alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: MAY 22, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF 

### FROST AD ATELIER,INC. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0294 

### ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE AND 

### NOTICE OFHEARINGDATES lOiZ 23 ;."::.. 

### q: 28

Counsel for the Respondent has filed a Motion for Continuance stating he ''...is anticipating surgery during this time period [when this case is set for hearing] and will be unavailable..." The request is accompanied by a doctor's note confirming the surgery and recoveryperiod. This matter was originally set for hearing almost a year ago andpostponed pursuant to Respondent's request. The currenthearing was setby notice dated February ofthfs year. The Motion will be granted onlydue to the circumstances underlying the request. We will not favorably receive an additional requestto continue this case from the Respondent. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on

### July 10 and 11, 

### 2012, inclusive, inthe

### U.S. Tax Court: Room 2-1350, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse,450 Golden GateAvenue, SanFrancisco, CA 94102. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and concludeat4:30 p.m.·eac]l day. The parties should vacate the courthouse onorbefore 5:00p.m. eachpay. 

### Settled cases will notberemoved from the docketuntil theJudgereceives the properpleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax ress mail, courieror postal service. -'

Attachment
- Service List 1 

### ·.SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY David W. Williams, Respondent's Counsel Attorney at Law 16372 Underhill Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 TEL: 714-745-5610 Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110 FAJ(: 310-725-6816

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0294 (Civil Penalty Action) The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-3 66-.5121 Staff Assistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright BuildingSuite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Lawrence M. Powers, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SITI-Sites.com, Inc.
(the "Registrant")

2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:    August 13, 2003
                                        By /s/ Lawrence M. Powers
                                           -------------------------------------
                                              Lawrence M. Powers
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chairman of the Board of Directors
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 12-423V

Filed: September 21, 2015 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

MARY KATE WRIGHT and * 

GARRY WRIGHT, * 

as legal representatives of a minor child, M.W., * 

 Petitioners, * Interim Attorney Fees and Costs; 

v. * Stipulation 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Mindy Michaels Roth, Britcher, Leone & Roth, LLC, Glen Rock, NJ, for petitioners. 

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1

Vowell, Chief Special Master: 

 In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 

[hereinafter “the Program”],2 petitioners submitted a request for attorney fees and costs 

on September 8, 2015 [the “Application”]. See Avera v. Sec’y, HHS, 515 F.3d 1343, 

1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). On September 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact 

Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [“Stipulation”], wherein they explain that based 

on discussion of respondent’s objections, petitioners amend their Application to request 

an award of $80,000.00.3

 Respondent does not object to this amount. Stipulation ¶ 3. 

 I find that petitioner is entitled to an award of interim attorney fees and costs 

under the facts and circumstances of this case. A review of the materials offered in 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will 

delete such material from public access. 

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the Program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. 

(2006). 

3 Petitioners did not file a statement comporting with General Order 9. However, because any costs 

personally incurred by petitioners can be addressed in a subsequent award of fees and costs, I have 

elected to act on this interim application without that statement.
2 

support of the application for interim attorney fees and costs indicates that the agreed 

amount is reasonable. Accordingly, I hereby award the total of $80,000.00 issued

in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioners, Mary Kate Wright and 

Garry Wright, and petitioners’ attorney, Mindy Michaels Roth, for interim attorney 

fees and costs. 

 The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly.4 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Denise K. Vowell 

Denise K. Vowell

Special Master 

 

4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
#### In the Matter of La Verne TT. et al., Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Delaware County Department of Social Services, Respondent. Donald TT. et al., Appellants.

