vocational examination. Stupp requested the order because Schilders “has appealed the support orders, including the imputation [to her] of income.” Stupp argued that after an examination, “the expert will report back to the court with an opinion as to what if any is her ability to earn in the outside world and where the opportunity exists for her to earn that.” This kind of report may be important when there is a controversy before the family court as to support, but there was no such controversy at the time the order was made. The mere fact that support orders have been appealed does not justify ordering a vocational examination. After all, the support orders may be affirmed on appeal, as they were in this case. (Stupp v. Schilders (Mar. 25, 2016, A142302) [nonpub. opn.] pp. Our interpretation of “good cause” in section 4331 and our conclusion that there was not good cause here are consistent with the general provisions in the Family Code for postjudgment discovery in connection with support. Division 9 of the Family Code, which includes section 4331 in Part 3, also includes a group of statutes that permit limited postjudgment discovery before commencing a proceeding to modify or terminate an
copulation was not listed in the statute. (Id. at p. 10.) “Because attempted crimes are considered to be separate and distinct, they are not automatically included in the list of sexual offenses to which section 667.6, subdivision (c), applies. [Citations.] Furthermore, if the Legislature had intended to include attempts in the enhancement provisions, it would have specifically stated the enhancement applies to the ‘commission or attempted commission’ of specific crimes as it did in other enhancement provisions.” (Id. at pp. 10–11.) In People v. Jillie (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 960, 962–963, the court concluded section 1202.1, which requires a defendant to submit to testing for the human immunodeficiency virus when convicted of enumerated offenses, did not apply to attempts to commit the crimes enumerated. “We do not find the statute ambiguous. It expressly identifies the offenses within its scope, all of which are completed offenses. Had the Legislature meant to include attempts among the covered offenses, it could easily have done so as it has in other instances, for example, [] section 667.5, subdivision (c)(12) specifying attempted murder as one of several violent felonies, and [] section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(27) making an attempt to commit any of the specifically listed felonies also a serious felony.” (Id. at p. 963.) Finally, in People v. Reed (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1281, the court considered the three-year enhancement for a prior drug conviction under section 11370.2, subdivision (a), which applies to “[a]ny person convicted of a violation of, or of a conspiracy to violate,” specified drug offenses. It held the statute could not be used to enhance a sentence for an attempt to commit the enumerated offenses. “As the statute now reads, neither a current conviction of an attempt to commit a specified crime nor a prior conviction of an attempt to commit a specified crime supports an enhancement under section 11370.2, subdivision (a). ‘If the Legislature had intended to include attempts in the enhancement provisions, it would have specifically stated the enhancement applie[d] to the “commission or attempted commission” of specific crimes.’ ” (Id. at p. 1285.)
for a client of the employer law firm. But, as Tucker Ellis notes, many law firm documents will reflect the work product of multiple current and former attorneys, potentially practicing in multiple jurisdictions. Securing permission from these attorneys to disclose their work product, and resolving conflicts among them when they do not agree about whether certain information constitutes work product or who was involved in creating it, will be a burdensome and complicated task for a law firm required to comply with requests for disclosure while preserving the privilege. In addition, to the extent this task involves former attorneys who created work product for current firm clients, as here, the purpose of the attorney work product privilege will be better served by allowing the firm itself with current knowledge of ongoing litigation and client issues and in the context of the firm’s on-going attorney-client relationships to speak with one voice regarding the assertion of the privilege. By declining to extend the scope of the attorney work product privilege to include Nelson in this case we also avoid undue intrusion into the equally sacrosanct duty of a law firm to zealously represent the interests of its clients with undivided loyalty. As our high court has aptly explained: “Attorneys have a duty to maintain undivided loyalty to their clients to avoid undermining public confidence in the legal profession and the judicial process. [Citations.] The effective functioning of the fiduciary relationship between attorney and client depends on the client’s trust and confidence in counsel. [Citation.] The courts will protect clients’ legitimate expectations of loyalty to preserve this essential basis for trust and security in the attorney-client relationship.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1146-1147.) We conclude by again emphasizing the narrowness of our holding. We hold only that, under California law and on the record before us, Tucker Ellis is the holder of the section 2018.030 attorney work product privilege that attached to documents created by Nelson during and in the scope of his employment. As the holder of the attorney work product privilege, Tucker Ellis had no legal duty to secure Nelson’s permission before disclosing the documents to others.
