text:
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P.E., Read, R., Wood, R., Cuayáhuitl, H., Kiefer, B., Racioppa, S., Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Athanasopoulos, G., Enescu, V., Looije, R., Neerincx, M., Demiris, Y., Ros-Espinoza, R., Beck, A., Cañamero, L., Hiolle, A., Lewis, M., Baroni, I., Nalin, M., Cosi, P., Paci, G., Tesser, F., Sommavilla, G., and Humbert, R. (2012). Multimodal child-robot interaction: Building social bonds. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(2), 33-53. Download full pdf.
Coninx, A., Baxter, P., Oleari, E., Bellini, S., Bierman, B., Blanson Henkemans, O., … & Hiolle, A. (2016). Towards long-term social child-robot interaction: using multi-activity switching to engage young users. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 5(1). Download full pdf.
Athanasopoulos, G. & Verhelst, W (2013). A Phase-Modified Approach for TDE-Based Acoustic Localization. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2013), pages pp.2890 – 2894.
Athanasopoulos, G., Brouckxon, H. & Verhelst, W (2012). Sound Source Localization for Real-World Humanoid Robots. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Signal Processing (SIP 2012), pages 131 – 136. WSEAS.
Athanasopoulos, G., Dekens, T. & Verhelst, W (2013). Acoustic Localization Enhanced with Phase Information from Modified STFT Magnitude. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing.
Athanasopoulos, G., Dekens, T., Brouckxon, H. & Verhelst, W (2012). The Effect of Speech Denoising Algorithms on Sound Source Localization for Humanoid Robots. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Sciences, Signal Processing and their Applications (ISSPA 2012), pages 369 – 374.
Athanasopoulos, G., Wang, W., Wang, F., Yilmazyildiz, S., Oveneke, C., Enescu, V. et al (2012). Towards Autonomous Child-Robot Interaction. In 5th International Workshop on Human-Friendly Robotics.
Baroni, I., Nalin, M., Baxter, P., Pozzi, C., Oleari, E., Sanna, A. et al (2014). What a Robotic Companion Could Do for a Diabetic Child. In 23rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RoMAN 2014).
Baroni, I., Nalin, M., Zelati, M. C., Oleari, E. & Sanna, A (2014). Designing motivational robot: How robots might motivate children to eat fruits and vegetables. In ROMAN 2014 conference.
Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T (2014). Pervasive Memory: the Future of Long-Term Social HRI Lies in the Past. In 3rd International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction at AISB’14, London.
Baxter, P. & Browne, W (2010). Memory as the substrate of cognition: a developmental cognitive robotics perspective. In Johansson, B. & Balkenius, C. (editors), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Epigenetic Robotics 2010.
Baxter, P. & Trafton, G (2014). Cognitive Architectures for Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages pp504-505.
Baxter, P., Baroni, I., Nalin, M., Sanna, A. & Belpaeme, T (2013). Touchscreens as Mediators for Social Human-Robot Interactions: A Focus Group Evaluation involving Diabetic Children. In Collaboration meets Interactive Surfaces Workshop at ITS’2013.
Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T., Cañamero, L., Cosi, P., Demiris, Y. & Enescu, V (2011). Long-Term Human-Robot Interaction with Young Users. In IEEE/ACM Human-Robot Interaction 2011 Conference (Robots with Children Workshop).
Baxter, P., Cuayahuitl, H., Wood, R., Kruijff-Korbayova, I. & Belpaeme, T (2012). Towards Augmenting Dialogue Strategy Management with Multimodal Sub-Symbolic Context. In KI 2012, pages Poster.
Baxter, P., de Greeff, J. & Belpaeme, T (2013a). Do children behave differently with a social robot if with peers?. In International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR 2013).
Baxter, P., de Greeff, J. & Belpaeme, T. (2013b). Cognitive Architecture for Human-Robot Interaction: Towards Behavioural Alignment. Journal of Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 6, pp30-39.
Baxter, P., de Greeff, J., Wood, R. & Belpaeme, T (2012). ’And what is a Seasnake?’: Modelling the Acquisition of Concept Prototypes in a Developmental Framework. In International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics, San Diego (USA), pages In press.
Baxter, P., de Greeff, J., Wood, R. & Belpaeme, T. (2012). Modelling Concept Prototype Competencies using a Developmental Memory Model. Paladyn Journal of Behavioral Robotics, Special Issue on Advances in D.
Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Vollmer, A.-L., de Greeff, J. & Belpaeme, T (2014). Tracking gaze over time in HRI as a Proxy for Engagement and Attribution of Social Agency. In HRI’14, Late-Breaking Report, Bielefeld.
Baxter, P., Wood, R. & Belpaeme, T (2010). Episodic Memory for Social Interaction. In Workshop on Synthetic Neuroethology, University of Sussex, pages Poster.
Baxter, P., Wood, R. & Belpaeme, T (2012). A Touchscreen-Based ‘Sandtray’ to Facilitate, Mediate and Contextualise Human-Robot Social Interaction. In HRI’12, in press. Boston, MA, U.S.A.
Baxter, P., Wood, R., Baroni, I., Kennedy, J., Nalin, M. & Belpaeme, T (2013). Emergence of Turn-taking in Unstructured Child-Robot Interactions. In Human Robot Interaction (HRI) 2013, Japan.
Baxter, P., Wood, R., Belpaeme, T. & Nalin, M (2011). On Memory Systems for Companion Robots: Implementation Methodologies and Legal Implications. In AISB Symposium on Human Memory for Artificial Agents.
Baxter, P., Wood, R., Morse, A. & Belpaeme, T (2011). Memory-Centred Architectures: Perspectives on Human-level Cognitive. In Proceedings of the Advances in Cognitive Systems tracks at the AAAI Fall Symposium 2011, pages 26-33. AAAI Press.
Beck, A., Cañamero, L. & Bard, K (2010). Towards an affect space for robots to display emotional body language. In IREE RoMan Conference.
Beck, A., Cañamero, L., Damiano, L., Sommavilla, G., Tesser, F. & Cosi, P (2011). Children Interpretation of Emotional Body Language Displayed by a Robot. In ICSR 2011.
Beck, A., Cañamero, L., Hiolle, A., Damiano, L., Cosi, P., Tesser, F. et al (2013). Interpretation of Emotional Body Language Displayed by a Humanoid Robot: A Case Study with Children. In Special Issue on ICSR2011 of the International Journal of Social Robotics. Springer.
Beck, A., Hiolle, A. & Cañamero, L (2013). Using Perlin Noise to Generate Emotional Expressions in a Robot. In Proceedings of CogSci 2013 (The 2013 Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
Beck, A., Hiolle, A., Mazel, A. & Cañamero, L (2010). Emotional body language displayed by Robots. In Affine 2010.
Beck, A., Stevens, B., Bard, K. & Cañamero, L. (2012). Emotional Body Language Displayed by Artificial Agents. ACM transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems. Special issue on Affective Interaction in Natural Environments, Article 2, p2:1-2:29,.
Belpaeme, T. & Morse, A. (2010). Time will tell – why it is too early to worry. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 191-195.
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., de Greeff, J., Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R. et al (2013). Child-robot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. In Herrmann, G., Pearson, M., Lenz, A. et al (editors), Social Robotics, volume 8239 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 452-459. Springer International Publishing.
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., Read, R., Wood, R., Cuayáhuitl, H., Kiefer, B. et al. (2013). Multimodal Child-Robot Interaction: Building Social Bonds. Journal of Human-Robot Interacion, 1(2), 33-53.
Cai, L., Wang, F., Enescu, V. & Sahli, H (2014). Object segmentation based on Contour-Skeleton Duality. In 22nd International Conference on Patten Recognition (ICPR 2014). Stockholm, Sweden.
Chatzis, S. & Demiris, Y. (2011). The Echo State Gaussian Process. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, .
Chatzis, S. & Demiris, Y. (2012). The Infinite-Order Conditional Random Field Model for Sequential Data Modeling. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, .
Chatzis, S. & Demiris, Y. (2012a). A Reservoir-Driven Non-Stationary Hidden Markov Model. Pattern Recognition journal, .
Chatzis, S. P. & Demiris, Y. (2011). The Copula Echo State Network. Pattern Recognition Journal, .
Chatzis, S. P. & Demiris, Y. (2012b). The Echo State Conditional Random Field Model for Sequential Data Modeling. Expert Systems with Applications, .
