alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p130365.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0365 Focus Ready Draft 4/18/2013 ENGINEER: Austin \ DDH PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER: LORD Corporation USE: Adhesive component for rubber to metal bonding. Isocyanate FGEW < 695 (Best case). The isocyanate FGEW cannot be accurately estimated due to the unknown amount of isocyanate reacted and the unknown amount of branching in the polymer

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: Yes Gen Eqpt: neoprene, nitrile, or rubber gloves/ safety eyewear including safety glasses with side shields and chemical goggles/ sufficient ventilation in patter and volume should be provided in order to maintain air contaminant levels below recommended exposure limits Respirator: if occupational exposure limits are exceeded, a NIOSH approvded supplied-air respirator is required. Observe OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.134) for respirator use Health Effects: causes skin irritation/ may cause skin sensitization/ causes eye irritation/ causes respiratory tract irritation/ may cause lung damage/ may cause respiratory sensitization TLV/PEL:

Page 1p130365.eng

Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (04/12/2013): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P3B1T1 PBT for PMN: P1B1T1; for Hyd Pdt: P3B1T1 Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No Page 2p130365.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0365 Manufacturing Number of Sites/ Location: 2 LORD - Saegertown Saegertown PA 16433-1050 LORD - Indianapolis Indianapolis IN 46220-4816 Days/yr: 3 Basis: Submission states 2 sites, 500 kg/bt, 4 hr/bt, 3 bt/yr.

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 6

Inhalation: negligible (VP < 0.001 torr)

Dermal: Exposure to Liquid at 39.00% concentration High End: 6.9E+2 mg/day over 3 days/yr Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 6

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0365 Use: Adhesive Use Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Polaris Defense (legacy Resilient Technologies) Wausau WI Page 3p130365.eng 54401 Days/yr: 50 Basis: Submission states 1 site, 50 d/yr.

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 3 Basis: Submission estimates 1 worker potentially exposed. CEB assumes minimum default of 3 workers per site. Inhalation: negligible (VP < 0.001 torr)

Dermal: Exposure to Liquid at 39.00% concentration High End: 6.9E+2 mg/day over 50 days/yr Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: 3

Page 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-QSB
JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,273,919
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,263,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (78,500)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,374,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,934,627
<PP&E>                                       1,381,316
<DEPRECIATION>                               (974,020)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,161,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,935,147
<BONDS>                                      2,033,528
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       510,087
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,682,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,161,710
<SALES>                                      5,773,489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,773,489
<CGS>                                        2,688,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,688,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,363,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             256,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (535,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (542,407)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
§ 611.207 Small automobile and component manufacturers. ( a ) In this section, the term “covered firm” means a firm that— ( 1 ) Employs less than 500 individuals; and
( 2 ) Manufactures automobiles or components of automobiles.
( b ) *Set Aside* —Of the amount of funds that are used to provide awards for each fiscal year under this subpart, not less than 10 percent shall be used to provide awards to covered firms or consortia led by a covered firm.
#### §§ 501.53-501.56 [Reserved]
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS78761 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0350 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-050-AD

Helicopter Model: AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model A119 and AW119 MKII Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 65 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to ensure the windows do not detach from the doors, 

potentially injuring persons on the ground and damaging the helicopter’s tailboom and the tail 

rotor blades.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter negligible

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour for the 

inspection)

(1.5 work-hours x 

$85/work-hour for the 

bonding)

$43

$128

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $43 for the inspection

$128 for the bonding

Total US Fleet Cost $2,795 for the inspection

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Sharon Miles
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6054** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ERICKA L. FLOOD, a/k/a Ericka Lomick , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00124

- MOC

- 2; 3:12

- cv - 00186

- MOC )

Submitted : September 6 , 2013 Decided: September 16, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ericka L. Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt William Meyers , Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bi nding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ericka L. Flood seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion . We granted a limited remand for further factual development on the issue of whether Flood noted a timely appeal. United States v. Flood , No. 13

- 6054 , 2013 WL 1943792 (4th Cir. May 13, 2013) (unpublished) . After reviewing the district court’s additional findings, w e conclude that the no tice of appeal was not timely filed and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgm ent or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisd ictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on August 8, 2012 . The notice of appeal was filed on January 7,3 2013
. * Because Flood failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* W e agree with the district court’s assessment that January 7 is the earliest date the notice of appeal could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
Exhibit 34.3a



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Tothe Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (the
Company), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),
1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with
the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material
respects.



LOGO

February 6, 2017



LOGO
H. Res. 500

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

November 17, 2005.