Counsel for Petitioner: Tucker Ellis LLP, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP Scott D. Bertzky, William Goines, Karen Rosenthal, Cindy Hamilton Counsel for Real Party in Interest: Evan C. Nelson KELLER SLOAN, ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP Thomas H. Sloan, Jr. Evan C. Nelson Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, and Evan C. Nelson, A148956
(after high school; chronological order) Professional License(s) （Circle all that apply） 1. Medicine 2. Dentistry 3. Pharmacy 4. Nursing 5. Midwife 6. Public Health Nurse 7. Others （ ） Work Experience (academic and professional positions) Month, Year～Month, Year Description (i.e. position, institution, location, and primary activity) Self-Assessed Language Abilitites (1=good, 2=fair, 3=poor) Japanese English Others ( ) Reading Writing Listening Speaking English Language Proficiency Examination: Please indicate your English proficiency exam scores, and submit a copy of the score report. TOEFL: iBT PBT Test Date: (month) (day) (year) TOEIC: Test Date: (month) (day) (year) IELTS: Test Date: (month) (day) (year) Awards and Honors Month, Year Description
have required the agency to violate its own rule. (Id. at p. 795.) That is not the case here. “[A]n administrative remedy is not inadequate simply because it is not the result desired.” (AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. State Dept. of Health Care Services (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1351.) V. A Peremptory Writ in the First Instance Is Appropriate. “Generally, [the accelerated Palma] procedure should be adopted only when petitioner’s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue—for example, . . . when there has been clear error under well-settled principles of law and undisputed facts.” (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.) Here, the relevant facts are undisputed, and under well-settled principles of California law, BDE was required to exhaust its administrative remedy before seeking relief in court. BDE has not exhausted that remedy, is not excused from doing so, and cannot amend its complaint to cure this defect. (See Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 333.) Thus, on the record before us, respondent abused its discretion in overruling the Board’s demurrer. We informed the parties that we might proceed by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance, and we solicited and received preliminary opposition from BDE. “ ‘Having complied with the procedural prerequisites, we are authorized to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance.’ ” (Johnny W. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 559, 568.) Disposition Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court in Black Diamond Electric, Inc. v. Contractors State License Board (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, No. C1702451), to vacate its order of June 7, 2018, overruling petitioner’s demurrer, and to enter a new and different order sustaining that demurrer. This decision shall be final as to this court 10 court days after its filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The previously issued stay shall dissolve upon finality of this opinion.
