alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: MAY21,2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF 

# zrm AERO MICRONESIA, INC. dbaASIA PACIFIC AIRLINES, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil PenaltyAction) FDMS NO. FAA-:2012-0468 NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

## 22

This proceeding (heretofore designated as CaseNo. 2011WP350018) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Ronnie A. Yoder. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shallbe served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List. 1
Ronnie A. Yoder -.ChiefAdministrative LawJudge Attachment - Service List

1As oftoday, no documents have beenpostedto this case's docket in the Federal DocketManagement System (FDMS). Complainant's Counsel shall ensure that all documents filed and servedto date have beenprovidedto DOTDockets for posting on FDMS.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 2W1 000 2 ONE COPY Michael R. Quinn, President Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc., Respondent

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94526 TEL: 925-362-4430 FAX: 925-362-4432

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 PO Box92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-3454 FAX: ·310-725-6816

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Hearings, M-20 ·

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. -(E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAX: 202-366-7536

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0468 (Civil Penalty Action) 2 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 Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · -2-
§ 582.6760 Sodium hexametaphosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Sodium hexametaphosphate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Defense Policy Board, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Defense Policy Board will meet in closed session on March 18, 2010 from 0730 hrs until 1800 hrs and on March 19, 2010 from 0730 hrs until                               ( print page 9399)                            1030 hrs at the Pentagon. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy with independent, informed advice on major matters of defense policy. The Board will hold classified discussions on national security matters. In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. App II (1982)], it has been determined that this meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552B (c)(1)(1982), and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to the public.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ann Hansen, 703-571-9232.

Dated: February 23, 2010.

Mitchell S. Bryman,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-4296 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### Andrew Rossetti *v.*The City of New Britain

*Herbert Watstein,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*George J. Coyle,*city attorney, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 7

decided October 7, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County at Waterbury is denied.
#### § 70.40 Safety factors to be considered.

In accordance with section 721(b)(5)(A)(iii) of the act, the following safety factor will be applied in determining whether the proposed use of a color additive will be safe: Except where evidence is submitted which justifies use of a different safety factor, a safety factor of 100 to 1 will be used in applying animal experimentation data to man; that is, a color additive for use by man will not be granted a tolerance that will exceed 1/100th of the maximum no-effect level for the most susceptible experimental animals tested. The various species of experimental animals used in the tests shall conform to good pharmacological practice.
39021.

#### ANDERSON v. HOUSTON FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY *et al.*

Decided September 19, 1961

Rehearing denied October 19, 1961.

*Charles E. Wood,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin Ac Carr, Richard D. Carr, H. A. Stephens, Jr., W. Dent Aeree,*contra.

Bell, Judge.

*Code*§ 114-303, after providing the requirements for the employee’s giving notice of the accident to the *681employer, agent, representative, or foreman, or the immediate supervisor, goes on to provide: “No compensation will be payable unless such notice, either oral or written, is given within 30 days after the occurrence of an accident . . . unless it can be shown that the employee had been prevented from doing so by reason of physical or mental incapacity, or by fraud or deceit, or that the employer, his agent, representative, or foreman, or the immediate superior of the injured employee, had knowledge of the accident, or unless a reasonable excuse is made to the satisfaction of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation for not giving such notice, and it is reasonably proved to the satisfaction of the Board that the employer had not been prejudiced thereby.”

The finding of the board that the employee did not give the required notice within 30 days is supported by competent evidence. It is elementary that the board’s finding of fact must be accepted by the appellate courts if there is any competent evidence to support the finding. *Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. King,*104 Ga. App. 261 (121 SE2d 284).

The claimant makes the ingenious contention that the deputy director erred in making the findings of fact because she had concluded that it was not within her discretion to award compensation to the claimant unless notice was given the employer within 30 days of an accident. While *Code*§ 114-303 does provide for the finding of exceptions to the requirement that notice be given within 30 days after the accident in order for compensation to be payable, these findings are exclusively for the board to make. Where evidence is offered tending to show one or more of these exceptions or a reasonable excuse, the board is authorized by the statute to find the failure to give notice is excused. The failure of the board to make an affirmative finding that an exception or a reasonable excuse is present in a case is tantamount to a finding that no reasonable excuse or exception was proven to the satisfaction of the board.