Chatzis, S. P. & Demiris, Y. (2012c). A Sparse Nonparametric Hierarchical Bayesian Approach Towards Inductive Transfer for Preference Modeling,. Expert Systems With Applications, (doi: 10.10).
Chatzis, S. P., Korkinof, D. & Demiris, Y (2011). The One-Hidden Layer Non-parametric Bayesian Kernel Machine. In 23rd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 825-831.
Chatzis, S. P., Korkinof, D. & Demiris, Y. (2012a). A Quantum-Statistical Approach Toward Robot Learning by Demonstration. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, .
Chatzis, S. P., Korkinof, D. & Demiris, Y. (2012b). A nonparametric Bayesian approach toward robot learning by demonstration,. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, .
Cohen, I., Looije, R. & Neerincx, M (2011). Child’s recognition of emotions in robots’ face and body. In HRI 2011 Conference, pages Poster.
Cohen, I., Looije, R. & Neerincx, M. (2014). Children’s Perception of Robot’s Emotions: Effects of Platform, Context and Experience. International Journal of Social Robotics.
Cosi, P., Nicolao, M., Paci, G., Sommavilla, G. & Tesser, F (2014). Comparing open source ASR toolkits on italian children speech. In 4th Workshop on Child-Computer Interaction (WOCCI 2014) at INTERSPEECH. Singapore, Singapore.
Cosi, P., Paci, G., Sommavilla, G., Tesser, F., Nalin, M. & Baroni, I (2012). An italian event-based ASR-TTS system for the nao robot. In In 7th Conference of the Italian Association of Speech Sciences “La voce nelle applicazioni”, pages 177–198.
Cuayahuitl, H (2011). Learning Dialogue Agents with Bayesian Relational State Representations. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems (IJCAI-KRPDS), Barcelona, Spain,, pages 9 – 15. ICAI.
Cuayahuitl, H. & Dethelfs, N (2011). Optimizing Situated Dialogue Management in Unknown Environments. In INTERSPEECH 2011, pages 1009-1012.
Cuayahuitl, H. & Dethlefs, N (2012). Dialogue Systems Using Online Learning: Beyond Empirical Methods. In In proceedings of the NAACL-HLT Workshop on Future Directions and Needs in the Spoken Dialog Community: Tools and Data.
Cuayahuitl, H. & Dethlefs, N (2012). Hierarchical Multiagent Reinforcement Learning for Coordinating Verbal and Non-verbal Actions in Robots. In ECAI Workshop on Machine Learning for Interactive Systems: Bridging the Gap Between Language, Motor Control and Vision, pages 27-29.
Cuayahuitl, H. & Kruijff-Korbayova, I (2011). Towards Learning Human-Robot Dialogue Policies Combining Speech and Visual Beliefs. In In proceedings of the Workshop on Paralinguistic Information and its Integration in Spoken Dialogue Systems, Granada, Spain, Sep 2011., pages 133-140. Springer.
Cuayahuitl, H. & Kruijff-Korbayova, I (2012). An Interactive Humanoid Robot Exhibiting Flexible Sub-Dialogues. In Proceedings of The 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Demo Session.
Cuayahuitl, H., Frommberger, L., Dethlefs, N. & Sahli, H (2012). Bridging the Gap Between Language, Motor Control and Vision. In Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Machine Learning for Interactive Systems (MLIS):.
Cuayahuitl, H., Kruijff-Korbayova, I. & Dethlefs, N (2012). Hierarchical Dialogue Policy Learning Using Flexible State Transitions and Linear Function Approximation. In International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING).
Cuayahuitl, H., Kruijff-Korbayova, I. & Dethlefs, N (2014b). Non-Strict Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning for Interactive Systems and Robots. In ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems.
Cuayahuitl, H., Kruijff-Korbayova, I. & Dethlefs, N. (2014a). Non-Strict Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning for Interactive Systems and Robots. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 4(3), 1 – 25.
Damiano, L. & Cañamero, L. (2012). The Frontier of Synthetic Knowledge. World Futures: Journal of General Evolution, (68), pp. 171-177.
Damiano, L., Hiolle, A. & Cañamero, L (2011). Grounding Synthetic Knowledge: An epistemological framework and criteria of relevance for the scientific exploration of life, affect and social cognition. In ECAL 2011.
de Greeff, J., Henkemans, O. B., Fraaije, A., Solms, L., Wigdor, N. & Bierman, B (2014). Child-Robot Interaction in the Wild: Field Testing Activities of the ALIZ-E Project. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction.
de Greeff, J., Janssen, J. B., Looije, R., Mioch, T., Alpay, L., Neerincx, M. A. et al (2013). “Activity Switching in Child-Robot Interaction: a Hospital Case Study”. In ICSR2013.
Dekens, T. & Verhelst, W (2011). On Noise Robust Activity Detection. In Interspeech 2011, pages 2649-2652.
Dethelfs, N. & Cuayahuitl, H (2011). Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning and Hidden Markov Models for Task-Orientated Natural Language Generation. In In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT), Portland, OR, USA, Jun 2011, pages 654-659.
Dethlefs, N. & Cuayahuitl, H (2012). Comparing HMMs and Bayesian Networks for Surface Realisation. In In proceedings of the National Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT).
Dethlefs, N., Cuayahuitl, H. & Viethen, J (2011). Optimising Natural Language Generation Decision Making For Situated Dialogue. In In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDial), Portland, OR, USA,, pages 78 – 87.
Egbert, M. & Barandiaran, X. (2014). Modelling habits as self-sustaining patterns of sensorimotor behavior. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(590), 1 – 15.
Egbert, M. & Cañamero, L (2014). Habit-based Regulation of Essential Variables. In Accepted at the the 14th conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems, ALIFE 14.
Galata, V., Benin, A., Cosi, P., Leone, G. R., Paci, G., Sommavilla, G. et al (2014). Discovering the Italian Literature: Interactive Access to Audio-indexed Text Resources. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14).
Gonzalez, I., Sahli, H. & Verhelst, W (2010). Automatic Recognition of Lower Facial Action Units. In 7th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioural Research, pages 204-207.
Gonzalez, I., Sahli, H., Enescu, V. & Verhelst, W (2011). Context-Independent Facial Action Unit Recognition using Shape and Gabor Phase Information. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII2011), Memphis, pages ACII (1) 2011: 548-5.
Greeff, J. D., Baxter, P., Wood, R. & Belpaeme, T (2012). From Penguins to Parakeets: a developmental approach to modelling conceptual prototypes. In Postgraduate Conference on Robotics and Development of Cognition at ICANN 2012.
Henkemans, O. A., Bierman, B. P., Janssen, J., Neerincx, M. A., Looije, R., van der Bosch, H. et al. (2013). Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: A pilot study. Patient Education and Counseling, (PEC-4519), 8.
Henkemans, O. A., Hoondert, V., Schrama-Groot, F., Looije, R., Alpay, L. L. & Neerincx, M. A. (2012). “I just have diabetes”: children’s need for diabetes self-management support and how a social robot can accommodate their needs. Patient Intelligence, .
Hiolle, A., Cañamero, L., Andry, P., Blanchard, A. & Gaussier, P (2010). Using the interaction rhythm as a natural reinforcement signal for social robots: a matter of belief. In International Conference on Social Robotics, ICSR 2010.
Hiolle, A., Cañamero, L., Davila-Ross, M. & Bard, K. A. (2012). Eliciting caregiving behavior in dyadic human-robot attachment-like interactions. ACM transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, .
Hiolle, A., Lewis, M. & Cañamero, L (2014a). A Robot that Uses Arousal to Detect Learning Challenges and Seek Help. In Accepted at the 14th conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems, ALIFE 14.
Hiolle, A., Lewis, M. & Cañamero, L. (2014b). Arousal Regulation and Affective Adaptation to Human Responsiveness by a Robot that Explores and Learns a Novel Environment. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, (8).
Janssen, J. B., van der Wal, C. C., Neerincx, M. A. & Looije, R (2011). Motivating children to learn arithmetic with an adaptive robot game. In ICSR Conference, pages 153-162.
Jiang, D., Cui, Y., Zhang, X., Fan, P., Ganzalez, I. & Sahli, H (2011). Audio Visual Emotion Recognition Based on Triple-Stream Dynamic Bayesian Network Models. In Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, ISBN-ISSN: 978-3-642-24599-2,.
