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

Headquarters Location 

Joplin, Missouri 

Contact: 

Bruce Stockton 

VP, Maintenance 

SmartWay Transport 

Partnership Representative 

(417) 659-5085 

bstockton@cfi-us.com 

Number of Employees: 

3,000 

Strategy Category: 

Tire Technology 

Number of Trailers: 

7,400 

Number of Power Units: 

2,095 

Tire Technology ­

Wide-Base Tires 

Partner


Profile


Contract Freighters, Inc. 

Contract Freighters, Inc. (CFI), founded in 1951, operates over 2,400 tractors and over 7,000 trailers and transports a variety of goods throughout the contiguous United States and Canada. CFI interlines with Mexican 

carriers at various border crossings to provide through-trailer service to Mexico. 

In addition to its Joplin headquarters, CFI operates four terminals and numerous 

drop lots along the border and throughout the United States. CFI and its 

subsidiaries, CFI Mex, CFI de Mexico, and CFI Logística, have 37 sales offices 

throughout North America. The driver fleet is comprised of both company 

drivers and independent contractors. 

In late 2002, CFI began looking for ways to improve their fleet’s fuel 

economy. Recognizing that wide-base tires improve fuel economy because 

they weigh less than conventional tires and have a lower rolling resistance, 

CFI decided to purchase 750 tractors outfitted with wide-base tires from 

their original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Each tractor cost only $40 

more than it would have otherwise cost if it did not have wide-base tires. 

With a fuel economy improvement of 2/10 to 3/10 of a mile per gallon, CFI 

estimated that the $40 per truck was paid for within the first 2,500 miles 

of driving. 

In addition to purchasing tractors with wide-base tires, CFI outfitted 100 

trailers with wide-base tires. In 2004, CFI estimated savings of approximately 805,000 gallons of fuel due to their wide-base tires. 

CFI’s drivers have said that they prefer wide-base tires for several reasons: 

1) their brakes stay cooler and offer more stopping power because the 

wide-base wheel exposes more of he break drum; and 2) it is easy to 

determine if a tire’s air pressure is low because there isn’t another tire 

beside it; and 3) the tires look attractive. 

CFI expects to have 100% of its 

tractor fleet converted by the end 

of 2006. According to CFI, this 

will translate into fuel savings 

of approximately 2.3 million 

gallons per year, which will 

amount to cost savings of 

approximately $4.6 million! 

http://www.epa.gov/smartway EPA420-F-06-011
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10931]



[[Page 25736]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 98F-0430]


Nalco Chemical Co.; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 8A4598) proposing that the food additive regulations be 
amended to provide for the safe use of sodium acrylate/sulfonated 
styrene copolymer for use as an antiscalant boiler treatment where 
steam from treated boilers may contact food.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Parvin M. Yasaei, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3023.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of June 30, 1998 (63 FR 35603), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 8A4598) had been filed by Nalco Chemical Co., 
One Nalco Center, Naperville, IL 60563. The petition proposed to amend 
the food additive regulations in Sec. 173.310 Boiler water additives 
(21 CFR 173.310) to provide for the safe use of sodium acrylate/
sulfonated styrene copolymer for use as an antiscalant boiler treatment 
where steam from treated boilers may contact food. Nalco Chemical Co. 
has now withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 
CFR 171.7).

    Dated: April 5, 2000.
Alan M. Rulis,
Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 00-10931 Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
|Advisory Council on Historic PreservationThe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation promotes the  preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s diverse  historic resources, and advises the Presidentand the Congress on  national historic preservation policy.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|ACHP logo
      Preserving America'sHeritagesm

    
      About ACHPACHP NewsNational Historic Preservation ProgramWorking with Section 106Section 106 SuccessesFederal & State ProgramsWorking with Tribes and NHOsTraining & EducationPublicationsYouth & Historic PreservationInvolving All People in PreservationSustainability
        Energy, Transmission and Historic PreservationRightsizingUnified Federal Review
      