The Vendor shall provide monitored generator systems sized to support the data center load with an fuel supply for 72 hours. (M) Vendor Additional Fuel Supply The Vendor shall ensure both Data Center Facilities will continue to have available generator fuel beyond the initial 72 hour on-site supply. (M) Power – UPS and Generator Testing Policies and Procedures The Vendor shall have policies, procedures, and communicate to CTS the schedule for UPS and Generator activation testing. (M) Power – Bonding and Grounding The Vendor shall be responsible for bonding and grounding and ensuring that is has been done properly. (M) Power – Utility Power Feeds The Vendor shall have a minimum of two (2) physically diverse underground power feeds to both Data Center Facilities. (DS) Power – Different Substations Describe if Vendor power feeds originate from different substations. (DS) Power – Different Electrical Grids Describe if Vendor power feeds originate different electrical grids. (MS) Power – Runtime UPS at 100% The Vendor runtime for the UPS shall be at 100% load. Describe the Vendor runtime for the UPS at 100% load, and at what percentage of capacity are both Data Center Facilities at today. (MS) Power – Meter and Charge for Power Usage The Vendor shall charge for power usage. Describe how the Vendor meters and charges for power usage at both Data Center Facilities. Please outline the level of detail that is provided on power usage for both facilities. (MS) Power – Power Whips The Vendor shall provide as many as six power whips in any high-density rack. Describe if the Vendor is able to provide as many as six power whips in any of the high-density racks. Please describe what is available at both Data Center Facilities. (MS) Power – Fuel Providers The Vendor shall have Service Level Agreements with its Fuel Providers to ensure availability of fuel supply as necessary to provide the Services herein. Telecommunications (M) Telecommunications Facilities
No. Question 1 How can a qualification or card benefit a plant operator? 2 State FOUR checks that should be made to the forks. 3 How can high wind speeds affect tele-handler operations? 4 What is the purpose of a roll or ROPS frame? 5 If the operator has loaded the machine onto a transporter/trailer on behalf of a driver, what checks must be carried out before they leave the cab? 6 If the tele-handler is being travelled or working on the public highway, including adjacent pavement and verges, the Road Traffic Act applies. a) What type of licence and which classes should the operator hold and b) what is the minimum age allowed? 7 Name FOUR factors to consider and know before picking up a load. 8 Before picking up a load, why should the forks be equally spaced or distanced on the carriage? 9 When parking the machine at the end of the shift, name THREE places where the machine should NOT be parked. 10 Give FOUR reasons that may cause the tele-handler to tip over sideways. 11 State the purpose of the check valve(s) located on the boom cylinder rams. 12 Explain ALL visual checks that must be carried out on all types of quick-hitch attaching systems before use. 13 After placing a load, who is responsible for ensuring the load is safe? 14 Give FOUR reasons that may cause the machine to tip forwards. 15 a) What is the minimum distance allowed near open trenches when travelling with a and b) explain why? 16 According to regulations (such as Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER) 1998) name TWO requirements that must be carried out on any lifting operation. 17 An operator has to travel a tele-handler on the public highway, for which the road traffic act applies. List SIX requirements that must be followed. 18 Name TWO factors that determine the weight of a load. 19 Using the Operator’s Manual, state the figure for the tyre pressures. Note: The Operator’s Manual for the machine being used for the test MUST be available for reference by the candidate.
For All Students Risk Indicator Timeframe/Threshold Grade retention Repeating a grade in elementary, middle or high school4, 12, 15, 18 For High School Students Risk Indicator Timeframe National Threshold Wisconsin Threshold Attendance First 20 (or 30) days of school, end of each grading period, end of year Missed 10% or more of instructional time (excused and/or unexcused absences) 2, 3, 4 TBD Behavior Per grading period, end of year 1 or more days of suspension3, 4 TBD Mobility Per grading period, end of year 1 or more move5, 17 TBD Course Performance Per grading period Failed one or more semester courses, any subject1, 2, 3, 5 D or F in one or more semester courses, core subjects20 GPA Per grading period Achieved 2.0 or lower on a scale2, 3 TBD End of Year Indicator End of year Failed two or more semester core courses or accumulated fewer credits than the number required for promotion to the next grade1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 TBD For Middle School Students Risk Indicator Timeframe National Threshold Wisconsin Threshold Attendance First 20 (or 30) days of school, end of each grading period, end of year Missed 20% or more of instructional time (excused and/or unexcused absences) 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 Missed 7% or more of instructional time (excused and/or unexcused absences) 19 Behavior Per grading period, end of year 1 or more days of suspension, Received a poor behavior grade from their teachers3, 10, 11, 14 .5 or more days of suspension or expulsion19 Mobility Per grading period, end of year 1 or more move after experiencing difficulty5, 9, 17 1 move in prior year (school or district) 19 Course Performance Per grading period Failed Math or English3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14 D or F in one or more semester courses, core subjects20 WKCE Reading/Math 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade Less than 999 Less than 1035 Less than 105319 For Elementary Students Risk Indicator Timeframe National Threshold Wisconsin Threshold Attendance Pre-K – grade 3 Missed 10% or more of instructional time (excused and/or unexcused absences) TBD