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T (2013). Constraining Content in Mediated Unstructured Social Interactions: Studies in the Wild. In 5th International Workshop on Affective Interaction in Natural Environments at ACII 2013.
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T (2014). Children Comply with a Robot’s Indirect Requests. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Bielefeld.
Kennedy, J., de Greeff, J., Read, R., Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T (2014). The Chatbot Strikes Back. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany, pages Poster.
Kiefer, B. & Krieger, H.-U (2013). An Efficient Typed Feature Structure Index: Theory and Implementation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Parsing Technologies. International Conference on Parsing Technologies (IWPT-2013).
Korkinof, D. & Demiris, Y (2013). Online Quantum Mixture Regression for Trajectory Learning by Demonstration. In International Conference on Intelligent Robot and Systems. Tokyo, Japan.
Krieger, H.-U. & Kiefer, B (2011). Converting CCGs into Typed Feature Structure Gram- mars. In of 18th Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Seattle, WA.
Kruijff-Korbayova, I., Athanasopoulos, G., Beck, A., Cosi, P., Cuayahuitl, H., Dekens, T. et al (2011). An Event-Based Conversational System for the Nao Robot. In IWSDS2011 Workshop on Paralinguistic Information and its Integration in Spoken Dialogue Systems, pages 125-132. Springer.
Kruijff-Korbayova, I., Cuay´ahuitl, H., Kiefer, B., Schr¨oder, M., Cosi, P., Paci, G. et al (2012). Spoken Language Processing in a Conversational System for Child-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of WOCCI 2012 – Workshop on Child, Computer and Interaction Satellite Event of INTERSPEECH.
Kruijff-Korbayova, I., Kiefer, B., Baroni, I. & Zelati, M. C (2013). Making Human-Robot Quiz Dialogue More Conversational by Adding Non-Quiz Talk. In The 17th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (DialDam), pages Poster.
Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Kruijff, G. J. & Janicek, M (2011). Planning and Realizing Questions in Situated Human-Robot Interaction. In In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Question Generation.
Kruijff-Korbayova, I., Oleari, E., Baroni, I., Kiefer, B., Zelati, M. C., Pozzi, C. et al (2014). Effects of Off-Activity Talk in Human-Robot Interaction with Diabetic Children. In Ro-Man 2014: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
Latacz, L., Mattheyses, W. & Verhelst, W (2010). The VUB Blizzard Challenge 2010 Entry: Towards Automatic Voice Building. In Blizzard Challenge 2010.
Latacz, L., Mattheyses, W. & Verhelst, W (2011). Joint Target and Join Cost Weight Training for Unit Selection Synthesis. In Interspeech 2011, pages 321-324.
Latacz, L., Mattheyses, W. & Verhelst, W (2013). Speaker-Specific Pronunciation for Speech Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialog (TSD 2013), pages pp. 501–508.
Lee, K., Kim, T.-K. & Demiris, Y (2012). Learning Action Symbols for Hierarchical Grammar Induction. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR),, pages pp. 3778-3782, IEEE.
Lewis, M. & Cañamero, L (2013). Are Discrete Emotions Useful in Human-Robot Interaction? Feedback from Motion Capture Analysis. In In proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction.
Lewis, M. & Cañamero, L (2014). An Affective Autonomous Robot Toddler to Support the Development of Self-Efficacy in Diabetic Children. In Accepted at the 23rd Annual IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE RO-MAN 2014).
Lewis, M., Hiolle, A. & Cañamero, L (2014). Pleasure, Persistence and Opportunism in Action Selection. In Accepted at the the 14th conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems, ALIFE 14.
Li, L., Yong Zhao, ., Jiang, D., Zhang, Y., Wang, F., Gonzalez, I. et al (2013). Hybrid Deep Neural Network – Hidden Markov Model (DNN-HMM) Based Speech Emotion Recognition. In Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction – ACII2013.
Lison, P (2011). Multi-Policy Dialogue Management. In Sigdial 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Lison, P. & Kruijff, G.-J (2010). Policy Activation for Open-ended Dialogue Management. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Dialog with Robots (2010).
Lones, J., Cañamero, L. & Lewis, M (2013). Epigenetic adaptation in action selection environments with temporal dynamics. In Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL 2013: Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems., pages pp. 505-512.
Lones, J., Lewis, M. & Cañamero, L (2014). Hormonal modulation of development and behaviour permits a robot to adapt to novel interactions. In Accepted at the 14th conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems, ALIFE 14.
Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A. & Hindriks, K (2014). How to Design and Test Interactive Robots. In HRI 2014 Workshop Paper.
Looije, R., van der Zalm, A., Neerincx, M. A. & Beun, R.-J (2012). Help, I need some body: The effect of embodiment on playful learning. In The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN2012), pages 718-724.
Mattheyses, W., Latacz, L. & Verhelst, W (2011). Auditory and Photo-realistic Audiovisual Speech Synthesis for Dutch. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory-Visual Speech Processing, AVSP2011, pages pp.53 – 58.
Nalin, M., Baroni, I. & Sanna, A (2012). A Motivational Robot Companion for Children in Therapeutic Setting. In IROS 2012.
Nalin, M., Baroni, I., Kruijff-Korbayova, I., Cañamero, L., Lewis, M., Beck, A. et al (2012). Children’s adaptation in multi-session interaction. In IEEE RO-MAN 2012.
Nalin, M., Baroni, I., Sanna, A. & Pozzi, C (2012). Robotic Companion for Diabetic Children. In Conference Interaction Design for Children 2012.
Nalin, M., Bergamini, L., Giusti, A., Baroni, I. & Sanna, A (2011). Children’s perception of a Robotic Companion in a mildly constrained setting. In IEEE/ACM Human-Robot Interaction 2011 Conference (Robots with Children Workshop).
Neerincx, M. (2010). Social Robots for Self-management of Health-promoting Activities. CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, , 3, 36-37.
Nicolao, M. & Cosi, P (2011). Comparing SPHINX vs. SONIC in an Italian Children’s speech recognition system. In 7th Conference of the Italian Association of Speech Sciences.
Nicolao, M., Tesser, F. & Moore, R. K (2013). A phonetic-contrast motivated adaptation to control the degree-of-articulation on Italian HMM-based synthetic voices. In 8th Speech Synthesis Workshop, pages 107–112.
Oveneke, M. C., Enescu, V. & Sahli, H (2012). Real-time Dance Pattern Recognition Invariant to Anthropometric and Temporal Differences. In ADVANCED CONCEPTS FOR INTELLIGENT VISION SYSTEMS (ACIVS 2012), pages 407-419. Springer.
Paci, G., Sommavilla, G. & Cosi, P. (2012). Sad-based italian forced alignment strategies. Evaluation of Natural Language and Speech Tools for Italian, volume 7689 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7689, 322–329.
Pammi, S. & Schroder, M (2011). Evaluating the meaning of synthesized listener vocalizations. In Proceedings – Interspeech 2011.
Pammi, S., Charfuelan, M. & Schroder, M (2010). Multilingual Voice Creation Toolkit for the MARY TTS Platform. In LREC 2010.
Pammi, S., Schroder, M. & Charfuelan, M. (2011). Multidimensional meaning annotation of listener vocalizations for synthesis, Proceedings – Workshop Emotion and Computing, Berlin, Germany, Springer.
Pammi, S., Schroder, M., Charfuelan, M., Turk, O. & Steiner, I (2010). Synthesis of listener vocalisations with imposed intonation contours. In Seventh ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Speech Synthesis 2010.
Read, R. & Belpaeme, T (2010). Interpreting non-linguistic utterances by robots: studying the influence of physical appearance. In Affine 2010 (3rd International Workshop on Affective Interaction in Natural Enviroments.
Read, R. & Belpaeme, T (2012). How to Use Non-Linguistic Utterances to Convey Emotion in Child-Robot Interaction. In HRI’12, Boston USA.
Read, R. & Belpaeme, T (2013a). Using the AffectButton to Measure Affect in Child and Adult-Robot Interaction. In Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2013).
Read, R. & Belpaeme, T (2013b). People Interpret Robotic Non-Linguistic Utterances Categorically. In Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2013).
Read, R. & Belpaeme, T (2014a). Situational Context Directs How People Affectively Interpret Robotic Non-Linguistic Utterances. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’14).
Read, R. & Belpaeme, T (2014b). Non-Linguistic Utterances Should be Used Alongside Language, Rather than on their Own or as a Replacement. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’14).