Follow the ACHP on Facebook:
Preservation: The Next Generation updates

Preservation Indigenous - Native Youth updates

Follow @usachp
|First-Time Visitors|   Site Index   |   FAQs   |   Privacy Policy   |   E-Mail Us                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001-2637
(202) 517-0200     [email protected]      www.achp.gov
```

[114th Congress Public Law 106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 2222]]

Public Law 114-106
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the annual 
comment period for payment rates under Medicare Advantage. <<NOTE: Dec. 
                       18, 2015 -  [H.R. 3831]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Securing 
Fairness in Regulatory Timing Act of 2015.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Fairness in Regulatory 
Timing Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. EXTENDING THE ANNUAL COMMENT PERIOD FOR PAYMENT RATES 
                    UNDER MEDICARE ADVANTAGE.

    Section 1853(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
23(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(or, in 2017 and each subsequent year, at 
        least 60 days)'' after ``45 days''; and
            (2) by inserting ``(in 2017 and each subsequent year, of no 
        less than 30 days)'' after ``opportunity''.

    Approved December 18, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3831:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            Dec. 10, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 135.101 Second in command required under IFR.

Except as provided in § 135.105, no person may operate an aircraft carrying passengers under IFR unless there is a second in command in the aircraft.

[Doc. No. 28743, 62 FR 42374, Aug. 6, 1997]
§ 151.55 Accounting and audit. ( a ) Each sponsor shall establish and maintain, for each individual project, an adequate accounting record to allow appropriate personnel of the FAA to determine all funds received (including funds of the sponsor and funds received from the United States or other sources), and to determine the allowability of all incurred costs of the project. The sponsor shall segregate and group project costs so that it can furnish, on due notice, cost information in the following cost classifications: ( 1 ) Purchase price or value of land.
( 2 ) Incidental costs of land acquisition.
( 3 ) Costs of contract construction.
( 4 ) Costs of force account construction.
( 5 ) Engineering costs of plans and designs.
( 6 ) Engineering costs of supervision and inspection.
( 7 ) Other administrative costs.
( b ) The sponsor shall obtain and retain in its files for a period of three years after the date of the final grant payment, documentary evidence such as invoices, cost estimates, and payrolls supporting each item of project costs.
( c ) The sponsor shall retain, for a period of three years after the date of the final grant payment, evidence of all payments for items of project costs including vouchers, cancelled checks or warrants, and receipts for cash payments.
( d ) The sponsor shall allow the Administrator and the Comptroller General of the United States, or an authorized representative of either of them, access to any of its books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to grants received under the Federal-aid Airport Program for the purposes of accounting and audit. Appropriate FAA personnel may make progress audits at any time during the project, upon notice to the sponsor. If work is suspended on the project for an appreciable period of time, an audit will be made before any semi-final payment is made. In each case an audit is made before the final payment.
[Doc. No. 1329, 27 FR 12351, Dec. 13, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 151-8, 30 FR 8040, June 23, 1965]
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .
Agreement s Adopte d by th e Traffi c Conference s of th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n 

### OST-2010 - OtLe ^

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S

B Y TH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPORT ASSOCIATIO N lAT A AGREEMEN

T APPROVE

D & IMMUNIZE

D DOCKETOST

- // > - 0Zln l ACT K :DAT E Qc^' ^ ^ i ^of o Thi s approva

l an dgran t of antitrus t immunit y i s subject , wher

e applicable , t o condition s previousl

y imposed . Thi s actio n i s etfectivc afte

r 7 day s unles s apetition i s file dunde r 1 4 CF K 385.3 0 o r arevie w i s undertake

n o n the Department' s ow

n motion . I n vie w o f the agreement' s noncontroversia l natur e an dthe availabilit

y o f . th e above/tJr^cedure , the ^-^l^ y ped^jj ) 1 4 C^ R303.42 i s waived . 

### 2 5 Octobe r201 0 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Dougla s Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h America Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n lAT A Washington , 177 6 KSt . N.W . #12 " Floo r Washingto n D C 2000 6
§ 19-8.8 Editing data. ( a ) *City and airport, or terminus, codes.* Prior to submission of O&D, each carrier is to edit the recorded data to validate city and airport or terminus codes. This edit is to verify that the codes recorded are valid official codes, and it is independent of whether the carriers shown operated into or out of the airport or terminus shown. Any questions about airport or terminus codes should be addressed to the Director, Office of Airline Information.
