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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

# TIME AND DATE:

 December 2, 2010, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

# PLACE:

 This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call 877.768.0032, passcode 4856462, to participate in this meeting.

# STATUS:

 Open to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board  of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

Issued on: November 19, 2010.

Larry W. Minor,

Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 2010-29786 Filed 11-22-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
Exhibit 32.1

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 this Quarterly Report of Uniwell Electronic Corporation., on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending January 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Luiz Brasil, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended January 31, 2013, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and January 31, 2013 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Uniwell Electronic Corporation.



|                  |     |                                                               | 
|----------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|September 5, 2013 | By: | /s/ Luiz Brasil                                               | 
|                  |     | Luiz Brasil                                                   | 
|                  |     | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer               | 
|                  |     | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
:SoSt.~ SL~~J~. 

~0\>..·SL.J'S>~Y ... "'\·c.o"" ~ ~ S\~ \ 

\\~"~N-.001 ~ 1..\'\00 f) 

e (_s~b)b~~-~~b:___ 

----+--:£.. S\.__.,.'h b&tt- ~" ~~ "'" ..... ~ '~ " ~~ ~~ ~ o ,_ \;c\~ ~~.._)~~\lLw * £-f\_',_)""uD\NHM_ 

s~ \2_).__'\t':> (A. w~~a~ ~\0\,.,,~o-_~ \J~~~~6}s:'j __ _ 

--1-- L ,_&__ \-:,._ ._ )(,o~::J ~o\~') -u'ov~Q S s1J~ v.S. __ ~..__\e ~~..>~,~ i ~~ ,.j)~ ~ <\~ ~-S':M..<::.-\-_ ~r

~~tP~&. (ol \0~~ -\k \D~ w"~~). Su'&-~\:o:ts -

----t-'f'~"-~L.. \~~"" ~~('~,~ ~ ~~.J -\:~~ -\k 

---4-~~oc-. cfS ~~kD '~ \v,~ _\o ~~\)"'~ G\\~\~ __ 

c ~'"0-'\Lt\,) '=><-..... ~~~ \\~ ~\) ~ ~Oh~ ~~ ~"~~ 

~~ L1--J~S~) _ C"A\0-tj ~~~~~~~tJ£-o_:lli£?. _ 

- r- - ---+-.-~ ~~s ~ ~~>.- '~'"'.,J..j ~...._"') \" s~c...\ .-, h~ - · ""'\1:'\\0 " ->-~~ J N.\-..~~ ~ ...... ~ \, \.~ -1-k..i __ 0~ ~\\~1\J ~"~t( 'Sk t~(r:L1s ~LD~ ~~_iMtL 

__ · ~~ qys .. b\.t.·~&_ ~ wh~ ~~_!_S vJ~ AifL \ v~~

' ~~ ~ ~~""'\sl-~ 1 1-).1; _ QL Am,","'"a vo~-"~ _ 

S.J~o1\ okc . o~ ~"'"' c:Nk," -'-.,_,:;,-;.\u.0 {h.""''' "L+'f>.<.-J 

---+---- n ~efo..~l ""' Sf ~J~ 1u_~Ort- _j)v_t _ d" VV\Mt.f\t_____:b ~~ljt}~ ii _ ~M~ {h~-t -t~j \~~ ~ o~~r 1\At'ol\. 11\1~ fk_d..~ 

CA,..~v ~ j--1 '<so\~,~~ ~k b\_\ \_ _£_ ov r u\t-z.e.v'.S CA.vJ._o...._,J.__._C __ _ 

-- ~L~~e,~. ~ ~~ ... L W ~ Sae.u& ~ Juvk~ th~ _ _ _ (n~ ~b~Q M _ ~"-~J-: - CAC{IOD_~\F;+ b.&_}~:ll_l\OW· 

--t--1 ~~ ~~ . owrtJAir~ +a L_-+k 5.\M;\}1'»·'\ _ 

'---+0.~ ~\'J'{ \\'~"'~,1_;-" ~'ilbs ~'h t'~r.~ e\_-Mlys~~ _ ----+ ~\o~ -h-o.c.- 6sbor- ~SSJOA'\) 'Sf~,rJ<;. WJ t1 [\o+ 

-·~·J\1'0 c..J=. bd<ts or l\D.Ljv6:; ~ rl wo~\ (.rl-".f-t. -jJ6s. _ _ ;[_ tt.>•d '"'d--12</.d"j _fp k.d ,~-f),__ c) 12- g_.rrf~L£_fr/)J+ 

__ fnJloJd..._QM"' Oke ue.. C<lfNv•f/'J- ~' Ls.-r &,"- e-&iJ:;'1 "'" '>. 4-fC 

, __ o~"- h'er1 v. ..f;,..I:Jdon}_ ,,ftL i'J £k.~~,_ Vist 6/lt.C.jY h,t!.!re.,
#### § 3565.108 Responsibility for actions of agents and mortgage brokers.