Whereas on December 5, 1945, the 5 Avenger torpedo bombers of Flight 19, originating at the Naval Air Station of 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and its crew of 14 Navy airmen, disappeared; 

Whereas the Mariner rescue aircraft sent to search for Flight 

19, originating at the Naval Air Station of Banana River, 

Florida, and its crew of 13 Navy airmen, also disappeared on that date; 

Whereas December 5, 2005, marks the 60th anniversary of 

the disappearance of Flight 19; 

Whereas the loss of Flight 19 occurred during peacetime; 

Whereas the disappearance of Flight 19 sparked one of the 

largest air and sea rescue searches in history covering 

over 200,000 square miles; 

Whereas all investigations of the disappearance of Flight 19 

have failed to recover any aircraft, debris, or remains; 

Whereas there remain unanswered questions concerning the 

disappearance of Flight 19; and 

Whereas there are continuing efforts with the latest technology to determine the location of the lost aircraft and 

crews: Now, therefore, be it 
2

•HRES 500 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the 60th anniversary of the disappearance of the 5 naval Avenger torpedo bombers of 

Flight 19 and the naval Mariner rescue aircraft sent to 

search for Flight 19; 

(2) honors the memory of the 27 Navy airmen lost 

in these disappearances; 

(3) recognizes the historical significance of Flight 

19; 

(4) acknowledges continuing efforts to determine 

what caused these disappearances; and 

(5) commends the Naval Historical Center for preserving the history of Flight 19. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis H. Martin, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the 'County Court, Westchester County, entered December 18, 1968, which denied, without a hearing, defendant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis.*Appeal held in abeyance, pending the hearing and further proceedings directed by this court in *People*v. *Martin*(32 A D 2d 927). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.
§ 903.15 Public information forums. ( a ) One or more public information forums shall be held for major rate adjustments, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section, and may be held for minor adjustments, to explain, and to answer questions concerning, the Proposed Rates and the basis of and justification for proposing such rates. The number, dates, and locations of such forums will be determined by the Administrator in accordance with the anticipated or demonstrated interest in the Proposed Rates. Notice shall be given in advance of such forums. A public information forum may be combined with a public comment forum held in accordance with § 903.16.
( b ) The Administrator shall appoint a forum chairperson. Questions raised at the forum concerning the Proposed Rates and the studies shall be answered by PMA representatives at the forum, at a subsequent forum, or in writing at least 15 days before the end of the consultation and comment period. However, questions that involve voluminous data contained in the PMA records may be answered by providing an opportunity for consultation and for a review of the records at the PMA offices. As a minimum, the proceedings of the forum held at the principal location shall be transcribed. Copies of all documents introduced, and of questions and written answers shall be available at a designated location for inspection and copies will be furnished by the Administrator on request, for which a fee may be assessed. Copies of the transcript may be obtained from the transcribing service.
( c ) No public information forum need be held for major rate adjustments if, after the Administrator has given Notice of a scheduled forum, no person indicates in writing by a prescribed date an intent to appear at such public forum.
#### CAMPAU, Appellant, v. CAMPAU, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department.

January 8, 1915.)

Action by Mathilde V. Campau against Barnabe Campau.

No opinion. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, upon the ground that further evidence offered by plaintiff upon the subject of collusion should have been received.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 79 FR 75740, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 40.2 Scope.

Except as provided in §§ 40.11 to 40.14, inclusive, the regulations in this part apply to all persons in the United States. This part also gives notice to all persons who knowingly provide to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's or applicant's activities subject to this part, that they may be individually subject to NRC enforcement action for violation of § 40.10.

[63 FR 1896, Jan. 13, 1998]
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 743 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Children and Families Day, 

in order to encourage adults in the United States to support and listen 

to children and to help children throughout the Nation achieve their 

hopes and dreams, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2006 

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Children and 

Families Day, in order to encourage adults in the United 

States to support and listen to children and to help 

children throughout the Nation achieve their hopes and 

dreams, and for other purposes. 

Whereas research shows that spending time together as a 

family is critical to raising strong and resilient kids; 

Whereas strong healthy families improve the quality of life 

and the development of children; 

Whereas it is essential to celebrate and reflect upon the important role that all families play in the lives of children 

and their positive effect for the Nation’s future; and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 743 IH 

Whereas the country’s greatest natural resource is its children: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the goals and ideals of a National Children and Families 

3 Day to— 

4 (1) encourage adults to support, listen to, and 

5 encourage children throughout the Nation; 

6 (2) reflect upon the important role that all fam7 ilies play in the lives of children; and 

8 (3) recognize that strong, healthy families im9 prove the quality of life and the development of chil10 dren. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
H. Res. 668 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 20, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

1) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of 

the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, 

with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 

House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion 

offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means 

or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 20 minutes 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the mo-
2 

•HRES 668 EH 

tion to adoption without intervening motion. Clause 5(b) of 

rule XXI shall not apply to the motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
June 9, 2015

Greg Murtha XplorIt Multimedia Technologies 924 Incline Way Incline Village, NV 89451

Dear Mr. Murtha:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from §§ 21, 91.203, 45.23, 45.29, 91.9, 61.113, 61.133, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, Subpart E (91.401 – 91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 15, 2015, exemption request on behalf of XplorIt Multimedia Technologies into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0666), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### § 50.53 Jurisdictional limitations.

No license under this part shall be deemed to have been issued for activities which are not under or within the jurisdiction of the United States.

[21 FR 355, Jan. 19, 1956, as amended at 43 FR 6924, Feb. 17, 1978]