( b ) *Edit responsibility of carriers.* Each carrier is responsible for developing edit procedures and internal controls over its data entry and processing procedures so that valid and reliable data are captured in the O&D inputs. Since the carriers have many different statistical systems, it is not practicable for the Department of Transportation to prescribe specific controls in this area, and each carrier is responsible for developing the appropriate internal control procedures to edit the O&D data and ensure the integrity of these data. The Department will control the accuracy of its processing of the sampled data upon receipt from the carriers or their third-party providers.
( c ) *System documentation of edits.* Carriers are required to maintain written O&D procedural statements and flow charts.
Tyler Barnes 1417 4 Bone Camp Road, Coker AL 35452 205.210.9611 tbarnes76@gmail.com 11/12/2015 

### Petitionfor Section 333 Exemption ._,\

I hereby formally request FAA authorization for Tyler Barnes dba Tyler Barnes Photography (hereafter "PETITIONER") to operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes otherthan for recreation orhobby. PETITIONER requests to be exempted from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and 

### (b), to the extentnecessaryto allow PETITIONER to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including butnotlimited to aerial imaging.

· PETITIONER requests this exemption for its {!Se ofUAS both within and withoutthe United States.

PETITIONER frequently travels abroad for photographic endeavors and. seeks to use UAS in accordance with all laws offoreign and domestic governmental authorities. PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use ofUAS models including DJI Phantom 1, DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire, 3D Robotics IRIS+, 3D Robotics Solo, 3D Robotics X8+, and 3D Robotics X8- M, or other similar commercially-available and widely-available UAS models. PETITIONER will conductits use ofUAS in a manner which will minimize riskto the NAS, other persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a pre-flight inspection before each flight to examine air-worthiness, (2) UAS will notbe materially altered from commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS will notbe flown over people, (4) UAS will always.be flown within line ofsightto operator( s) pursuantto Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will never reach speeds exceeding 50 mph, (7) operatorwill perform a pre-flightvisual inspection ofthe NAS to determine nearby dangers such as low-flying manned orunmanned aerial vehicles, power lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote control, and properperformance at a very low altitude before reaching the NAS, and (9) nonparticipating spectatorswill be asked to stay a safe distance awayfrom the flight path ofthe UAS and its landing location. PETITIONER is an experienced UAS operatorwith more than oneyear of experience. This petition will benefitthe public interest. PETITIONER will provide imagery which is not otherwise possible to be captured withoutthe use ofa UAV, which will assist companies to which the images maybe sold, will enhance the public understanding ofnature photographed bythe UAS,

### and PETITIONER will be able to provide UAS safety information to those with whom he or she comes in contact. Please grantthe requested exemption under Section 333.

## <~·····--~~;:?~--·······



## ...-:;::::::--**~** 

### _............---TYler Barnes
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Transmittal of Abbreviated Supplemental Record to the Court of Appeals 

DATE: March 5, 2018 

 

DC #: 17-BK-3283 (LTS) PROMESA 

 

USCA #: 17-2168 

 

CASE CAPTION: In Re: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

 

SPECIAL COMMENTS: Electronically filed documents 

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDED AS A SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL:

DOCUMENTS: VOLUMES: 

Docket Entry: Order 2402 I 

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed documents contained herein are the pleadings as described above 

and constitute the abbreviated supplemental record on appeal in the case. 

 

 FRANCES RIOS DE MORAN 

 Clerk of the Court 

 S/ Marian B. Ramirez-Rivera 

 Marian B. Ramirez-Rivera 

 Deputy Clerk 

s/c: CM/ECF Parties, Appeals Clerk 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2662 Filed:03/05/18 Entered:03/05/18 14:51:16 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.21 Issue of type certificate: normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport category aircraft; manned free balloons; special classes of aircraft; aircraft engines; propellers. An applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category, or for a manned free balloon, special class of aircraft, or an aircraft engine or propeller, if— ( a ) The product qualifies under § 21.27; or
( b ) The applicant submits the type design, test reports, and computations necessary to show that the product to be certificated meets the applicable airworthiness, aircraft noise, fuel venting, exhaust emission, and fuel efficiency requirements of this subchapter and any special conditions prescribed by the FAA, and the FAA finds— ( 1 ) Upon examination of the type design, and after completing all tests and inspections, that the type design and the product meet the applicable noise, fuel venting, emissions, and fuel efficiency requirements of this subchapter, and further finds that they meet the applicable airworthiness requirements of this subchapter or that any airworthiness provisions not complied with are compensated for by factors that provide an equivalent level of safety; and
