alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

February 7, 2012 

Mr. Richard Keigwin, Director

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Keigwin:

Subject: Poison Control Center Data - 12 Month Comparisons – Domestic Animals

In our January 12, 2012 letter to you, we indicated that 2011fourth quarter reportable 6(a)2 data 

would become available in early February 2012 from Safety Call, International, our 24/7 emergency 

medical advice line. With these data, we are now able to provide results from a complete year’s 

(2011) reporting of 6(a)2 reportable domestic animal incidents for our post-mitigation consumer 

products which consist of a bromethalin block with either a Tier 1 or Tier 3 bait station. Data show 

0 domestic animal deaths and a 50% reduction of reportable major, moderate and minor 

domestic animal incidents.

Mitigation compliant products account for 0 domestic animal deaths in over 10 million mouse 

placements in 2011 whereas pre-mitigation products account for 7.1, 2.5 and 2.4 domestic animal 

deaths per 10 million mouse placements for 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. See Figure 1. 

The major, moderate, and minor domestic animal incidents, separated by severity, are shown in 

Figure 2. The mitigation compliant products for these categories account for a total of 35.7 

domestic animal incidents per 10 million mouse placements in 2011 compared to 71.2, 72.3 and 

70.9 total domestic animal incidents per 10 million mouse placements for 2008, 2009 and 2010, 

respectively. The mitigation compliant products show a clear reduction of domestic animal 

incidents in each category compared to the pre-mitigation products.

The market data for the 12 month period (January 1 through Dec 31, 2012), consisting of postmitigation products only [bromethalin based block bait with a bait station(s)], indicate that the 

compliant products do meet EPA’s intent under the RMD by substantially reducing the reportable

domestic animal incidents.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need any more information.

Sincerely,

John Lublinkhof, Ph.D.

Director of Regulatory Affairs
 Page 2 of 2

7.1

2.5 2.4

0.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Incidents (per 10MM Placements)

Incidents 7.1 2.5 2.4 0.0

2008 Pre-Mitigation 2009 Pre-Mitigation 2010 Pre-Mitigation 2011 Post Mitigation

71.2 72.3 70.9

35.7

0

25

50

75

100

Incidents per 10 MM Placements

Major 2.6 2.2 1.2 0.6

Moderate 24.3 22.1 23.6 10.9

Minor 44.3 48.0 45.8 24.2

2008 PreMitigation2009 PreMitigation2010 PreMitigation2011 PostMitigation

Figure 1 – 6(a)(2) Domestic Animal Deaths for Consumer Products – 12 month period

Figure 2 - 6(a)(2) Domestic Animals Incidents for Consumer Products – 12 month period
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Clear Day Aviation, Inc. 

2013EA390075 

Judge Not Assigned 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby notifies the United States 

Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Respondent, pursuant to 14 

C.F .R. § 13 .204(b ), that it shall be represented in the above-stated action by the attorney 

listed below. All communications, notices, pleadings, or documents are respectfully 

requested to be forwarded as follows:: 

Zachary M. Berman 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Telephone: 718 553-3258 

Facsimile: 718 995-5699 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

RECEIVED 

JUL 1 7 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

By 

Zachary~nnan ~~ Attorney 

Dated:.~'f-'---/ (---'-zr_) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this day copies of the foregoing Notice of Appearance were placed 

in the United States mail, postage prepaid, Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

addressed as follows: 

H. Bruce Brandon, Esq. 

349 South Aviation Drive 

Burlington, NC 27215 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

-IF FILING BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

600 Independence A venue, S W 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

~.~# a Hooks 

Date:._J_UL_l_4 _Z0_15 __ 

Paralegal Specialist 

Office of Regional Counsel 

l Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 5, 2018

d1128p

Order 

Clerk

December 5, 2018

158420

In re J. L. THOMAS, Minor. SC: 158420

COA: 342183

Wayne CC Family Division:

17-002200-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu 

of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we 

REMAND this case to that court. On remand, while retaining jurisdiction, the Court of 

Appeals shall remand this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further consideration. The 

trial court shall determine: (1) whether the trial court ordered a DNA test at Department of 

Health and Human Services expense, as stated by the referee, and, if so, whether the testing 

occurred; (2) whether the trial court extended the time for the putative father to establish 

paternity; and (3) whether the putative father was able to speak at the termination trial by 

speakerphone and whether he waived any issue regarding the DNA test or the 

establishment of paternity by not requesting an adjournment. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the trial court shall forward the record and its findings to the Court of Appeals, 

which shall then reconsider these issues and the issues raised by the appellant in his brief 

on appeal.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### § 67.2 Definitions.

The definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter are applicable to this part.
Written Representation Statement for AviaVideo, LLC 

AviaVideo, LLC was formed in the state of Kentucky on 3 August 2015. 

AviaVideo, LLC has one member and the member's name is Alan Clore who is a United 

States born citizen. 

AviaVideo, LLC will be managed by its manager. 

Alan Clore is the manager.

The manager of AviaVideo, LLC may act independently.

Signed: 

Title: Manager, AviaVideo, LLC

Date: 13 August 2015
#### § 304.4 Allocations.

For each Federal fiscal year concerned, the Administrator, FEMA, shall allocate to each participating insular area an amount not less than the sum of grants for the two programs which the Administrator, FEMA, has determined such insular area would otherwise be entitled to receive for such fiscal year.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diametrics Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, W. Glen Winchell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/ W. Glen WinchellW. Glen Winchell Chief Financial Officer October 24, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,489,770
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      23,000,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 15,204,003
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,077,494
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,104,674
<LOANS>                                     48,064,584
<ALLOWANCE>                                    627,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,007,664
<DEPOSITS>                                  81,669,601
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,286,175
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,051,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              90,007,664
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,047,292
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              896,464
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               214,289
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,119,977
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,710,757
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,710,757
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,409,220
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,361,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,018,662
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     653,654
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   653,654
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.80
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   654,743
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                163,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               493,718
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   17,616
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,567
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              627,669
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           627,669
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
### §662. Injunction proceedings

#### (a) Petition by Secretary to restrain imminent dangers; scope of order

The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction, upon petition of the Secretary, to restrain any conditions or practices in any place of employment which are such that a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided by this chapter. Any order issued under this section may require such steps to be taken as may be necessary to avoid, correct, or remove such imminent danger and prohibit the employment or presence of any individual in locations or under conditions where such imminent danger exists, except individuals whose presence is necessary to avoid, correct, or remove such imminent danger or to maintain the capacity of a continuous process operation to resume normal operations without a complete cessation of operations, or where a cessation of operations is necessary, to permit such to be accomplished in a safe and orderly manner.

#### (b) Appropriate injunctive relief or temporary restraining order pending outcome of enforcement proceeding; applicability of Rule 65 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Upon the filing of any such petition the district court shall have jurisdiction to grant such injunctive relief or temporary restraining order pending the outcome of an enforcement proceeding pursuant to this chapter. The proceeding shall be as provided by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules, Civil Procedure, except that no temporary restraining order issued without notice shall be effective for a period longer than five days.

#### (c) Notification of affected employees and employers by inspector of danger and of recommendation to Secretary to seek relief

Whenever and as soon as an inspector concludes that conditions or practices described in subsection (a) exist in any place of employment, he shall inform the affected employees and employers of the danger and that he is recommending to the Secretary that relief be sought.

#### (d) Failure of Secretary to seek relief; writ of mandamus

If the Secretary arbitrarily or capriciously fails to seek relief under this section, any employee who may be injured by reason of such failure, or the representative of such employees, might bring an action against the Secretary in the United States district court for the district in which the imminent danger is alleged to exist or the employer has its principal office, or for the District of Columbia, for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to seek such an order and for such further relief as may be appropriate.

(Pub. L. 91–596, §13, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1605.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b), is set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
#### Onofrio Curro, Respondent, v. New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
### §796j–1. Training and technical assistance

#### (a) In general

From the funds appropriated and made available to carry out this part for any fiscal year, beginning with fiscal year 2015, the Commissioner shall first reserve not less than 1.8 percent and not more than 2 percent of the funds to provide, either directly or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, training and technical assistance to designated State agencies, or other providers of independent living services for older individuals who are blind, that are funded under this part for such fiscal year.

#### (b) Survey

The Commissioner shall conduct a survey of designated State agencies that receive grants under section 796k of this title regarding training and technical assistance needs in order to determine funding priorities for such training and technical assistance.

#### (c) Application for grant

To be eligible to receive a grant or enter into a contract or cooperative agreement under this section, an entity shall submit an application to the Commissioner at such time, in such manner, containing a proposal to provide such training and technical assistance, and containing such additional information, as the Commissioner may require. The Commissioner shall provide for peer review of applications by panels that include persons who are not government employees and who have experience in the provision of services to older individuals who are blind.

(Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §751A, as added Pub. L. 113–128, title IV, §486, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1693.)
3250 W. Crystal St. #3 Chicago, IL 60651 917.971.9799

Flight Operations and Procedures Manual

DJI Inspire
#### Nathaniel Fink, Respondent, v. Chase National Bank et al., as Executors of Lucius N. Littauer, Deceased, Appellants.

Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 6 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and section 211 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The action is for services rendered, and the complaint, in one cause of action, alleges that the services were rendered to defendants’ testator during his lifetime and continued, at the request of defendants, executors of the estate, after his death. In our opinion, section 211 does not apply to a claim against executors individually, upon their independent contract, and which is not a claim against the deceased. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 207.) Nor has it been established, on this motion, that plaintiff made an election that his claim be treated as one against the deceased. Lewis, P. J., Cars-well, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 16.2


                                                                  March 26, 2001


Office of the Chief Accountant
SECPS Letter Files
Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 9-5
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington  DC  20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On January 13, 2000, we were engaged by Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as their principal accountants. On January 28, 2000, except to Note
16 as to which the date is April 20, 2000, we reported on the consolidated
financial statements of Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
and for the year ended December 31, 1999. On February 27, 2001, we reported on
the consolidated financial statements of Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000. We have read the
Annual Report of Summit Brokerage Services, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2000 and we agree with the statement in the Annual Report
that, during the two most recent fiscal years and through the date of this
letter, there have been no reportable events as defined in Item 304(a)-(1)(v).


Very truly yours,

/s/Deborah A. Bradley
Hoyman, Dobson & Company, PA
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________

No. 96-50667

______________________________

In the Matter of: BILLY R SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY,

Debtors.

 --------------------------------------------------

BILLY R. SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY,

 Appellees-Cross Appellants,

VERSUS

TEXAS COMMERCE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

 Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

No. 96-50681

In the Matter of: BILLY R. SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY,

Debtors.

----------------------------------------------------

BILLY R. SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY, 

Appellees,

VERSUS
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

TEXAS COMMERCE BANK - SAN ANGELO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(M0-95-CV-293 & M0-96-CV-45)

November 17, 1997

Before KING, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

It is ordered that the August 29, 1996 order of the district

court be VACATED, and the cause REMANDED to the district court.

The district court is instructed to REMAND the causes to the

Bankruptcy Court for a determination of the solvency of the

bankruptcy estate in light of Shurley v. Texas Commerce Bank--

Austin, N.A., 115 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert.

filed, No. 97-567 (U.S. Sept. 30, 1997).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George M. Browne, Appellant.

The notice will be treated as an application made to a Justice of the Appellate Division, pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a certificate permitting an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The application is denied by Mr. Justice Abel.
#### § 9185.4 Requirements for resurvey; with cost prorated.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-243 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, November 12, 1999)

NRC SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS NEW

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting November 18 in

Rockville, Maryland to discuss and explain its Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System, commonly known as “ADAMS.” This new system became operational on

November 1, and will allow virtually all newly received and created NRC documents to be

accessed by the public through the agency’s website.

At the meeting, NRC staff will discuss the status of ADAMS, address public comments

already received, and provide further opportunity for comment from attendees. The agency’s

goal is to assure the public has a smooth transition to the new system and can continue to

retrieve documents easily.

The meeting will be held in the auditorium of the agency’s Two White Flint North

building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, from 9:00 until 11:00 a.m.

###
Forest Kirst

Kirst Aviation

P.O. Box 73621

Fairbanks Ak. 99707

907 687 5011

I am requesting an exemption from maintaining two drug and alcohol testing programs per 14

CFR11.61-11.101 as required by CFR 91.147 and part 135 as required by 14 CFR 120.1.

. As sole sole proprietor it is an economic hardship for me to maintain 2 drug testing programs for one

business.

 It is in the public interest to reduce unnecessary expense and paperwork from small businesses. This

would lower my operating costs allowing me to maintain competitive rates for the public

 Public safety would not be affected by allowing me to maintain one drug testing program for both the

91.147 sightseeing and part 135 air carrier programs as I would still be in one FAA approved drug

testing program under 14 CFR parts 120 and 135, whether I am operating under part 91 or 135.

Forest Kirst
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.311 Oral hearings.

Oral hearings will not be held in appeals from NAICS code designations, and will be held in appeals from size determinations only upon a finding by the Judge of extraordinary circumstances. If such an oral hearing is ordered, the proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with those rules of subpart B of this part as the Judge deems appropriate.

[61 FR 2683, Jan. 29, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 47250, July 18, 2002]
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Visit the Furnace Creek Visitor Center

Death Valley National Park
#### § 6.81 Additional copies.

A reasonable number of additional copies shall be provided for the applicable fee to a requestor who indicates that he has no access to commercial reproduction services.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE00818

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.