Ros, R. & Demiris, Y (2014). Creative Dance: An Approach for Social Interaction between Robots and Children. In Workshop on Human Behavior Understanding (HBU). Human Behavior Understanding, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 40-51.
Ros, R., Baroni, I. & Demiris, Y. (2014). Adaptive Human Robot Interaction in Sensorimotor Task Instruction: From Human to Robot Dance Tutors. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol 62(Issue 6, V), 707-720.
Ros, R., Coninx, A., Patsis, G., Enescu, V., Sahli, H. & Demiris, Y (2014). Behavioral Accommodation towards a Dance Robot Tutor. In In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). To appear.
Ros, R., Demiris, Y., Baroni, I. & Nalin, M (2011). Adapting Robot Behavior to User’s Capabilities: a Dance Instruction Study. In HRI (Human-Robot Interaction) Conference 2011.
Ros, R., Nalin, M., Wood, R., Baxter, P., Looije, R. & Demiris, Y (2011). Child-Robot Interaction in The Wild: Advice to the Aspiring Experimenter. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multi-modal interaction 2011, Valencia, Spain., pages 335-342.
Salvi, G., Tesser, F., Zovato, E. & Cosi, P (2010). Cluster Analysis of Differential Spectral Envelopes on Emotional Speech. In Interspeech 2010.
Salvi, G., Tesser, F., Zovato, E. & Cosi, P (2011). Hierarchical Analysis of Spectral Envelopes of an Emotional Voice (Analisi Gerarchica degli Inviluppi Spettrali Differenziali di Una Voce Emotiva). In 7th Conference of the Italian Association of Speech Sciences.
Sarabia, M. & Demiris, Y (2013). A Humanoid Robot Companion for Wheelchair Users. In International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR 2013). Bristol, UK.
Sarabia, M., Ros, R. & Demiris, Y (2011). Towards an open-source social middleware for humanoid robots. In IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pages 670-675.
Schroder, M., Baggia, P., Burkhardt, F., Pelachaud, C., Peter, C. & Zovato, E. (2011). EmotionML – an upcoming standard for representing emotions and related states, In proceedings – Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, Memphis, USA., Springer.
Schroder, M., Charfuelan, M., Pammi, S. & Steiner, I (2011). Open source voice creation toolkit for the MARY TTS Platform. In Proceedings – Interspeech 2011.
Soh, H. & Demiris, Y (2012). Towards Early Mobility Independence: An Intelligent Paediatric Wheelchair with Case Studies. In IEEE/RSJ IROS2012 Workshop on Navigation and Manipulation Assistance for Robotic Wheelchairs.
Soh, H. & Demiris, Y (2013). When and How to Help: An Iterative Probabilistic Model for Learning Assistance by Demonstration. In International Conference on Intelligent Robot and Systems (IROS 2013). Tokyo, Japan.
Soh, H. & Demiris, Y. (2014). Spatio-Temporal Learning with the Online Finite and Infinite Echo-state Gaussian Processes. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, .
Sommavilla, G., Paci, G., Tesser, F. & Cosi, P (2014). Voice controlled child-robot interactions – development of ASR and TTS systems for the Nao robot within the ALIZ-E project. In 13th International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (AIS 2014). Padova, Italy.
Team, A.-E (2012). The ALIZ-E Project: Adaptive Strategies for Sustainable Long-Term Social Interaction. In Presented as a Poster at KI2012.
Tesser, F., Sommavilla, G., Paci, G. & Cosi, P (2013). Experiments with Experiments with Signal-Driven Symbolic Prosody for Statistical Parametric Speech Synthesis. In 8th Speech Synthesis Workshop, pages 183–187.
Tesser, F., Zovato, E. & Cosi, P (2010). Statistical Spectral Envelope Transformation applied to Emotional Speech. In 13th International Conference on Digital Audio Effects.
Tesser, F., Zovato, E., Nicolao, M. & Cosi, P (2010). Two Vocoder Techniques for Neutral to Emotional Timbre Conversion. In 7th Speech Synthesis Workshop (SSW).
Tesser, F., Zovato, E., Nicolao, M. & Cosi, P (2011). Two vocoding techniques for emotional speech synthesis by transformation of the voice timbre (Due techniche di vocoding per la sintesi di parlato emotivo mediante transformazione del timbro vocale). In 7th Conference of the Italian Association of Speech Sciences.
Tielman, M., Neerincx, M., Meyer, J.-J. & Looije, R (2014). Adaptive emotional expression in robot-child interaction. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (HRI ’14), pages 407-414.
van der Drift, E. J., Beun, R.-J., Looije, R., Henkemans, O. A. & Neerincx, M. A (2014). A remote social robot to motivate and support diabetic children in keeping a diary. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (HRI ’14), pages 463-470.
Wang, F., Verhelst, W. & Sahli, H (2011). Relevance Vector Machine based Speech Emotion Recognition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII2011), Memphis, pages ACII (2) 2011: 111-1.
Wang, W., Athanasopoulos, G., Patsis, G., Enescu, V. & Sahli, H (2014). Real-Time Emotion Recognition from Natural Bodily Expressions in Child-Robot Interaction. In 2nd Workshop on Assistive Computer Vision and Robotics (ACVR 2014). Zurich, Switzerland.
Wang, W., Athanasopoulos, G., Yilmazyildiz, S., Patsis, G., Enescu, V., Sahli, H. et al (2014). Natural Emotion Elicitation for Emotion Modeling in Child-Robot Interactions. In 4th Workshop on Child-Computer Interaction (WOCCI 2014) at INTERSPEECH. Singapore, Singapore.
Wang, W., Enescu, V. & Sahli, H (2012). Fast Learning-based Gesture Recognition for Child-robot Interactions. In Workshop on Machine Learning for Interactive Systems (MLIS 2012) – European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012, pages 13-16.
Wang, W., Enescu, V. & Sahli, H (2013). Towards Real-time Continuous Emotion Recognition from Body Movements. Human Behavior Understanding. In Human Behavior Understanding 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 8212, pages 235-245.
Wood, R., Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T (2010). A developmental perspective on memory-centered cognition for social interaction. In The Tenth International Conference on Epigenetic Robotics 2010, pages Poster.
Wood, R., Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T. (2011). A Review of long-term memory in natural and synthetic systems. Journal – Adaptive Behaviour. Adaptive Behavior, .
Wu, P., Jiang, D., Zhang, H. & Sahli, H (2011). Realistic Visual Speech Synthesis Based on AAM Features and an Articulatory DBN Model with Constrained Asynchrony. In Conf. on Audio Visual Speech Processing, pages 59 – 64.
Yilmazyildiz, S., Athanasopoulos, G., Patsis, G., Wang, W., Oveneke, M. C., Latacz, L. et al (2013a). Voice Modification for Wizard-of-Oz Experiments in Robot-Child Interaction. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Affective Social Speech Signals.
Yilmazyildiz, S., Henderickx, D., Vanderborght, B., Verhelst, W., Soetens, E. & Lefeber, D (2013b). Multi-Modal Emotion Expression for Affective Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Affective Social Speech Signals.
Yilmazyildiz, S., Henderickx, D., Vanderborght, B., Verhelst, W., Soetens, E. & Lefeber, D (2011). EMOGIB: Emotional Gibberish Speech Database for Affective Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII2011), Memphis, Tennessee, 2011, pages 163 – 172. Springer.
Yilmazyildiz, S., Latacz, L., Mattheyses, W. & Verhelst, W (2010). Expressive Gibberish Speech Synthesis for Affective Human-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialogue TSD 2010. Springer.
Yilmazyildiz, S., Patsis, Y., Verhelst, W., Henderickx, D., Soetens, E., Athanasopoulos, G. et al (2012). Voice Style Study for Human-Friendly Robots: Influence of the Physical Appearance. In 5th International Workshop on Human-Friendly Robotics (HFR 2012).
Yilmazyildiz, S., Verhelst, W. & Sahli, H. (2014). Gibberish speech as a tool for the study of affective expressiveness for robotic agents. Multimedia Tools and Applications, .
Zito, C., Tesser, F., Nicolao, M. & Cosi, P (2011). Statistical context-dependent units boundary correction for corpus-based unit-selection text-to-speech. (Correzione statistica dell’allineamento forzato di corpora per sistemi di sintesi concatenativi basata su informazioni contestuali). In 7th Conference of the Italian Association of Speech Sciences.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


PHILLIPS, United States Attorney for District of New Jersey.
