alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-60 December 10, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC, SINAI HOSPITAL TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet December

16 with representatives of Sinai Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, for

a predecisional enforcement conference on apparent quality

management program violations in the radiation oncology

department at the hospital.

The meeting will start at 1:30 p.m. in the Third Floor

Conference Room of the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville

Road, Lisle, Illinois. It is open to public observation. NRC

officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions

from the news media and other interested observers.

The discussion will focus on the hospital’s apparent failure

on several occasions in October to: check dose calculations

within three days after a patient treatment administration;

verify the specific treatment plan with the physician’s written

order prior to a patient administration; and perform weekly

patient chart checks.

These apparent violations were found during an NRC

inspection in October and November conducted to review the

circumstances of a medical misadministration. The October

incident involved a patient receiving more than the intended dose

during a portion of a series of radiation treatments. The

radiation dose did not exceed the originally planned total dose.

The hospital did not expect any adverse effects to the patient.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean

the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that

enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to point out

any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report;

and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective

actions.
No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a fine, will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later date.

####
ALBANIA

Legend

——— Main roads

[| Prefectures (total:12
IN) Districts (total: 36)

Ee takes

@USAID| ALBANIA
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2014

- 0363 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NE

- 08

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

co st

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 6.0 $ 510.00 $ 510.00 

### 50 $ 25,500.00



### Failed part replcmt $ 0.00 $4,031 $ 4,031.00 

### 25 $ 100,775.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known numb er of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 126,275



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This f ield can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Fl exibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriat e to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 48

**Question 48:** In 10 CFR 20.1301 (a) (2), does ". . . 0.002 rem (0.02 mSv) in any one hour" apply to the dose in any single hour or can it apply to the average over a discrete period of time.

**Answer:** The phrase "0.002 rem in any one hour" means a cumulative dose of 0.002 rem in any period of 60 consecutive minutes regardless of the dose rates within that 60-min. period. It does not mean a dose rate, in units of rems per hour, obtained by averaging over a time period greater than, or less than, one hour.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1301 (a) (2))

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                   MIDAS,INC.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                            AS OF THE DECEMBER 1998



                                                            Percentage of stock
                                                                 owned or
                                                                 Place of
                                                              controlled by
                   Name                      Incorporation    The Registrant
                   ----                      -------------  -------------------
Midas, Inc. (Registrant)......................  Delaware
 Midas International Corporation..............  Delaware            100
  International Parts Corporation.............  Delaware            100
  Midas FSC, Inc. ............................  Barbados            100
  Midas Realty Corporation....................  Delaware            100
   Midas Properties, Inc......................  New York            100
  Muffler Corporation of America..............  Illinois            100
  Midas Mufflers (Vic.) Pty. Ltd..............  Australia           100
   Midas Australia Pty. Ltd...................  Australia           100
  Midas Illinois, Inc. .......................  Illinois            100
 MDS Automotive Holdings B.V..................  Netherlands         100
  Midas Automotive International B.V. ........  Netherlands         100
   Midas Canada Holdings, Ltd.................  Canada              100
    Midas Canada, Inc. .......................  Canada              100
     Midas Realty Corp. of Canada, Inc. ......  Canada              100


The names of certain subsidiaries are omitted because such subsidiaries,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a
significant subsidiary.
### SUBCHAPTER III—JOB CORPS
### §2631. Establishment

There is established a commission to be known as the Commission on Leave (referred to in this subchapter as the "Commission").

(Pub. L. 103–3, title III, §301, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 23.)
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 for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Brucer Comer III, Chief Executive 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. Bruce Comer IIIW. Bruce Comer IIIChief Executive OfficerMay 11, 2006


A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Yosemite
National Park
California


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Yosemite Nature Notes 1: Wildflowers
 **Additional information:**
Common Wildflowers in Yosemite
Plants in Yosemite
 Last updated: June 5, 2019
 Park footer Contact Info Phone: 209/372-0200 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

May 18, 2016

151717

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF

PONTIAC POLICE AND FIRE RETIREE

PREFUNDED GROUP HEALTH &

INSURANCE TRUST,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151717

COA: 316418

Oakland CC: 2012-128625-CZ

CITY OF PONTIAC,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On April 6, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to 

appeal the March 17, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the 

application is again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The Court of Appeals erred in its 

reading of Executive Order 225 (EO 225). Contrary to the Court of Appeals conclusion, 

EO 225 by its plain language expresses the intent of the emergency manager to 

extinguish the defendant’s 2011-2012 fiscal year contribution. Although that 

contribution accrued on June 30, 2012, the defendant had not yet paid the obligation 

when EO 225 went into effect. EO 225 clearly states that, as of August 1, 2012, the 

defendant no longer has an obligation “to continue to make contributions” under Article 