( 2 ) For an aircraft, that no feature or characteristic makes it unsafe for the category in which certification is requested.
[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14564, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-15, 32 FR 3735, Mar. 4, 1967; Amdt. 21-27, 34 FR 18368, Nov. 18, 1969; Amdt. 21-60, 52 FR 8042, Mar. 13, 1987; Amdt. 21-68, 55 FR 32860, Aug. 10, 1990; Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53385, Oct. 16, 2009; Amdt. No. 21-107, 89 FR 12653, Feb. 16, 2024]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Morning Session:

Set: 9:30 AM (AST)

Started: 9:39 AM (AST)

Ended: 11:48 AM (AST)

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE JUDGE LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN DATE: June 28, 2023

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JUDITH G. DEIN

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Carmen Tacoronte

COURT REPORTER: Sadie Herbert / Rebecca Forman (SDNY)

In Re: 

The Financial Oversight and Management 

Board for Puerto Rico

as representative of

3:17-BK-3283 (LTS)

PROMESA Title III

(Jointly Administered)

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al.,

Debtors

In Re: 

The Financial Oversight and Management Board 

for Puerto Rico

3:17-BK-4780 (LTS)

PROMESA Title III

as representative of

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority,

(Jointly Administered)

Debtor

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24684 Filed:06/28/23 Entered:06/28/23 15:29:48 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Preliminary Injunction Hearing held. 

Arguments heard in relation to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Case No. 23-00045, ECF 

No. 2]. Matter taken under advisement. Order to be issued. 

PREPA Litigation Schedule in 17-BK-4780 discussed. 

Housekeeping and scheduling matters discussed. Parties shall meet and confer regarding 

a reasonable confirmation schedule. 

Arguments heard. Order setting deadlines concerning the plan depository, witness lists, 

and the PREPA amended plan to be issued. 

Next Scheduled Hearing:

Omnibus Hearing set for August 30, 2023, at 9:30 AM (AST) before Judge Laura Taylor 

Swain. 

s/Carmen Tacoronte

Carmen Tacoronte

Courtroom Deputy 

Unión de Trabajadores de la Industria Eléctrica y 

Riego, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

3:19-AP-00045 (LTS)

in 3:17-BK-4780 (LTS)

v. 

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, et al.,

Defendants.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24684 Filed:06/28/23 Entered:06/28/23 15:29:48 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### William J. BOLTON, Adm’r. et al *v.*Eula Armstrong SMITH

5-6026

485 S.W. 2d 224

Opinion delivered October 9, 1972

*Roy H. Mitchell,*for appellants.

*Michael B. Heindl,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

This action arises out of an ante-nuptial agreement between Dessie Hamilton and Leo*192nard Hamilton before their marriage in 1947. Pursuant to that agreement Leonard conveyed to Dessie a lot on Lake Hamilton which was erroneously described as Lot 9 of Block E, Point Lookout Subdivision. Dessie died in 1957 without issue and by her will devised Leonard a life estate in the Lake Hamilton lot with the remainder to her sister Eula Armstrong Smith. While Leonard was in possession of the lot, as life tenant, he discovered that the “Lot 9” description was erroneous. In January, 1969, he conveyed the Lot by its proper description “Lot 7” to his son and daughter-in-law, William and Delores Bolton. After Leonard’s death and the discovery of the 1969 conveyance, Eula Armstrong Smith brought this action against William and Delores Bolton and Leonard’s estate to have the 1969 conveyance set aside or in the alternative for damages. The Chancellor found that William and Delores were bona fide purchasers for value and because of the recording statute took superior title. However, he assessed the damages on the basis of the present market value of the property plus reasonable attorney’s fees. Leonard’s estate has appealed contending that under our decisions, such as *O’Bar v. Hight,*169 Ark. 1008, 277 S.W. 533 (1925), the only damages recoverable for a breach of warranty is the consideration paid. We agree with the Chancellor.

The Chancellor in ruling against Leonard’s estate relied upon an exception to the rule set out in *O’Bar*v. *Hight, supra.*The exception as stated in *Madden*v. *Caldwell Land Co.,*16 Idaho 59, 100 P. 358, see also 20 Am. Jur. 2d p. 692, is to the effect that a vendor, after conveying good title, who subsequently conveys to another, who takes superior title by first recording his deed, stands in the same position of a vendor who breaches his contract and refuses to convey. Another similar exception to the rule stated by appellant is where the vendor has practiced a fraud. See *Backus*v. *McCoy,*3 Ohio 211 (1827), *Sellards*v. *Adams,*190 Ky. 723, 228 S.W. 424 (1921), and 20 Am. Jur. 2d Covenants, Conditions, etc. § 142. Under either exception, the Chancellor correctly assessed the damages at the market value.

Eula has cross-appealed from the Chancellor’s finding that William and Delores were bona fide purchasers for value. On the record, as abstracted, we cannot say that the *193Chancellor’s finding is contrary to a preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed with all costs to be assessed against Leonard’s estate.