alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3485

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005

Mr. RYUN of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain work footwear.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WORK FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.64.12 Welt footwear with outer 

soles of rubber, plastics, 

leather, or composition 

leather and uppers of pigskin, incorporating a protective metal toe-cap (provided 

for in subheading 

6403.40.30) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 
2

•HR 3485 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 13.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of RADA Electronic Industries Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Elan Sigal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Elan Sigal
-------------
Elan Sigal
----------
Chief Financial Officer
September 1, 2005
#### Milton Shaiman et al., Appellants, v. Helen Blank et al., Respondents.

Motion by respondent Helen Blank to dismiss appeal granted by default, with $10 costs, and appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of General Communication, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
A. Duncan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  March 11, 2005                                /s/
                                                     Ronald A. Duncan
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     General Communication, Inc.

                                       1
<PAGE>
    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of General Communication, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M.
Lowber, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  March 11, 2005                                /s/
                                                     John M. Lowber
                                                     Senior Vice President,
                                                     Chief Financial Officer,
                                                     Secretary and Treasurer
                                                     General Communication, Inc.

                                       2
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsResults of a Flight Simulation Software Methods SurveyA ten-page questionnaire was mailed to members of the AIAA Flight Simulation Technical Committee in the spring of 1994. The survey inquired about various aspects of developing and maintaining flight simulation software, as well as a few questions dealing with characterization of each facility. As of this report, 19 completed surveys (out of 74 sent out) have been received. This paper summarizes those responses.Document ID19970012788Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsJackson, E. Bruce*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1995Publication InformationPublisher: American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-111973NAS 1.15:111973AIAA Paper 95-3414Meeting InformationMeeting: Flight Simulation TechnologiesLocation: Baltimore, MDCountry: United StatesStart Date: August 7, 1995End Date: August 9, 1995Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N16989Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970012788.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.891 Safety device training.

You must ensure that personnel installing, repairing, testing, maintaining, and operating surface and subsurface safety devices, and personnel operating production platforms (including, but not limited to, separation, dehydration, compression, sweetening, and metering operations), are trained in accordance with the procedures in subpart O and subpart S of this part.
EXHIBIT 23.1



April 19, 2005




Board of Directors
eNuclues, Inc.
2950 West Golf Road
Rolling Meadows, Illinois   60008
U.S.A.

Dear Sirs:

This letter is to constitute our consent to include the audit report of
eNuclues, Inc. As of December 31, 2004 in the Registration Statement filed on
Form 10-KSB contemporaneously herewith and subject to any required amendments
thereto.


Yours very truly,


/s/  DANZIGER & HOCHMAN
-----------------------------
     DANZIGER & HOCHMAN




GARY CILEVITZ

DD/EKM
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3549 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 486
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3549


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2005

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             June 22, 2006

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ``William F. 
                  Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 210 
West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated 
as the ``William F. Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William F. Clinger, Jr. Post 
Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 486

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3549

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ``William F. 
                  Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 22, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.303 Term of voucher. ( a ) *Initial term.* The initial term of a voucher must be at least 60 calendar days. The initial term must be stated on the voucher.
( b ) *Extensions of term.* ( 1 ) At its discretion, the PHA may grant a family one or more extensions of the initial voucher term in accordance with PHA policy as described in the PHA Administrative Plan. Any extension of the term is granted by PHA notice to the family.
( 2 ) If the family needs and requests an extension of the initial voucher term as a reasonable accommodation, in accordance with part 8 of this title, to make the program accessible to a family member who is a person with disabilities, the PHA must extend the voucher term up to the term reasonably required for that purpose.
( c ) *Suspension of term.* The PHA must provide for suspension of the initial or any extended term of the voucher from the date that the family submits a request for PHA approval of the tenancy until the date the PHA notifies the family in writing whether the request has been approved or denied.
( d ) *Progress report by family to the PHA.* During the initial or any extended term of a voucher, the PHA may require the family to report progress in leasing a unit. Such reports may be required at such intervals or times as determined by the PHA.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0169) [60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 45661, Sept. 1, 1995; 63 FR 23860, Apr. 30, 1998; 64 FR 26644, May 14, 1999; 64 FR 56913, Oct. 21, 1999; 80 FR 50573, Aug. 20, 2015]
#### § 18.16 Withdrawal of approval, certification, or acceptance.