The question for our decision is whether the jurisdiction of the district court below to enjoin the enforcement of price regulations prescribed by the Administrator under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 23, was validly withdrawn by § 204(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 924(d). Appellants brought this suit in the district court for the District of New Jersey for an injunction restraining appellee, the United States Attorney for that district, from the prosecution of pending and prospective criminal proceedings against appellants for violation of §§ 4(a) and 205(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix §§ 904(a), 925(b), and of Maximum Price Regulation No. 169. In view of the provisions of § 204(d) of the Act, the district court of three judges, 28 U.S.C. § 380a, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380a dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction to entertain it.
The amended bill of complaint alleges that appellants are established merchants owning valuable wholesale meat businesses, in the course of which they purchase meat from packers and sell it at wholesale to retail dealers; that Maximum Price Regulation No. 169, promulgated by the Price Administrator under the purported authority of § 2(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.A.C.Appendix § 902(a), as originally issued and as revised, fixed maximum wholesale prices for specified cuts of beef; that in fixing such prices the Administrator had failed to give due consideration to the various factors affecting the cost of production and distribution of meat in the industry as a whole; that the Administrator had failed to fix or regulate the price of livestock; that the conditions in the industry—including the quantity of meat available to packers for distribution to wholesalers, the packers' expectation of profit, and the effect of these conditions upon the prices of meat sold by packers to wholesalers—are such that appellants are and will be unable to obtain a supply of meat from packers which they can resell to retail dealers within the prices fixed by Regulation No. 169; that enforcement of the Regulation will preclude appellants' continuance in business as meat wholesalers; that the Act as thus applied to appellants is a denial of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and involves an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the Administrator; that appellee threatens to prosecute appellants for each sale of meat at a price greater than that fixed by the Regulation, and to subject them to the fine and imprisonment prescribed by §§ 4 and 205(b) of the Act for violations of the Act or of price regulations prescribed by the Administrator under the Act; and that such enforcement by repeated prosecutions of appellants will irreparably injure them in their business and property.
By § 204(a), 'Any person who is aggrieved by the denial or partial denial of his protest may, within thirty days after such denial, file a complaint with the Emergency Court of Appeals, created pursuant to subsection (c), specifying his objections and praying that the regulation, order, or price schedule protested be enjoined or set aside in whole or in part.' Subsection (b) provides that no regulation, order, or price schedule, shall be enjoined 'unless the complainant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the regulation, order, or price schedule is not in accordance with law, or is arbitrary or capricious'. Under subsections (b) and (d), decisions of the Emergency Court may, by writ of certiorari, be brought for review to the Supreme Court, which is required to advance the cause on its docket and to expedite the disposition of it.
Although by following the procedure prescribed by these provisions of the Act appellants could have raised and obtained review of the questions presented by their bill of complaint, they did not protest the price regulation which they challenge and they took no proceedings for review of it by the Emergency Court. Appellants are thus seeking the aid of the district court to restrain the enforcement of an administrative order without pursuing the administrative remedy provided by the statute (cf. Illinois Commerce Commission v. Thomson, 318 U.S. 675, 63 S.Ct 834, 839, 87 L.Ed. —-, decided April 12, 1943), and without recourse to the judicial review by the Emergency Court of Appeals and by this Court which the statute affords.
By this statute Congress has seen fit to confer on the Emergency Court (and on the Supreme Court upon review of decisions of the Emergency Court) equity jurisdiction to restrain the enforcement of price orders under the Emergency Price Control Act. At the same time it has withdrawn that jurisdiction from every other federal and state court. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires Congress to confer equity jurisdiction on any particular inferior federal court. All federal courts, other than the Supreme Court, derive their jurisdiction wholly from the exercise of the authority to 'ordain and establish' inferior courts, conferred on Congress by Article III, § 1, of the Constitution. Article III left Congress free to establish inferior federal courts or not as it thought appropriate. It could have declined to create any such courts, leaving suitors to the remedies afforded by state courts, with such appellate review by this Court as Congress might prescribe. Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82, 67 L.Ed. 226, 24 A.L.R. 1077, and cases cited; McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420. The Congressional power to ordain and establish inferior courts includes the power 'of investing them with jurisdiction either limited, concurrent, or exclusive, and of withholding jurisdiction from them in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good'. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576; Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323, 330, 58 S.Ct. 578, 582, 82 L.Ed. 872; Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506, 509, 36 S.Ct. 202, 203, 60 L.Ed. 409; Smallwood v. Gallardo, 275 U.S. 56, 48 S.Ct. 23, 72 L.Ed. 152; Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 129, 62 S.Ct. 139, 141, 86 L.Ed. 100, 137 A.L.R. 967. See, also, United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 33, 3 L.Ed. 259; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252, 18 L.Ed. 851; Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 167, 25 S.Ct. 6, 7, 49 L.Ed. 142; Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U.S. 1, 24, 26 S.Ct. 387, 393, 50 L.Ed. 633, 5 Ann.Cas. 692; Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 376, 60 S.Ct. 317, 319, 84 L.Ed. 329. In the light of the explicit language of the Constitution and our decisions, it is plain that Congress has power to provide that the equity jurisdiction to restrain enforcement of the Act, or of regulations promulgated under it, be restricted to the Emergency Court, and, upon review of its decisions, to this Court. Nor can we doubt the authority of Congress to require that a plaintiff seeking such equitable relief resort to the Emergency Court only after pursuing the prescribed administrative procedure.
Appellants argue that the command of § 204(d) that 'no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to * * * restrain, enjoin, or set aside * * * any provision of this Act' extends beyond the mere denial of equitable relief by way of injunction, and withholds from all courts authority to pass upon the constitutionality of any provision of the Act or of any order or regulation under it. They insist that the phrase 'set aside' is to be read broadly, as meaning that no court can declare unconstitutional any such provision, and that consequently the effect of the statute is to deny to those aggrieved, by statute or regulation, their day in court to challenge its constitutionality. But the statute expressly excepts from this command those remedies afforded by § 204, including that of subsection (b), which gives to complainants a right to an injunction whenever they establish to the satisfaction of the Emergency Court that the regulation, order, or price schedule is 'not in accordance with law, or is arbitrary or capricious'. A construction of the statute which would deny all opportunity for judicial determination of an asserted constitutional right is not to be favored. The present Act has at least saved to the Emergency Court, and, upon review of its decisions, to this Court, authority to determine whether any regulation, order, or price schedule promulgated under the Act is 'not in accordance with law, or is arbitrary or capricious'. We think it plain that orders and regulations involving an unconstitutional application of the statute are 'not in accordance with law' within the meaning of this clause, and that the constitutional validity of the Act, and of orders and regulations under it, may be determined upon the prescribed review in the Emergency Court.
Appellants also contend that the review in the Emergency Court is inadequate to protect their constitutional rights, and that § 204 is therefore unconstitutional, because § 204(c) prohibits all interlocutory relief by that court. We need not pass upon the constitutionality of this restriction. For in any event, the separability clause of § 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 943, would require us to give effect to the other provisions of § 204, including that withholding from the district courts authority to enjoin enforcement of the Act—a provision which as we have seen is subject to no unconstitutional infirmity.


text:
The Board of Trustees of the J. V. Fletcher Library hold and control Trust Funds and bequests donated to the Board or Library by grateful and civic-minded individuals and organizations wishing to contribute to the quality of the Westford public library. The Board embraces the well-established principle that library trust funds and bequests must not be used to offset municipal budgetary shortfalls; the J. V. Fletcher Library must be supported by public funds allocated through the municipal budgetary process. The J. V. Fletcher Library Board of Trustees affirms that the following funds are designated solely for the enhancement and enrichment of public library services.
The Board of Trustees of the J. V. Fletcher Library administers six trust funds created from bequests and gifts to the Board and from sale by the Board of physical assets. The uses allowed for each funds principal and income are controlled by a variety of restrictions placed upon the funds by the original grantors.
#672, Library Trustee Fund: For any purpose deemed worthwhile by the Trustees, but especially for preservation and conservation of collections and assets, due to the creation of this fund from the sale of Trustee assets.
#673, All-Purpose Fund: For any purpose deemed worthwhile by the Trustees; created from undesignated gifts of donors.
