alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
List of Pollutants with Updated Health Risk Factors

February 2013

75092 Methylene Chloride 2 × 10–3

kg daymg USEPA IRIS EPA635R10003F

67721 Hexachloroethane 4 × 10–2

kg daymg USEPA IRIS EPA635R09007F

75252 Bromoform 4.6 × 10–3

kg daymg USEPA OW EPA822R05011

75274 Dichlorobromomethane 3.5 x 10 2 kg daymg USEPA OW EPA822R05011

127184 Tetrachloroethylene 2.1 × 10–3

kg daymg USEPA IRIS EPA635R08011F

79345 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 2 × 10–1

kg daymg USEPA IRIS EPA635R09001F this value was already included in the spread

87865 Pentachlorophenol 4 × 10–1

kg daymg USEPA IRIS EPA635R09004F

79016 Trichloroethylene 4.6 × 10–2

kg daymg USEPA IRIS EPA635R09011F

72559 4,4DDE 1.67 × 10–1 kg daymg USEPA OW EPA815R08012

78875 1,2Dichloropropane 3.6 × 10–2

kg daymg Cal EPA httpwww oehha ca gov waterphg pdf 12dcp fpdf

87683 Hexachlorobutadiene 4 × 10–2

kg daymg USEPA OW EPA822R03002

124481 Chlorodibromomethane 4.3 x 10 2

kg daymg USEPA OW EPA822R05011

121142 2,4Dinitrotoluene 0.31 kg day mg Cal EPA httpoehha ca gov airhotspots pdf TSDNov2002 pdf

56235 Carbon Tetrachloride 7 × 10–2

kg daymg USEPA IRIS EPA635R08005F

57125 Cyanide 6 × 10–4

mgkg day USEPA IRIS EPA635R08016F

58899 GammaBHC Lindane 4.7 × 10–3

mgkg day USEPA OPP Federal Register 67 5950059502

98953 Nitrobenzene 2 × 10–3

mgkg day USEPA IRIS EPA635R08004F

156605 1,2Trans Dichloroethylene 0.02 mgkg day USEPA IRIS EPA635R09006F this value was already included in the spread

67663 Chloroform 0.01 mgkg day USEPA IRIS EPA635R01001 this value was already included in the spread

94757 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide 2,4D 5 × 10–3

mgkg day USEPA OPP EPA738R05002 Didn't find this chemical on spreadsheet

74839 Methyl Bromide 2 × 10–2

mgkg day USEPA OPP PC Code 053201 DP Barcode D304623

108883 Toluene 0.08 mgkg day USEPA IRIS EPA635R05004

CAS Carcinogen CSF Source

CAS Non Carcinogen RfD Source

EPA001858
October 15, 2014

Mr. Jake Thomas 23-96 Brighton Court

Lanark, IL 61046

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This letter is to inform you that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is unable to process your request for an exemption any furt her, and explains why we cannot process your request for an exemption from §§ 61.160(c)(2) and 61.160(c)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

You entered a petition for exemption on July 11, 2014, into the public docket (No. FAA2014-0477). The relief that you are seeking is for an eligibility requirement for an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate with restricted privileges. If an individual were granted the relief that you have requested, further relief fr om additional requirements listed in § 61.160(c)

would be needed to exercise that relief.

Specifically, § 61.160(c)(1) requires an applicant for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges to hold an Associate’s degree with an aviation major from an institution of higher education that has been issued a letter of authorization (LOA) by the FAA under § 61.169(b). Under § 61.169(b), an institution of higher education must comply with the LOA and may not certify a graduate unless it determines that the graduate meets the requirements of § 61.160.

Additionally, under § 61.160(c)(4), an applicant for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges with an airplane category multiengine class rating, or an ATP certificate with restricted privileges obtained concurrently with an airplane type rating “must present an official transcript and certifying document from an institution of higher education that holds a letter of authorization from the Administrator under § 61.169.” The relief that you have requested would not permit an institution of higher education to deviate from the requirements prescribed in § 61.169 or the conditions listed in the LOA.2

In summary, the relief for which you are petitioning the FAA is insufficient for the outcome you are seeking since it would not provide the appropriate relief for an individual to be eligible for an ATP certificate with restrict ed privileges in accordance with § 61.160(b).

The FAA will only consider the relief that you have requested, if that request for exemption originates from an institution of higher education, as defined in § 61.1, since the authority to certify graduates for an ATP certificate under the academic and aeronautical experience requirements in § 61.160 may be satisfied only by the institution’s determination of eligibility. Therefore, the FAA will not process your request for further consideration of an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.160(c)(2) and 61.160(c)(3).

Sincerely,

/s/ James M. Crotty Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO, 

As representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, et al.

Debtors1.