Appeal from orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered March 19, 1979 and April 17, 1979, which adjudicated two of appellants’ children to be permanently neglected, terminated appellants’ parental rights relative to the children, and freed the children for adoption. Appellants are husband and wife, and pursuant to a July 15, 1977 order of the Family Court of Delaware County two of their children, La Verne and Amanda, were placed under the care and custody of respondent Delaware County Department of Social Services and also placed in foster care for a period of 18 months. The order further provided that the visitation rights of appellant mother Eska would be set at the discretion of respondent, and appellant father Donald, with a past history of sex crimes, was denied visitation rights altogether. Donald was further directed to live separate and apart from his wife and a third child living with her and not to enter the building where his wife was living. Subsequently, by petitions dated October 25, 1978, respondent commenced the present proceeding which culminated in orders adjudicating La Verne and Amanda as being permanently neglected, terminating appellants’ parental rights relative to the two children and freeing the two children for adoption. This appeal ensued. We hold that the challenged orders of the Family Court should be sustained. Since La Verne and Amanda were placed in foster care on July 15, 1977, appellants have failed utterly to make any suitable and reasonable plans for the future of the two children. They resumed living together in open defiance of the court, frequently moved without apprising respondent of their whereabouts and ultimately left the State to reside in Pennsylvania. When they were able to discover appellants’ whereabouts, not only did caseworkers often find appellants’ various residences unsanitary and otherwise unsuitable for the return of the children, but also by their frequent changes of residence appellants effectively frustrated respondent in its efforts to aid them in planning for their children’s future and in efforts to encourage and strengthen the family relationship. Under these circumstances, the court properly determined that La Verne and Amanda were permanently neglected as that term is defined in section 384-b (subd 7, par [a]) of the Social Services Law. Orders affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Casey, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.23 Safety and health standards. ( a ) Contractors must comply with the following safety and health standards that are applicable to the hazards at their covered workplace: ( 1 ) Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 850, “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.”
( 2 ) Title 29 CFR, part 1904, “Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses”, §§ 1904.4 through 1904.11, 1904.29 through 1904.33, and 1904.46.
( 3 ) Title 29 CFR, part 1910, “Occupational Safety and Health Standards,” excluding 29 CFR 1910.1096, “Ionizing Radiation”; 29 CFR 1910.1000, “Air Contaminants,” Tables Z-1 and Z-2, as they relate to beryllium and beryllium compounds; and 29 CFR 1910.1024, “Beryllium.”
( 4 ) Title 29 CFR, part 1915, “Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment,” except for 29 CFR 1915.1024, “Beryllium.”
( 5 ) Title 29 CFR, Part 1917, “Marine Terminals.”
( 6 ) Title 29 CFR, Part 1918, “Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring.”
( 7 ) Title 29 CFR, part 1926, “Safety and Health Regulations for Construction,” except for 29 CFR 1926.1124, “Beryllium.”
( 8 ) Title 29 CFR, Part 1928, “Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Agriculture.”
( 9 ) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®), *Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices,* (2016) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27), excluding the threshold limit values (TLVs®) for beryllium and beryllium compounds, when the ACGIH® TLVs® are lower (more protective) than permissible exposure limits in 29 CFR part 1910 for general industry, 29 CFR part 1915 for shipyards, and/or 29 CFR part 1926 for construction. When the ACGIH® TLVs® are used as exposure limits, contractors must comply with the other provisions of any applicable expanded health standard found in 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926.
( 10 ) American National Standards Institute (ANSI/ASSE) Z88.2, “American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection,” (2015) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).
( 11 ) ANSI Z136.1, “Safe Use of Lasers,” (2014) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).
( 12 ) ANSI Z49.1, “Safety in Welding, Cutting and Allied Processes,” sections 4.3 and E4.3 (2012) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).
( 13 ) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70, “National Electrical Code,” (2017) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).
( 14 ) NFPA 70E, “Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace,” (2015) (incorporated by reference, see § 851.27).
( b ) Nothing in this part relieves contractors from the responsibility to comply with any additional safety and health requirements that are necessary to protect the safety and health of workers.
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 80 FR 69566, Nov. 10, 2015; 82 FR 59954, Dec. 18, 2017; 88 FR 86815, Dec. 15, 2023]
§ 745.123 Early termination of research support: Evaluation of applications and proposals. ( a ) The department or agency head may require that Federal department or agency support for any project be terminated or suspended in the manner prescribed in applicable program requirements, when the department or agency head finds an institution has materially failed to comply with the terms of this policy.
( b ) In making decisions about supporting or approving applications or proposals covered by this policy the department or agency head may take into account, in addition to all other eligibility requirements and program criteria, factors such as whether the applicant has been subject to a termination or suspension under paragraph (a) of this section and whether the applicant or the person or persons who would direct or has/have directed the scientific and technical aspects of an activity has/have, in the judgment of the department or agency head, materially failed to discharge responsibility for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects (whether or not the research was subject to federal regulation).
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04249

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04249\04249_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04249\04249_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04249\04249_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04249\04249_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04249\04249_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Arial Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Arial Map 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Arial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04249\Supporting Documentation\04249_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04249\04249_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04249\04249_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### § 961.3 Definitions.

For purposes of this part—

*Act* means the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, 96 Stat. 2201 *et seq.,* 42 U.S.C. 10101 *et seq.*

*Contract* means the agreement set forth in § 961.11 of this part and any duly executed amendment or modification thereto.