#674, Book Fund: For purchase of books, tapes, art works and related materials; created from designated donor gifts for the purchase of print and non-print collections.
#675, Lecture Trust Fund: To fund museum passes, lectures, programs, and similar events; created from the gift of Mary Atwood for the purpose of giving lectures.
#676, J. V. Fletcher Library Trust Fund: For any purpose deemed worthwhile by the Trustees (both principal and income); formerly the account receiving state aid monies.
#677, Ellen D. Rainville Continuing Education Fund: To support the continuing education efforts of any member of the library staff; created from the gift of Ella LaMontagne and so named by the Board in appreciation of Ellen Rainville's work on the 1986-88 addition and renovation.
The primary investment goal for trust funds shall be the conservation of capital. The secondary goal shall be the maximizing of income from investments.
In keeping with the policy the Treasurer shall seek out and invest in suitable financial instruments of the type generally accepted to be appropriate for the investment of public or governmental monies.
To prevent the deterioration of capital due to inflation, the Trustees shall consider the reinvestment of a portion of the income from investments. The exact amount will be determined annually.
By Board vote on 11/4/2002, library trust cash funds shall be pooled for investment purposes with other trust funds and Town monies, e.g., the Stabilization Fund. By the same vote, the Board has delegated the choice of investment instruments and institutions to the Town Finance Director or his/her designee. The Trustees reserve the right to withdraw these funds from the Town investment pool and to invest them independently.
Town funds are currently invested at Mellon Asset Management Company (as of 7/1/01). Monthly statements are sent to the Town Finance Director.
Library trust cash funds shall be accounted for separately by the investment institution(s), and shall be reconciled with records maintained by the Board Treasurer or his/her designee, the Library Director.
Library trust fund cash accounts shall be audited annually by an independent agency.
The Trustees reserve the right to expend funds for any good cause, regardless of the above prioritization, depending upon the nature and severity of needs that may arise from time to time.
The Board of Trustees of the J. V. Fletcher Library holds securities which are gifts and bequests from donors over time. These securities are held in the "Benefactors Fund" and comprise the original gift of William C. Roudenbush in 1967 as well as stock donated by Gordon Seavey in 1986.
The primary investment goal for securities shall be growth and the increase of principal.
By vote of the Board on 5/3/04, securities held as of that date shall be invested with T. D. Waterhouse and managed by Carpenter Associates per the recommendation of the Board Treasurer and Trustee Finance Committee. Dividends and interest shall be re-invested in the fund portfolio and any future undesignated stock gifts shall be aggregated to this fund. The Board Treasurer, after consultation with reputable investment advisors, shall periodically recommend to the Board whether securities held by the Trustees should be exchanged for other securities or otherwise invested.
The Benefactors' Fund shall be deemed expendable only under emergency conditions or for capital needs. A unanimous vote of the Board of Library Trustees shall be necessary for expenditure from this fund.
The authorization of the majority of the Board present and the signature of the Trustee Treasurer shall be required for any withdrawal, dividend deposit or expenditure of trust funds, and for the sale, purchase or exchange of securities.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V.


So in original. Probably should be “subtitle”.
(11) in the case of a multiemployer plan, by an employee representative, or any employer that has an obligation to contribute to the plan, (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates subsection (k) of section 1021 of this title (or, in the case of an employer, subsection (l) of such section), or (B) to obtain appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violation or (ii) to enforce such subsection.
(B) one or more participants, beneficiaries, or fiduciaries, of such plan request in writing (in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation) that he exercise such authority on their behalf. In the case of such a request under this paragraph he may exercise such authority only if he determines that such violation affects, or such enforcement is necessary to protect, claims of participants or beneficiaries to benefits under the plan.
(2) The Secretary shall not initiate an action to enforce section 1145 of this title.
(3) Except as provided in subsections (c)(9) and (a)(6) (with respect to collecting civil penalties under subsection (c)(9)), the Secretary is not authorized to enforce under this part any requirement of part 7 against a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan (as defined in section 1191b(a)(1) of this title). Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the authority of the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out such part.
(1) Any administrator (A) who fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4) of section 1166 2 of this title, section 1021(e)(1) of this title, section 1021(f) of this title, or section 1025(a) of this title with respect to a participant or beneficiary, or (B) who fails or refuses to comply with a request for any information which such administrator is required by this subchapter to furnish to a participant or beneficiary (unless such failure or refusal results from matters reasonably beyond the control of the administrator) by mailing the material requested to the last known address of the requesting participant or beneficiary within 30 days after such request may in the court’s discretion be personally liable to such participant or beneficiary in the amount of up to $100 a day from the date of such failure or refusal, and the court may in its discretion order such other relief as it deems proper. For purposes of this paragraph, each violation described in subparagraph (A) with respect to any single participant, and each violation described in subparagraph (B) with respect to any single participant or beneficiary, shall be treated as a separate violation.
(2) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against any plan administrator of up to $1,000 a day from the date of such plan administrator’s failure or refusal to file the annual report required to be filed with the Secretary under section 1021(b)(1) of this title. For purposes of this paragraph, an annual report that has been rejected under section 1024(a)(4) of this title for failure to provide material information shall not be treated as having been filed with the Secretary.
(3) Any employer maintaining a plan who fails to meet the notice requirement of section 1021(d) of this title with respect to any participant or beneficiary or who fails to meet the requirements of section 1021(e)(2) of this title with respect to any person or who fails to meet the requirements of section 1082(d)(12)(E) 2 of this title with respect to any person may in the court’s discretion be liable to such participant or beneficiary or to such person in the amount of up to $100 a day from the date of such failure, and the court may in its discretion order such other relief as it deems proper.
(4) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 a day for each violation by any person of subsection (j), (k), or (l) of section 1021 of this title or section 1144(e)(3) of this title.
(5) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against any person of up to $1,000 a day from the date of the person’s failure or refusal to file the information required to be filed by such person with the Secretary under regulations prescribed pursuant to section 1021(g) of this title.
(6) If, within 30 days of a request by the Secretary to a plan administrator for documents under section 1024(a)(6) of this title, the plan administrator fails to furnish the material requested to the Secretary, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty against the plan administrator of up to $100 a day from the date of such failure (but in no event in excess of $1,000 per request). No penalty shall be imposed under this paragraph for any failure resulting from matters reasonably beyond the control of the plan administrator.
(7) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against a plan administrator of up to $100 a day from the date of the plan administrator’s failure or refusal to provide notice to participants and beneficiaries in accordance with subsection (i) or (m) of section 1021 of this title. For purposes of this paragraph, each violation with respect to any single participant or beneficiary shall be treated as a separate violation.
(B) in the case of a plan in endangered status which is not in seriously endangered status, for failure by the plan to meet the applicable benchmarks under section 1085 of this title by the end of the funding improvement period with respect to the plan.
(A) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against any employer of up to $100 a day from the date of the employer’s failure to meet the notice requirement of section 1181(f)(3)(B)(i)(I) of this title. For purposes of this subparagraph, each violation with respect to any single employee shall be treated as a separate violation.
(B) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against any plan administrator of up to $100 a day from the date of the plan administrator’s failure to timely provide to any State the information required to be disclosed under section 1181(f)(3)(B)(ii) of this title. For purposes of this subparagraph, each violation with respect to any single participant or beneficiary shall be treated as a separate violation.
(A) General rule.— The Secretary may impose a penalty against any plan sponsor of a group health plan, or any health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in connection with the plan, for any failure by such sponsor or issuer to meet the requirements of subsection (a)(1)(F), (b)(3), (c), or (d) of section 1182 of this title or section 1181 or 1182(b)(1) of this title with respect to genetic information, in connection with the plan.
(i) In general.— The amount of the penalty imposed by subparagraph (A) shall be $100 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to each participant or beneficiary to whom such failure relates.
(II) ending on the date the failure is corrected.
(ii) Higher minimum penalty where violations are more than de minimis.— To the extent violations for which any person is liable under this paragraph for any year are more than de minimis, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting “$15,000” for “$2,500” with respect to such person.
(i) Penalty not to apply where failure not discovered exercising reasonable diligence.— No penalty shall be imposed by subparagraph (A) on any failure during any period for which it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the person otherwise liable for such penalty did not know, and exercising reasonable diligence would not have known, that such failure existed.