The reasonableness of the excuse offered for failure to give the notice is peculiarly a matter for determination by the board. *Federated Mutual &c. Ins. Co. v. Elliott,*88 Ga. App. 266 (76 SE2d 568); *Hardware Mutual &c. Co. v. Sprayberry,*69 Ga. *682App. 196 (25 SE2d 74). Where there is evidence from which the board might have found prevention from giving the notice by reason of physical or mental incapacity, but the evidence does not demand such a finding, this court will not disturb the order of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation denying compensation. *James v. Fite,*38 Ga. App. 759 (145 SE 536).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
EPA’s Administrative Record for Kansas SWMP Approval (Numbered)

October 19, 2015

1. 7/1/15 Correspondence from Kansas to R7 including draft SWMP for preliminary 

review

2. Draft SWMP dated 6/30/15

3. 7/1/15 Correspondence from Kansas to R7 asking for 30 day public comment period

4. 7/22/15 Correspondence from R7 to Kansas containing an update on review

5. 7/22/15 Correspondence from Kansas to R7 regarding review update

6. 8/6/15 Correspondence from R7 to Kansas including EPA’s comments on draft SWMP

7. Draft Part 256 Checklist

8. 8/10/15 Correspondence from Kansas to R7 email asking about typo in our comments 

(FR page numbers)

9. 8/10/15 Correspondence from R7 to Kansas clarifying the typo (FR page numbers)

10. 8/18/15 From Kansas to R7 email requesting clarification of specific comments

11. 8/25/15 Correspondence from R7 to Kansas clarifying specific comments from the 

8/18/15 email

12. 8/25/15 Submittal from Kansas to R7 of proposed SWMP for “final” preliminary review 

(5 attachments)

13. Proposed Part 256 CCR Plan with the all appendices dated 8/24/15

14. Proposed Part 256 CCR Plan without the appendices

15. A comparison document of the August (proposed) and June (draft) Part 256 CCR 

plans

16. KDHE’s Response to EPA’s comments on the draft Part 256 CCR plan

17. Public hearing notice

18. 10/7/15 Official submittal of SWMP for EPA Approval, from Kansas to R7 with 3 

attachment

19. Final version of the Kansas Coal Combustions Residuals Part 256 Plan dated 9/29/15

20. The hearing officers report, including KDHE’s “Responsiveness Summary” related to 

received public comments on the CCR Plan

21. The CCR Plan adoption statement signed on October 7, 2015 by the Secretary of KDHE

22. 10/19/15 Approval letter from R7 to Kansas

23. Final Part 256 Checklist
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See attached file(s)
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule grid
?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Final rule
?  No Comment
EXHIBIT 32


    Certification pursuant to 18. U.S.C Section 1350 pursuant to Section 906
               of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; filed herewith

November 10, 2004


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Re:  Certification Required Under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, John E. Loehr, Chief Executive Officer of
GulfWest Energy Inc. (the "Company"), and Richard L. Creel, Vice President of
Finance of the Company hereby certify that:

     1.   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


GulfWest Energy Inc.


/s/ John E. Loehr
------------------------
By: John E. Loehr
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Richard L. Creel
------------------------
By: Richard L. Creel
Vice President of Finance




                                       21
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08493**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  08493\08493_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08493\08493_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08493\08493_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08493\08493_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08493\08493_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08493\08943_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08493\Certification Statement Plant ID_08493.pdf Plant certification statement x 08493\Supporting Documentation\08493_Choctaw_A5-3_Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08493\Supporting Documentation\08493_Choctaw_MAP_1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08493\Supporting Documentation\08493_Choctaw_MAP_2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7318
In Re: COLIN SEALE, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-663, CA-00-918) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Colin Seale, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Colin Seale petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court has now ruled on his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Seale’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant Seale’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0107 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-018-AD

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

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

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

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

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection (a/c w/o 

fuel bladders) 8.0 $ 680.00 $ 680.00 10 $6,800.00

Inspection (a/c with 

fuel bladders) 80.0 $6,800.00

$6,800.00 28 $190,400.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $197,200

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement 960.0 $81,600.00 $10,000 $91,600.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

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

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): All costs are 
estimated. Costing information is being obtained from an operator. Neptune is known to have removed the 

fuel bladders and they have 10 aircraft (hence the two entries for the inspection).

Executive Order 12866:

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

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: if replacement is required, then costs could escalate significantly. However, not replacing 

damaged structure has dire consequences.

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?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
###### Editorial Note on Part 170

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 170 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001, and 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 170.22 Safety factors to be considered.

In accordance with section 409(c)(5)(C) of the Act, the following safety factors will be applied in determining whether the proposed use of a food additive will be safe: Except where evidence is submitted which justifies use of a different safety factor, a safety factor in applying animal experimentation data to man of 100 to 1, will be used; that is, a food additive for use by man will not be granted a tolerance that will exceed 1⁄100th of the maximum amount demonstrated to be without harm to experimental animals.
39183.

#### KING v. DAVISON-PAXON COMPANY.

Decided November 20, 1961.

*823*Edward P. Murrain, Jr., Frank U. Garrard, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hatcher, Smith, Stubbs & Rothschild, Albert W. Stubbs,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

“A merchant must have a place to locate his goods, counters, and applicance with which to conduct his business, and when such appliances are not placed so as to threaten danger to those visiting the store, -and are in full sight, and within the observation of everyone, the merchant is not liable for accidents which result from carelessness and inattention to the surroundings.” *Tinley v. F. W. Woolworth Co.,*70 Ga. App. 390, 393 (28 SE2d 322).