III of the Trust Agreement. It does not differentiate between already accrued, but unpaid 

obligations and future obligations, and thus by its terms applies to both. Accordingly, the 

Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the emergency manager did not intend to 

extinguish the defendant’s 2011-2012 fiscal year contribution. Nonetheless, although the 

Court of Appeals determined that the emergency manager could retroactively extinguish 

the 2011-2012 fiscal year contribution through his authority under 2011 PA 14, it did not 

specifically address whether EO 225 was a permissible retroactive modification of the 

plaintiff’s accrued right to the contribution. See LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler 

Group, LLC, 496 Mich 26 (2014). We therefore REVERSE that part of the Court of 

Appeals judgment which interprets EO 225, VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals 

judgment which discusses the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, and REMAND this 

case to the Court of Appeals for it to consider: (1) whether the retroactivity analysis 
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.

 May 18, 2016

p0511

2

Clerk

stated in LaFontaine applies to EO 225; (2) if so, whether the extinguishment of the 

defendant’s accrued, but unpaid, 2011-2012 fiscal year contribution by EO 225 is 

permissible under LaFontaine; and (3) if LaFontaine does not apply, the appropriate 

method for determining whether EO 225 constitutes a permissible retroactive 

modification of the 2011-2012 fiscal year contribution.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.7
                                 THIRD AMENDMENT

This Third Amendment is entered and made as of October 6, 2000 (the "Third
Amendment") as an amendment to the Agreement dated as of October 15, 1990, by
and between US Airways, Inc. ("US Airways") and Air Midwest, Inc. ("Contractor")
(the "Agreement").

                                   WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, US Airways and Contractor have entered into the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, on August 6, 1991, US Airways and Contractor amended the Agreement in
certain respects ("First Amendment"); and

WHEREAS, in February of 1993, the parties further amended the Agreement in
certain respects ("Second Amendment"); and

WHEREAS, US Airways and Contractor desire to further amend certain provisions of
the Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants hereinafter
set forth and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is acknowledged, US Airways and Contractor hereby agree as follows:

      1.    The first sentence of Section 9.01 (a) is hereby amended by striking
            the language contained therein and substituting the following in
            lieu thereof:

              "This Agreement will become effective October 15th 1990 and will
              continue in effect thereafter through October 15, 2005, unless it
              is terminated at an earlier date pursuant to one or more of the
              provisions of this Article 9."

      2.    Section 9.02(h) is hereby deleted in its entirety and existing
            Section 9.02 (i) is renumbered as Section 9.02(h).

      3.    Except as amended hereby, the Service Agreement shall remain in full
            force and effect.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
      by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first
      above written.

      AIR MIDWEST, INC.                               US AIRWAYS, INC.

        /S/ Jonathan Ornstein                      /S/ Thomas M. Hanley
     --------------------------                  ---------------------------
     By:      Jonathan Ornstein                  By:      Thomas M. Hanley
     Title:   Chairman                           Title:   Vice President
                                                          US Airways Express
#### § 329.1 Purpose.

This part provides policy guidance concerning the use of priorities and allocation authority under title I of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, for the procurement of common use items in the Federal Supply Classification (FSC).
EXHIBIT 12.1
 Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.
Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(unaudited)
(dollars in millions)
 Year
    
    
    Year
    
    
    Year
    
    
    Year
    
    
    Yearended
    
    
    ended
    
    
    ended
    
    
    ended
    
    
    endedJune 30,
    
    
    June 30,
    
    
    June 30,
    
    
    June 30,
    
    
    June 30,2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2010EARNINGS:Income (loss) from continuing operations before
income taxes
    
    $
    41.1
    
    
    $
    (122.5
    )
    
    $
    5.6
    
    
    $
    48.9
    
    
    $
    (58.4
    )Equity method income
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    (1.0
    )
    
    
    (0.7
    )
    
    
    (0.8
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )Fixed charges, exclusive of capitalized interest (a)
    
    
    118.6
    
    
    
    140.7
    
    
    
    138.6
    
    
    
    124.7
    
    
    
    127.8Earnings
    
    $
    159.5
    
    
    $
    17.2
    
    
    $
    143.5
    
    
    $
    172.8
    
    
    $
    68.5FIXED CHARGES:Interest charged to expense (b)
    
    $
    110.3
    
    
    $
    131.6
    
    
    $
    128.4
    
    
    $
    114.0
    
    
    $
    116.8Portion of rents representing interest (c)
    