(II) such failure is corrected during the 30-day period beginning on the first date the person otherwise liable for such penalty knew, or exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
(E) Waiver by secretary.— In the case of a failure which is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the Secretary may waive part or all of the penalty imposed by subparagraph (A) to the extent that the payment of such penalty would be excessive relative to the failure involved.
(F) Definitions.— Terms used in this paragraph which are defined in section 1191b of this title shall have the meanings provided such terms in such section.
(11) The Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain such ongoing consultation as may be necessary and appropriate to coordinate enforcement under this subsection with enforcement under section 1320b–14(c)(8) 2 of title 42.
(12) The Secretary may assess a civil penalty against any sponsor of a CSEC plan of up to $100 a day from the date of the plan sponsor’s failure to comply with the requirements of section 1085a(j)(3) of this title to establish or update a funding restoration plan.
(1) An employee benefit plan may sue or be sued under this subchapter as an entity. Service of summons, subpena, or other legal process of a court upon a trustee or an administrator of an employee benefit plan in his capacity as such shall constitute service upon the employee benefit plan. In a case where a plan has not designated in the summary plan description of the plan an individual as agent for the service of legal process, service upon the Secretary shall constitute such service. The Secretary, not later than 15 days after receipt of service under the preceding sentence, shall notify the administrator or any trustee of the plan of receipt of such service.
(1) Except for actions under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section, the district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this subchapter brought by the Secretary or by a participant, beneficiary, fiduciary, or any person referred to in section 1021(f)(1) of this title. State courts of competent jurisdiction and district courts of the United States shall have concurrent jurisdiction of actions under paragraphs (1)(B) and (7) of subsection (a) of this section.
(2) Where an action under this subchapter is brought in a district court of the United States, it may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found, and process may be served in any other district where a defendant resides or may be found.
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without respect to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to grant the relief provided for in subsection (a) of this section in any action.
(1) In any action under this subchapter (other than an action described in paragraph (2)) by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.
(E) such other legal or equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.
For purposes of this paragraph, interest on unpaid contributions shall be determined by using the rate provided under the plan, or, if none, the rate prescribed under section 6621 of title 26.
A copy of the complaint in any action under this subchapter by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (other than an action brought by one or more participants or beneficiaries under subsection (a)(1)(B) which is solely for the purpose of recovering benefits due such participants under the terms of the plan) shall be served upon the Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury by certified mail. Either Secretary shall have the right in his discretion to intervene in any action, except that the Secretary of the Treasury may not intervene in any action under part 4 of this subtitle. If the Secretary brings an action under subsection (a) on behalf of a participant or beneficiary, he shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury.
In the case of a transaction prohibited by section 1106 of this title by a party in interest with respect to a plan to which this part applies, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty against such party in interest. The amount of such penalty may not exceed 5 percent of the amount involved in each such transaction (as defined in section 4975(f)(4) of title 26) for each year or part thereof during which the prohibited transaction continues, except that, if the transaction is not corrected (in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe in regulations which shall be consistent with section 4975(f)(5) of title 26) within 90 days after notice from the Secretary (or such longer period as the Secretary may permit), such penalty may be in an amount not more than 100 percent of the amount involved. This subsection shall not apply to a transaction with respect to a plan described in section 4975(e)(1) of title 26.
In all civil actions under this subchapter, attorneys appointed by the Secretary may represent the Secretary (except as provided in section 518(a) of title 28), but all such litigation shall be subject to the direction and control of the Attorney General.
Suits by an administrator, fiduciary, participant, or beneficiary of an employee benefit plan to review a final order of the Secretary, to restrain the Secretary from taking any action contrary to the provisions of this chapter, or to compel him to take action required under this subchapter, may be brought in the district court of the United States for the district where the plan has its principal office, or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
the Secretary shall assess a civil penalty against such fiduciary or other person in an amount equal to 20 percent of the applicable recovery amount.
(B) ordered by a court to be paid by such fiduciary or other person to a plan or its participants and beneficiaries in a judicial proceeding instituted by the Secretary under subsection (a)(2) or (a)(5).
(B) it is reasonable to expect that the fiduciary or other person will not be able to restore all losses to the plan (or to provide the relief ordered pursuant to subsection (a)(9)) without severe financial hardship unless such waiver or reduction is granted.
(4) The penalty imposed on a fiduciary or other person under this subsection with respect to any transaction shall be reduced by the amount of any penalty or tax imposed on such fiduciary or other person with respect to such transaction under subsection (i) of this section and section 4975 of title 26.
In the case of a distribution to a pension plan participant or beneficiary in violation of section 1056(e) of this title by a plan fiduciary, the Secretary shall assess a penalty against such fiduciary in an amount equal to the value of the distribution. Such penalty shall not exceed $10,000 for each such distribution.
Section 405(a) of title 26, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), was repealed by Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, § 491(a), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 848.
Paragraphs (1) and (4) of section 1166 of this title, referred to in subsec. (c)(1), were redesignated as pars. (1) and (4) of section 1166(a) of this title by Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7891(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2445.
Section 1082 of this title, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), was repealed and a new section 1082 was enacted by Pub. L. 109–280, title I, § 101(a), (b), Aug. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 784, and, as so enacted, section 1082 of this title no longer contains a subsec. (d)(12)(E).
Section 1320b–14 of title 42, referred to in subsec. (c)(11), was repealed by Pub. L. 104–226, § 1(a), Oct. 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 3033, and a new section 1320b–14 of title 42, which does not contain a subsec. (c)(8), was enacted by Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(6) [title IX, § 911(a)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–583.
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (k), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 93–406, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.
Another section 306(b)(3) of Pub. L. 107–204 is classified to section 7244(b)(3) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
2014—Subsec. (a)(11). Pub. L. 113–235 added par. (11).
Subsec. (c)(10) to (12). Pub. L. 113–97 redesignated par. (10) relating to ongoing consultation by the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services as par. (11) and added par. (12).
2009—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 111–3, § 311(b)(1)(E)(i), which directed the substitution of “(8), or (9)” for “or (8)”, could not be executed because the words “or (8)” did not appear after the amendment by Pub. L. 110–233, § 101(e)(1). See 2008 Amendment note below.
Subsec. (c)(9), (10). Pub. L. 111–3, § 311(b)(1)(E)(ii), added par. (9) and redesignated former par. (9) as (10) relating to Secretarial enforcement authority relating to use of genetic information.
2008—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 110–233, § 101(e)(1), substituted “(7), (8), or (9)” for “(7), or (8)”.
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 110–233, § 101(e)(2), substituted “Except as provided in subsections (c)(9) and (a)(6) (with respect to collecting civil penalties under subsection (c)(9)), the Secretary” for “The Secretary”.
Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 110–458, § 102(b)(1)(H), substituted “1021(b)(1)” for “1021(b)(4)”.
Subsec. (c)(8)(A). Pub. L. 110–458, § 102(b)(1)(I), inserted “plan” after “multiemployer”.
Subsec. (c)(9), (10). Pub. L. 110–233, § 101(e)(3), added par. (9) and redesignated former par. (9) as (10).
2006—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 109–280, § 202(b)(1), substituted “(6), (7), or (8)” for “(6), or (7)”.
Subsec. (a)(8) to (10). Pub. L. 109–280, § 202(c), amended subsec. (a) by striking out “or” at end of par. (8), substituting “; or” for period at end of par. (9), and adding par. (10).
Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 109–280, § 508(a)(2)(C), substituted “section 1021(f) of this title, or section 1025(a) of this title” for “or section 1021(f) of this title”.
Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 109–280, § 902(f)(2), which directed amendment of par. (4) by substituting “, section 1082(b)(7)(F)(vi) of this title, or section 1144(e)(3) of this title” for “or section 1082(b)(7)(F)(vi) of this title”, was executed by making the substitution for “or 1082(b)(7)(F)(iv) of this title”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Pub. L. 109–280, § 502(b)(2), which directed amendment of par. (4) by substituting “subsection (j), (k), or (l) of section 1021 of this title” for “section 1021(j) or (k) of this title”, was executed by making the substitution for “subsection (j) or (k) of section 1021 of this title”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Pub. L. 109–280, § 502(a)(2), substituted “subsection (j) or (k) of section 1021 of this title” for “section 1021(j)”.
Pub. L. 109–280, § 103(b)(2), which directed amendment of par. (4) by substituting “section 1021(j) or 1082(b)(7)(F)(iv) of this title” for “section 1082(b)(7)(F)(iv) of this title”, was executed by making the substitution for “section 1082(b)(7)(F)(vi) of this title”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. L. 109–280, § 507(b), substituted “subsection (i) or (m) of section 1021” for “section 1021(i)”.