An approved lender is responsible for the actions of its agents and mortgage brokers.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr19-SPM/AK

JEREMY GRAHAM,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s report

and recommendation (doc. 112) dated November 29, 2007. Defendant was

furnished a copy and has filed objections (docs. 114). Pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I conducted a de novo review and I find

that the report and recommendation is correct and should be adopted.

Defendant provides no support for his argument that he does not in fact

qualify for the 924(e) enhancement, the 851 enhancement, or the career offender

enhancement. Enhancements under § 2K2.1(b)(4) and (b)(5), even assuming

they were inappropriate, did not affect Defendant’s guideline range because they

were overshadowed by the career offender enhancement. Defendant was not

entitled to credit for acceptance of responsibility. 

Many of these matters were raised on direct appeal and decided against

Defendant. Defendant has not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel as

Case 4:03-cr-00019-RH-GRJ Document 115 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:03cr19-SPM/AK

to any of these issues. Accordingly, it is

 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 112) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or

correct sentence (doc. 100) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00019-RH-GRJ Document 115 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2
§ 29.9240 Responsibilities of applicant. Any applicant requesting class or type certification on nonquota tobacco produced in a quota area, shall obtain from the appropriate county office of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service a certificate showing the acreage of nonquota tobacco grown on each affected farm and the identification number. It shall also be the responsibility of the applicant to: ( a ) Make available to the inspector any or all information required by the inspector for completion of the Tobacco Classification Certificate,
( b ) Make the tobacco accessible to the inspector, and
( c ) Surrender to the inspector at time of certification a copy of the ASCS certificate and sale bill.
(December 11, 1979)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Amparo Valencia, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on July 9, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Harry Jensen, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from a decision denying unemployment insurance benefits. The board found, after a hearing, that the claimant’s efforts to secure employment were not sufficiently diligent to establish his availability and denied benefits, as had been denied him on previous occasions. This determination involved a factual question within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARK
VII, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3, 1998
AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 3, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                           3,732
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,558
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,641
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,803
<PP&E>                                          11,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,943
<BONDS>                                            945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,010
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               667,374
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  582,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,341
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,376
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,376
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
        

</TABLE>
§ 371.1 General statement. ( a ) *The creation of APHIS.* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was created by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972 (37 FR 6327, March 28, 1972).
( b ) *Central offices.* APHIS is headquartered in Washington, DC, and Riverdale, MD. The APHIS Management Team at these locations consists of the following: Administrator Associate Administrator Deputy Administrator, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services (VS) Deputy Administrator, Marketing and Regulatory Programs Business Services (MRPBS) Deputy Administrator, Wildlife Services (WS) Deputy Administrator, Animal Care (AC) Deputy Administrator, International Services (IS) Director, Policy and Program Development (PPD) Director, Legislative and Public Affairs (LPA)
( c ) *Field organization.* AC, MRPBS, PPQ, VS, and WS all have field offices located throughout the United States. IS has field offices located throughout the world. A list of APHIS' field offices with addresses and telephone numbers is in the blue pages of local telephone books.
(May 23, 2006)

#### Edward Abreo et al., Respondents, v Freddy Baez et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants; City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 536]

*834In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants and third-party plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated May 20, 2005, as granted those branches of the respective cross motions of the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant which were to sever the third-party action from the main action,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Given the completion of discovery in the main action, the inordinate and inexcusable delay by the defendants and third-party plaintiffs in commencing the third-party action, the demonstrated prejudice which the plaintiffs would suffer in the absence of a severance, and all of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion in directing that the third-party action be severed from the main action *(see*CPLR 603, 1001; *Wassel v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*307 AD2d 752 [2003]; *Garcia v Gesher Realty Corp.,*280 AD2d 440 [2001]; *Ambriano v Bowman,*245 AD2d 404 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
Appendix C Summary of Federal Land Manager Comments and District Responses <Reserved for future document>
1.109 Statutory acquisition–related dollar

thresholds-adjustment for inflation.

(a) 41 U.S.C. 1908 requires that the FAR Council periodically adjust all statutory acquisition-related

dollar thresholds in the FAR for inflation, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. This

adjustment is calculated every 5 years, starting in October 2005, using the Consumer Price Index for

All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), and supersedes the applicability of any other provision of law that

provides for the adjustment of such acquisition-related dollar thresholds.

(b) The statute defines an acquisition-related dollar threshold as a dollar threshold that is specified

in law as a factor in defining the scope of the applicability of a policy, procedure, requirement, or

restriction provided in that law to the procurement of supplies or services by an executive agency, as

determined by the FAR Council.

(c) The statute does not permit escalation of acquisition-related dollar thresholds established by:

(1) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31—

(i) Subchapter III, Bonds; and

(ii) Subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction);

(2) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor Standards; or

(3) The United States Trade Representative pursuant to the authority of the Trade Agreements Act

of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.).