    
    8.3
    
    
    
    9.1
    
    
    
    10.2
    
    
    
    10.7
    
    
    
    11.0Fixed charges, exclusive of capitalized interest
    
    
    118.6
    
    
    
    140.7
    
    
    
    138.6
    
    
    
    124.7
    
    
    
    127.8Capitalized interest
    
    
    8.3
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    2.0
    
    
    
    2.4Total fixed charges
    
    $
    126.9
    
    
    $
    143.7
    
    
    $
    140.0
    
    
    $
    126.7
    
    
    $
    130.2Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.26x
    
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    
    1.03x
    
    
    
    1.36x
    
    
    
    n/aAmount by which earnings are inadequate to cover fixed charges
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    $
    126.5
    
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    
    n/a
    
    
    $
    61.7
 
 (a)
    
    Calculated in fixed charges section below.(b)
    
    Excludes interest income. Includes amortization of deferred financing costs and debt discount
amortization.(c)
    
    Estimated to be 25% of consolidated rental expense.
#### § 333.1 Purpose of this part.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) refers to this part as the Emergency Management Priorities and Allocations System (EMPAS). The EMPAS implements those priorities and allocations authorities under the Defense Production Act that are the subject of a delegation from the President to the Secretary of DHS and re-delegated to the FEMA Administrator, or to the FEMA Administrator directly, as described in § 333.10 of this part. This includes the use of authority to support critical infrastructure restoration and protection, stockpiling, and emergency preparedness activities pursuant to Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 *et seq.*), and related statutes, with respect to health and medical resources needed to respond to the spread of COVID-19 within the United States.
#### Anna Tannenbaum et al., Respondents, v. Loew’s Inc. et al., Appellants.

*558No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 134](/current/title-13/part-134?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at [72 FR 50042](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/72-FR-50042), Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.607 How do I know which eligibility requirement applies to me?

Follow this chart to determine your eligibility. You should calculate your net worth and the number of your employees as of the date the administrative proceeding was initiated.

| If your participation in the proceeding was: | Eligibility requirements: |
| --- | --- |
| (1) As an individual rather than a business owner | (1) Personal net worth may not exceed 2 million dollars. |
| (2) As owner of an unincorporated business | (2) Personal net worth may not exceed 7 million dollars, and No more than 500 employees. |
| (3) As a partnership, corporation, association, organization, or unit of local government | (3) Business net worth may not exceed 7 million dollars, and No more than 500 employees. |
| (4) As a charitable or other tax-exempt organization described in [26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/26/501) or a cooperative association as defined in [12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/12/1141j) | (4) No net worth limitations, and No more than 500 employees. |
### §148. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(l), 65 Stat. 701

Section, act Feb. 25, 1903, ch. 755, §1, 32 Stat. 865, related to transfer of books from executive departments to Library.
§ 11.6 Distilled spirits, wines, and malt liquors in bulk. ( a ) The port director, in his discretion, may require marks, brands, stamps, labels, or similar devices to be placed on any bulk container used for holding, storing, transferring, or conveying imported distilled spirits, wines, and malt liquors, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 467.
( b ) Marks, brands, stamps, labels, or similar devices required by Federal, State, or local statute or regulation may be affixed, and Customs inspection, gauging, marking, or measurement may be done, at the place of unlading or other suitable place, unless the port director determines that inspection, gauging, marking, or measurement shall be done at a public store, warehouse, or other appropriate facility.
( c ) Marks, brands, stamps, labels, or similar devices shall be permanent in nature and not subject to obliteration or removal as a result of handling or other condtions. The port director shall determine whether a mark, brand, stamp, label, or similar device is acceptable, based on the nature, surface, and composition of the container.
[T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46813, Aug. 9, 1979; T.D. 80-26, 45 FR 3901, Jan. 21, 1980; T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51253, Dec. 21, 1988]
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 134.702 Who may appeal?

Appeals from WOSB or EDWOSB protest determinations may be filed with OHA by the protested concern, the protestor, or the contracting officer responsible for the procurement affected by the protest determination.
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. 97-166 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Thursday, November 6,

1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received two reports

from its Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste on technical issues.

The reports, in the form of letters, provide comments on highlevel radioactive waste disposal in geologic repositories and

probabilistic risk-assessment methods in the NRC high-level

radioactive waste program.

The reports are available through the NRC’s Office of Public

Affairs, the NRC’s Internet Homepage

(http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW) and the Public Document Room in

Washington, D.C. To access the letters on the NRC Internet

Homepage use the "search" function to look for "October 31, 1997"

#