Search for: "EMERGENCY PLANNING MANAGEMENT v. US " Results 341 - 360 of 1,366
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2021, 7:22 am
That divergence is irreconcilable.The text of the Chinese Human Rights Action Plan (2021-2025) follows. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 6:40 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
The Biden-Harris Administration says the new health industry COVID-19 vaccine will be implemented through emergency regulations to be issued in October. [read post]
5 Sep 2021, 7:01 am by Sara Bjerg Moller
This distinction matters because, unlike the former, Chapter VII authorizes members to use force if needed. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
The investment, especially the delayed reporting of it, alarmed experts in corporate and securities law, who said it raised questions about whether Paul’s family profited from nonpublic information about the looming health emergency and plans by the U.S. government to combat it. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 10:58 am by Simon Lester
In the United States (US), as for most developed countries,[6] trade policy and IP standards have consistently been linked, a pattern which can (at least partially) be traced back to extensive lobbying by senior management at US-based technology and pharmaceutical firms.[7] For example, since at least the 1980s, Pfizer Inc. has been involved in mobilizing other US firms and stakeholders to lobby US policymakers on the issue of international IP protection.… [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 5:30 am by Sherron Watkins
I had thought out two likely scenarios in my mind: in the first one, the company kicked the can down the road, “investigating” the Raptors and slow walking the plan to address the fraud until it was impossible to ignore; or two, quickly recognize the fraud for what it was, make plans to write off the Raptor structures as prior year restatements (a hugely negative and big deal to investors and Wall Street), form a crisis management team, hoard cash, estimate… [read post]
At issue was the adequacy of the hazards analysis evaluating whether the bridge replacement project would: (i) “impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan,” or (ii) “expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. [read post]
At issue was the adequacy of the hazards analysis evaluating whether the bridge replacement project would: (i) “impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan,” or (ii) “expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. [read post]