(d) The statute, as amended by section 821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2018 (Pub. L. 115-91), requires the adjustment described in paragraph (a) of this section be applied

to contracts and subcontracts without regard to the date of award of the contract or subcontract.

Therefore, if a threshold is adjusted for inflation as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, then the

changed threshold applies throughout the remaining term of the contract, unless there is a

subsequent threshold adjustment.

(e) A matrix showing calculation of the most recent escalation adjustments of statutory acquisitionrelated dollar thresholds is available via the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov (search FAR

Case 2019-013, open the docket folder, and go to the supporting documents file).

Parent topic: Subpart 1.1 - Purpose, Authority, Issuance
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96cr8 LAC

THOMAS GRADY BROWN

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on September 30, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF PETITION FOR 

A WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 9/29/08 Doc.# 117

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 30

th day of

September, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) After consideration of defendant’s “Traverse Reply,” the Court reaffirms its

order denying his Petition for a Writ of Audita Querela (doc 114). 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:96-cr-00008-LC-MD Document 118 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 1
| 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 7, 2009 | By:    | /s/  Michael      C. Linn       |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Michael      C. Linn                      |
|                        |   | Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer |
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NATHANIEL JAMES,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-7147

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 12-1574, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before MOORE, LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

LINN, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

 Nathaniel James appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his entitlement to an increased 

disability rating. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

(“Secretary”) moves without opposition to remand the case 

Case: 13-7147 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2013
2 JAMES v. SHINSEKI

for additional proceedings consistent with Nat’l Org. of 

Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 725 

F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“NOVA”). 

In NOVA, this court approved a remedial plan offered 

by the Secretary to correct the application of an invalid 

rule eliminating veterans’ procedural due process and 

appellate rights provided under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2). 

As part of that plan, the Secretary agreed to identify and 

offer to remand cases affected by the invalid rule, such as 

the instant appeal, for purposes of providing claimants 

with a new hearing and an opportunity to submit new 

evidence followed by a new decision. In accordance with 

NOVA, this court grants the Secretary’s unopposed motion for remand. Upon remand from this court and then 

from the Veterans Court to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), the Secretary will provide James with the 

requisite notice and available remedies provided in the 

approved remedial plan. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to 

the Veterans Court with direction to remand the case to 

the Board for additional proceedings consistent with 

NOVA and this order. 

 (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s26

ISSUED AS MANDATE: December 20, 2013

Case: 13-7147 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2013
3.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures for avoiding improper business practices and personal

conflicts of interest and for dealing with their apparent or actual occurrence.

Parent topic: Part 3 - Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest
Case 5:19-cr-00070-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:19-cr-00070-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:19-cr-00070-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Commercial Lines Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher A. Black, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations ofthe Company.     /s/ Christopher A. BlackNovember10, 2005 Christopher A. Black  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 352.13 Certain conditions under which change of Customs entry or diversion is permitted.

When plants, plant products,plant pests, biological control organisms, noxious weeds, soil, or other products or articles released for exportation, transshipment and exportation, or transportation and exportation, under this part, have met all applicable permit and other requirements for importation, including inspection and treatment, as provided in part 319, 330, or 360 of this chapter, the form of Customs entry may be changed and the shipment may be diverted at any time to permit delivery of the products and articles to a destination in the United States, so far as the requirements in this part are involved. The Customs officer concerned at the original port of Customs entry shall be informed by the inspector that such release has been made and that such change of entry or diversion is approved under this part by appropriate endorsement of Customs documents.

[25 FR 1929, Mar. 5, 1960, as amended at 62 FR 65009, Dec. 10, 1997; 66 FR 21059, Apr. 27, 2001; 75 FR 68952, Nov. 10, 2010; 84 FR 29967, June 25, 2019]
- INTRODUCTION
Background
Objective
Approach
Scope

- LITERATURE REVIEW
Dynamic Stiffness and Damping Parameters
Stiffness versus Quasi-Static Track Strength
Stiffness Values Based on Quasi-Static Strength
Ballasted Track with Subgrade Improvement Layer-Dynamic Stiffness and Damping Characteristics

- EVALUATION OF TRACK DYNAMIC PARAMETERS
NUCARS Track Model
Hammer Test Method
- Description of Hammer Test Method
- Hammer Characteristics and Excitation
- Impulse and Measurement
- Track Response Measurements and Data Acquisition System
- Field Test Procedure

- VERTICAL TRACK MODULUS AND DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOOP OF THE RAILROAD TEST TRACK WITH UNDER-TIE PADS AND BALLAST MAT
Results:  Vertical Track Modulus
Results:  Vertical Receptance and Damping

- DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY OF PADS IN HEAVY AXLE LOAD ENVIRONMENT
Laboratory Evaluation of Pad Load/Deflection Behavior
Potential Designs/Proposed Prototypes/Test Plan

- FUTURE EVALUATIONS
Field Evaluation of Dynamic Performance of Pads
Upcoming Dynamic-Performance Durability Test Panel

- References
- Bibliography
- List of Figures
- List of Tables