While it was alleged in the instant petition that the defendant store was negligent in placing certain fixtures in close proximity to one another, there were no allegations that this condition was concealed in any manner or that the fixtures were not in use in the customary manner for which they were designed. Nor did the petition allege that the plaintiff had not actually seen the racks in question; nor allege any special circumstances such as the existence of an optical illusion or poor lighting which might *824have given the fixtures and the area around them, a deceptive appearance; nor was there any allegation that plaintiff’s attention was diverted by the display of merchandise or in any other manner.

Construing the petition most strongly againt the pleader, as must be done on general demurrer, it must thus be presumed that the racks in question were in full sight and within the observation of the plaintiff and that she in fact saw such fixtures before striking her knee against the “pyramidal display rack” since she does not allege to the contrary. Accordingly, it cannot be said in this case that the defendant store neglected any duty which it owed to the plaintiff.

The facts alleged in the plaintiff’s petition easily distinguish this case from *Stanfield v. Forrest Five &c. Stores,*95 Ga. App. 739 (99 SE2d 167) and *Big Apple Super Market v. Briggs,*102 Ga. App. 11 (115 SE2d 385), relied upon by the plaintiff in error.

The petition as amended therefore did not state a cause of action against the defendant and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference, in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-45669 and No. 333-47573), of our report dated February 26,
1998 except for Note 17, as to which the date is November 12, 1998, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Global TeleSystems
Group, Inc. included in Amendment No. 1 to the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                        Ernst & Young LLP

   
Vienna, Virginia
December 4, 1998
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 18, 202 4

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D24

- 341 Lower Tribunal No s

. 23

- 003578CS , 2001680266, 13220016403FC

________________


### Iderious Lee Love , Appellant,

vs. 

### Department of Revenue , Child Support Program, et al. , Appellee s

. An Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program

. Iderious Lee Love, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Tallahassee) , for appellee Department of Revenue

.
Before MILLER, LOBREE and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 409.2563 (2)(e) , Fla. Stat. (2024) (“ This section does2

not grant jurisdiction to the department or the Division of Administrative Hearings to hear or determine issues of

. . . disputed paternity . . . .”); Fernandez v. Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support , 971 So. 2d 875, 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“ When paternity has already been established by affidavit, a birth certificate, or a prior judicial proceeding, the father is not a ‘ putative father ’ and DOR, the mother, or the child do not bear the burden of proving paternity. A father ’ s response, ‘ need DNA test, ’ to a DO R administrative proceeding for child support does not by itself terminate the proceeding or require DOR to commence a circuit court action to establish paternity. Rather, the burden is then on the respondent to commence his own action in the circuit court to prove that what was previously admitted, his fatherhood, is in fact a falsehood. ”) (citations omitted); McGee v. McGee , 264 So. 3d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[W]ithout a transcript of the hearing we cannot presume that the trial court ’ s determin ation of the former husband ’ s share of the child ’ s need for support was unsupported by sufficient evidence presented at trial.”).
EPA-420-F-13-036 

June 2013

Independent Commercial Importers 

The following is a list of Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) who currently hold a valid Certificate of 

Conformity from EPA. This certificate allows the ICI to import certain nonconforming vehicles into the 

U. S., THE MAKES OR MODELS THAT AN ICI CAN IMPORT ARE LIMITED. You should contact the 

ICI to determine if it is qualified to import your particular vehicle and if it currently has a valid Certificate of 

Conformity.

Auto Boutique Ltd. Falcon Lab, LLC G & K Automotive

660 Baker St. 405-V 4005 Mathews Road Conversion, Inc.

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Spring Arbor, MI 49283 2530 S. Birch Street 

Rep: Makoto Harada Rep: Jeff Kinney Santa Ana, CA 92707 

Phone: (714) 668-0235 Phone (517) 917-3499 Phone (714) 545-9503 

Email: epa@autoboutique.us Fax: (517) 750-3392 Fax: (714) 545-7667 

 Email: kinney@westernschools.org Email: george@gnkauto.com

J.K. Technologies, LLC US Drive Right Wallace Environmental 

3500 Sweet Air Street P.O. Box 492 Testing Laboratories

Baltimore, MD 21211 Spring Arbor, MI 49283 2140 Wirtcrest 

Rep: Jonathan Weisheit Rep: Bruce Hildenbrand Houston, TX 77055 

Phone: (410) 366-6332 Phone: (517) 206-4486 Rep: Les Weaver

Fax: (410) 366-7655 Email: bruce@usdriveright.com Phone: (713) 956-7705 

Email: convert2us@aol.com Fax: (713) 956-0104 

 Email: sales@wallacelab.com

 EPA DOES NOT ENDORSE OR RECOMMEND ANY PARTICULAR ICI ON THIS LIST. Test 

documentation for an individual vehicle and other information concerning the quality of modifications will 

be carefully scrutinized to determine whether such vehicle meets all applicable EPA requirements under the 

imports regulations.