*Generator* means any person who is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to use a utilization or production facility under the authority of section 103 or 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134).

*Owner* means any person who has title to spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.

*Purchaser* means any person, other than a Federal agency, who is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to use a utilization or production facility under the authority of sections 103 or 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134) or who has title to spent nuclear fuel or high level radioactive waste and who has executed a contract with DOE.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Energy of his designee.

Other definitions relating to the subject matter of this rule are set forth in Article II of the contract which is contained in § 961.11, Text of the contract, of this part.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M-30, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E., 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. 

Subject Docket No. FAA-2012-0561 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AEh\;-7, ! i .. ; 

Dear Honorable Board: 

From my perspective as an aircraft owner of an eligible aircraft of 4 seats and 180 Hp 

Beech Sundowner C-23 I wholeheartedly support Docket FAA-2012-0350 Supported 

and made by AOPA and EAA. 

First I would like to say that among my friends of whom are in their 50's and not Pilots, I 

am among the healthiest and always have been since I began flying. This directly 

attributed to my desire for flying safely via being physically fit. For my safety and my 

passengers safety I self certify my health prior to every flight. I do not consider that the 

3rd class medical I hold has ever made me a safer pilot. When I am not feeling in top 

physical and mental condition I choose not to fly. My wife can attest to this, as she has 

suggested we go flying on occasions and I tell her I'm just not on top of my game today 

and we then drive to see a movie or do another activity. The special online educational 

medical assessment certification course proposed is a super Idea & method to better 

educate all pilots on being aware of their health status prior to flight and to be proactive 

in managing their selves to Good Health! 

Additionally, I am currently discussing the future loaning out my aircraft to a sport pilot & 

upcoming private pilot whom I mentored and helped get an engineering internship in 

aviation. He's 24 years & very healthy and probably would not have pursued his license 

had he needed to seek the medical. he told me. His friends are all interested after 

flying with him but do not want to travel the long distance to an airport with the sport 

planes as he had to do. They have said they would travel to the nearer airports, but 

simply are not into getting a necessary 3rd class medical needed to fly the available 

aircraft/trainers. 

That said; eliminating the unneeded burden of the 3rd Class Medical certificate would 

extend flying for a LOT of safe pilots that fly recreationally like me and to initiate a lot of 

newer pilots into the ran s. Of this I am very 

Sincerely, j fJ1 tf{ 

Stephen M. Bobb 

6405 Meadlowlark Dr 

Dunkirk MD, 20754 

443-624-0385
§ 835.502 High and very high radiation areas. ( a ) The following measures shall be implemented for each entry into a high radiation area: ( 1 ) The area shall be monitored as necessary during access to determine the exposure rates to which the individuals are exposed; and
( 2 ) Each individual shall be monitored by a supplemental dosimetry device or other means capable of providing an immediate estimate of the individual's integrated equivalent dose to the whole body during the entry.
( b ) *Physical controls.* One or more of the following features shall be used for each entrance or access point to a high radiation area where radiation levels exist such that an individual could exceed an equivalent dose to the whole body of 1 rem (0.01 sievert) in any one hour at 30 centimeters from the source or from any surface that the radiation penetrates: ( 1 ) A control device that prevents entry to the area when high radiation levels exist or upon entry causes the radiation level to be reduced below that level defining a high radiation area;
( 2 ) A device that functions automatically to prevent use or operation of the radiation source or field while individuals are in the area;
( 3 ) A control device that energizes a conspicuous visible or audible alarm signal so that the individual entering the high radiation area and the supervisor of the activity are made aware of the entry;
( 4 ) Entryways that are locked. During periods when access to the area is required, positive control over each entry is maintained;
( 5 ) Continuous direct or electronic surveillance that is capable of preventing unauthorized entry;
( 6 ) A control device that will automatically generate audible and visual alarm signals to alert personnel in the area before use or operation of the radiation source and in sufficient time to permit evacuation of the area or activation of a secondary control device that will prevent use or operation of the source.
( c ) *Very high radiation areas.* In addition to the above requirements, additional measures shall be implemented to ensure individuals are not able to gain unauthorized or inadvertent access to very high radiation areas.
( d ) No control(s) shall be established in a high or very high radiation area that would prevent rapid evacuation of personnel.
[58 FR 65485, Dec. 14, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 59684, Nov. 4, 1998; 72 FR 31926, June 8, 2007]