MSHA reserves the right to rescind, for cause, any approval, certification, acceptance, or extension thereof, issued under this part.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Kelly, Appellant, v Hudson Valley Acoustical & Plastering Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 2, 1976. Claimant was employed by the Hudson Valley Acoustical and Plastering Co., Inc. (hereinafter Hudson Valley), at the site of its contract at Highlands, N. Y. Hudson Valley and the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters (hereinafter union) had a contract under the pertinent terms of which all employees received a flat sum of $3 a day for travel expenses irrespective of either actual mileage or the means of travel selected by the employee. On October 15, 1974, while claimant was driving directly to his home in Warwick from the job site, his automobile skidded on wet leaves on the highway. Claimant was ejected from the vehicle and received various personal injuries which form the basis *1098of his claim here. The referee and the majority of the board rejected the claim after finding that the $3 payment was a fringe benefit. This was apparently based on the fact that the $3 was payable to all members regardless of whether they traveled or how far they traveled to work. We disagree with the majority. The facts here are undisputed and appear, insofar as pertinent, to be identical with those found in *Matter of Coressmann v Moran & Sons*(4 AD2d 712; see, also, *Matter of De Pasquale v Cowper Co.,*6 AD2d 909, mot for lv to app den 5 NY2d 707). This record clearly demonstrates that the travel money was provided as an inducement to employees and that the change to the flat fee system of payment from the actual mileage method was adopted solely for the convenience of Hudson Valley. This is precisely what occurred in Coressmann *(supra)*and for the same reasons. Whether or not all members were paid is not determinative. Under the agreement claimant was paid travel expenses and the agreement of the union must be deemed the agreement of each member of the union for whom it is acting as agent *(Matter of Coressmann v Moran & Sons, supra,*p 713). The record does not support the board’s findings that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of claimant’s employment and that the $3 payment was a fringe benefit. Decision reversed, with costs to claimant against the employer and its insurance carrier, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA-

')._0 l (, ~ ( t -0 OJ. -Ak:) 

Directorate Identifier: .,.AD 

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are 

finished, click on the "Update Fields " button to a~.<tomatically fill in the totals. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection, repair, 

etc. 

Inspection and 2 0 350 Lubrication { I 

l I ,,, I 

{ l 

' 

J ' ., ,, 

l I 

I 

I 

' ill I J 

I 

' 

' , I '' i 

I ., 

The known number of products in compliance: Number 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 59,500.00 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $Warranty 

On-Condition Costs: @ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replace Rod End 4 $30.00 

8 
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 field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Parts cost is per 

Rod End. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? G 

No 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

No 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

YES* 0 NO 0 

YES* 0 NO 0 

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

either a Yes or No answer. G 

No YESD NOD 

Explanation: Does not meet threshold costs. 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

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

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

No YES* 0 NO 0 

*Explanation: 

9
EXHIBIT 99-2


                 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Edward Cornell, the Chief Financial Officer of Odd Job Stores, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 of the
Company (the "Report"):

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date:  May 15, 2003                        By: /s/ Edward Cornell
       -------------------------               ----------------------
                                               Edward Cornell
                                               Executive Vice President and
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### § 56.19035 Headframe design.

All headframes shall be constructed with suitable design considerations to allow for all dead loads, live loads, and wind loads.
### SUBCHAPTER V—MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
### §28504. Applicability of other laws

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit a rail transportation provider's right under section 28103(b) to enter into contracts that allocate financial responsibility for claims.

(Added Pub. L. 110–432, div. B, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4956.)
§ 550.202 What criteria must the Exploration Plan (EP), Development and Production Plan (DPP), or Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD) meet? Your EP, DPP, or DOCD must demonstrate that you have planned and are prepared to conduct the proposed activities in a manner that: ( a ) Conforms to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act as amended (Act), applicable implementing regulations, lease provisions and stipulations, and other Federal laws;
( b ) Is safe;
( c ) Conforms to sound conservation practices and protects the rights of the lessor;
( d ) Does not unreasonably interfere with other uses of the OCS, including those involved with National security or defense; and
( e ) Does not cause undue or serious harm or damage to the human, marine, or coastal environment.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of OccuLogix, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Y. Caloz,
      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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.





By:
            /s/
                John Y. CalozJohn
                Y. CalozChief
                Financial Officer and Treasurer





Dated:
            March
                16, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,677
<INVENTORY>                                      3,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,123
<PP&E>                                         236,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,876
<BONDS>                                        111,577
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   224,893
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,257
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   338
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 556.300 What reports may BOEM and other Federal agencies prepare before a lease sale?

For an oil and gas lease sale in a Five Year program, and as the need arises for other mineral leasing pursuant to part 581 of this chapter, BOEM will prepare a report describing the general geology and potential mineral resources of the area under consideration. The Director may request other interested Federal agencies to prepare reports describing, to the extent known, any other valuable resources contained within the general area and the potential effect of mineral operations upon the resources or upon the total environment or other uses of the area.