Subsec. (c)(8), (9). Pub. L. 109–280, § 202(b)(2), (3), added par. (8) and redesignated former par. (8) as (9).
2004—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 108–218, § 103(b), substituted “, section 1021(e)(1) of this title, or section 1021(f) of this title” for “or section 1021(e)(1) of this title”.
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–218, § 102(d), inserted “or who fails to meet the requirements of section 1082(d)(12)(E) of this title with respect to any person” after “1021(e)(2) of this title with respect to any person”.
2002—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 107–204, § 306(b)(3)(A), substituted “(5), (6), or (7)” for “(5), or (6)”.
Subsec. (c)(7), (8). Pub. L. 107–204, § 306(b)(3)(B), (C), added par. (7) and redesignated former par. (7) as (8).
1997—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 105–34, § 1503(d)(7), substituted “(5), or (6)” for “or (5)”.
Subsec. (c)(6), (7). Pub. L. 105–34, § 1503(c)(2)(B), added par. (6) and redesignated former par. (6) as (7).
1996—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 104–191, § 101(e)(2)(A)(i), substituted “under paragraph (2), (4), or (5) of subsection (c) or under subsection (i) or (l)” for “under subsection (c)(2) or (i) or (l) of this section”.
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 104–204 made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 1191b of this title.
Pub. L. 104–191, § 101(b), added par. (3).
Subsec. (c)(4) to (6). Pub. L. 104–191, § 101(e)(2)(A)(ii), struck out “For purposes of this paragraph, each violation described in subparagraph (A) with respect to any single participant, and each violation described in subparagraph (B) with respect to any single participant or beneficiary, shall be treated as a separate violation. The Secretary and” after “section 1021(f)(1) of this title.”, redesignated “the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall maintain such ongoing consultation as may be necessary and appropriate to coordinate enforcement under this subsection with enforcement under section 1320b–14(c)(8) of title 42.” as par. (6) and inserted “The Secretary and” before “the Secretary of Health and Human Services”, and added par. (5).
1994—Subsec. (a)(9). Pub. L. 103–401, § 2, added par. (9).
Subsec. (l)(3)(B). Pub. L. 103–401, § 3, inserted “(or to provide the relief ordered pursuant to subsection (a)(9))” after “to restore all losses to the plan”.
Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 103–465 added subsec. (m).
1993—Subsec. (a)(7), (8). Pub. L. 103–66, § 4301(c)(1), added pars. (7) and (8).
Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 103–66, § 4301(c)(2), added par. (4).
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 103–66, § 4301(c)(3), substituted in first sentence “fiduciary, or any person referred to in section 1021(f)(1) of this title” for “or fiduciary” and in second sentence “paragraphs (1)(B) and (7) of subsection (a)” for “subsection (a)(1)(B)”.
1990—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 101–508, § 12012(d)(2)(A), inserted “or section 1021(e)(1) of this title” after “section 1166 of this title”.
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 101–508, § 12012(d)(2)(B), inserted “or who fails to meet the requirements of section 1021(e)(2) of this title with respect to any person” after first reference to “beneficiary” and “or to such person” after second reference to “beneficiary”.
1989—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7881(j)(2), substituted “subsection (c)(2) or (i)” for “subsection (i)”.
Pub. L. 101–239, § 2101(b), inserted “or (l)” after “subsection (i)”.
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7894(f)(1), substituted “respect” for “respct” before “to a violation” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7881(j)(3), inserted “against any plan administrator” after “civil penalty” and substituted “such plan administrator’s” for “a plan administrator’s”.
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7881(b)(5)(B), added par. (3).
Subsec. (g)(2). Pub. L. 101–239, § 7891(a)(1), substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, which for purposes of codification was translated as “title 26” thus requiring no change in text.
Subsec. (l). Pub. L. 101–239, § 2101(a), added subsec. (l).
1987—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–203, § 9342(c), designated existing provision as par. (1), redesignated as cls. (A) and (B) former cls. (1) and (2), and added par. (2).
1986—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–272 inserted “(1) who fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4) of section 1166 of this title with respect to a participant or beneficiary, or (2)”.
1980—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–364, § 306(b)(1), redesignated existing provisions as par. (1)(A) and (B) and added par. (2).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 96–364, § 306(b)(2), redesignated existing provisions as par. (1), inserted exception for actions under paragraph (2), and added par. (2).
Amendment by Pub. L. 113–235 applicable with respect to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2014, see section 111(e) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note under section 1021 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 113–97 applicable to years beginning after Dec. 31, 2013, see section 3 of Pub. L. 113–97, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Amendment by Pub. L. 111–3 effective Apr. 1, 2009, and applicable to child health assistance and medical assistance provided on or after that date, with certain exceptions, see section 3 of Pub. L. 111–3, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1396 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Amendment by section 103(b)(2) of Pub. L. 109–280 applicable to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2007, with collective bargaining exception, see section 103(c) of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as a note under section 1021 of this title.
Amendment by section 202(b), (c) of Pub. L. 109–280 applicable with respect to plan years beginning after 2007, with special rules for certain notices and certain restored benefits, see section 202(f) of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as a note under section 1082 of this title.
Amendment by section 502(a)(2), (b)(2) of Pub. L. 109–280 applicable to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2007, see section 502(d) of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as a note under section 4980F of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Amendment by section 507(b) of Pub. L. 109–280 applicable to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2006, see section 507(d)(1) of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as a note under section 1021 of this title.
Amendment by section 508(a)(2)(C) of Pub. L. 109–280 applicable to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2006, with special rule for collectively bargained agreements that were ratified on or before such date, see section 508(c) of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as a note under section 1025 of this title.
Amendment by section 902(f)(2) effective Aug. 17, 2006, see section 902(g) of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Amendment by section 103(b) of Pub. L. 108–218 applicable to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2004, see section 103(d) of Pub. L. 108–218, set out as a note under section 1021 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–204 effective 180 days after July 30, 2002, see section 7244(c) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–204 applicable with respect to group health plans for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1998, see section 603(c) of Pub. L. 104–204 set out as a note under section 1003 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–191 applicable with respect to group health plans for plan years beginning after June 30, 1997, except as otherwise provided, see section 101(g) of Pub. L. 104–191, set out as a note under section 1181 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 103–465 applicable to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 1994, see section 761(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–465, set out as a note under section 1056 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 101–508 applicable to qualified transfers under section 420 of title 26 made after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 12012(e) of Pub. L. 101–508, set out as a note under section 1021 of this title.
Amendment by section 7881(b)(5)(B), (j)(2), (3) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Pension Protection Act, Pub. L. 100–203, §§ 9302–9346, to which such amendment relates, see section 7882 of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
Amendment by section 7894(f)(1) of Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if originally included in the provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93–406, to which such amendment relates, see section 7894(i) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.
“(1) In general.— The amendments made by this section [amending this section and sections 1023, 1024, and 1113 of this title] shall apply with respect to reports required to be filed after December 31, 1987.
Amendment by Pub. L. 99–272 applicable to plan years beginning on or after July 1, 1986, with special rule for collective bargaining agreements, see section 10002(d) of Pub. L. 99–272, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1161 of this title.
Secretary authorized, effective Sept. 2, 1974, to promulgate regulations wherever provisions of this subchapter call for the promulgation of regulations, see section 1031 of this title.
For special rules on applicability of amendments by subtitles A (§§ 101–108) and B (§§ 111–116) of title I of Pub. L. 109–280 to certain eligible cooperative plans, PBGC settlement plans, and eligible government contractor plans, see sections 104, 105, and 106 of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as notes under section 401 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
For applicability of amendment by section 202(b), (c) of Pub. L. 109–280 to a multiemployer plan that is a party to an agreement that was approved by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation prior to June 30, 2005, and that increases benefits and provides for certain withdrawal liability rules, see section 206 of Pub. L. 109–280, set out as a note under section 412 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
For provisions directing that if any amendment made by section 306(b) of Pub. L. 107–204 requires an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after July 30, 2002, see section 7244(b)(3) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
For provisions setting forth circumstances under which any amendment to a plan required to be made by an amendment made by section 4301 of Pub. L. 103–66 shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1994, see section 4301(d) of Pub. L. 103–66, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 1021 of this title.