PROMESA

Title III

Case No. 17-CV-01578-LTS

Case No. 17-03283

 (Joint Administration Requested)

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF RETIREES

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

Pursuant to section 1102(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, made applicable to these 

proceedings by section 301 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability 

Act of 2016 or “PROMESA”, Guy G. Gebhardt, Acting United States Trustee for Region 21 

hereby appoints the following persons to the Official Committee of Retirees in case no. 17-BK03283 (the Commonwealth’s Title III Case):

1) Blanca Paniagua 

2) Carmen Nunez 

3) Jose Marin 

4) Juan Ortiz 

 1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective bankruptcy case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); 

(iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); and (iv) Employees Retirement System 

of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686). Case Nos. 17 BK 3283-LTS and 17 BK 

3284-LTS are jointly administered by order of the court.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:340 Filed:06/15/17 Entered:06/15/17 07:57:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
5) Lydia Pellot 

6) Marcos A Lopez 

7) Miguel Fabre 

8) Milagros Acevedo 

9) Rosario Pacheco 

DATED: June 15, 2017

GUY G. GEBHARDT

Acting United States Trustee for Region 21

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

Edificio Ochoa

500 Tanca Street, Suite 301

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901-1922

Tel.: (787) 729-7444

Fax: (787) 729-7449

(Electronically Filed)

By: s/ Monsita Lecaroz-Arribas

Monsita Lecaroz-Arribas

Assistant U.S. Trustee

USDC-PR No. 207707

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:340 Filed:06/15/17 Entered:06/15/17 07:57:00 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN MICHAEL PERZEL,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 166 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of July, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 125.285 Pilot qualifications: Recent experience. ( a ) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as a required pilot flight crewmember unless within the preceding 90 calendar days that person has made at least three takeoffs and landings in the type airplane in which that person is to serve. The takeoffs and landings required by this paragraph may be performed in a flight simulator if the flight simulator is qualified and approved by the Administrator for such purpose. However, any person who fails to qualify for a 90-consecutive-day period following the date of that person's last qualification under this paragraph must reestablish recency of experience as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) A required pilot flight crewmember who has not met the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may reestablish recency of experience by making at least three takeoffs and landings under the supervision of an authorized check airman, in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) At least one takeoff must be made with a simulated failure of the most critical powerplant.
( 2 ) At least one landing must be made from an ILS approach to the lowest ILS minimums authorized for the certificate holder.
( 3 ) At least one landing must be made to a complete stop.
( c ) A required pilot flight crewmember who performs the maneuvers required by paragraph (b) of this section in a qualified and approved flight simulator, as prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, must— ( 1 ) Have previously logged 100 hours of flight time in the same type airplane in which the pilot is to serve; and
( 2 ) Be observed on the first two landings made in operations under this part by an authorized check airman who acts as pilot in command and occupies a pilot seat. The landings must be made in weather minimums that are not less than those contained in the certificate holder's operations specifications for Category I operations and must be made within 45 days following completion of simulator testing.
( d ) An authorized check airman who observes the takeoffs and landings prescribed in paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) of this section shall certify that the person being observed is proficient and qualified to perform flight duty in operations under this part, and may require any additional maneuvers that are determined necessary to make this certifying statement.
[Doc. No. 19779, 45 FR 67235, Oct. 9, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 125-27, 61 FR 34561, July 2, 1996; Doc. No. FAA-2022-1355; Amdt. 125-72; 87 FR 75847, Dec. 9, 2022]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Zaxis International Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”), as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivo Heiden, President,CFO and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo Heiden President, CFO and ChairmanDated: May 17, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zaxis International Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
#### Smith *v.*The State.

*Assault and Battery.*

(Decided June 10, 1915.

69 South. 301.)

1. *Assault and Battery; Self-Defense.*— Where defendant had been actually attacked and threatened, and there is a reasonable mode of escape open to him, which will not increase his real or apparent danger, if he can, he must, in the exercise of reasonable prudence avail himself of it, and avoid a combat, although it may incur some inconvenience.

2. *Same; Self-Defense.*— A charge which submits the issue of self-defense as a defense to an assault and which fails to hypothesize an honest belief on defendant’s part that he was in imminent peril, is properly refused.

Appeal from. Cberokee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

Bill John Smith was convicted of assault, and he appeals.

Affirmed.-

Charge 1 is as follows: The duty to retreat only requires an assailed person to retreat as far as he can conveniently and safely do to avoid the violence of the assault, and if you believe from the evidence that the defendant had at the time he fired the shot retreated as far as he could safely be, and that the circumstances surrounding him at the time should have created in his mind a reasonable belief of his own imminent peril, and of an urgent necessity to fire the shot, then you should acquit the defendant, if you believe the defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.

Hugh Reed and R. F. Connor, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and W. H. Mitohell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*175PELHAM, P. J

(1, 2) Charge No. 1 refused to the defendant could have been taken by the jury to mean, in effect, that if the defendant could not have retreated without inconvenience to himself, there was no duty upon him to retreat. This is not the law. If there is a reasonable mode of escape open to the party attacked, or threatened with attack, that will not increase his danger, real or apparent, he must, if he can in the exercise of reasonable prudence, avail himself of it, and avoid the combat, even though it should incur some inconven*ience.*—Springfield *v. State,*96 Ala. 81, 11 South. 250, 38 Am. St. Rep. 85. The charge is also faulty in failing to hypothesize the defendant’s honest belief that he was in imminent *peril.*—Andrews *v.*State, 159 Ala. 14, 48 South. 858; *Turner v.*State, 160 Ala. 40, 49 South. 828.

We have discussed the only matter insisted upon in brief of counsel as constituting error, and have examined the entire record and discover no error.

Affirmed.
#### § 25.934 Turbojet engine thrust reverser system tests.

Thrust reversers installed on turbojet engines must meet the requirements of § 33.97 of this chapter.

[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5677, Apr. 8, 1970]
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0481 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 003 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 206A, 206B, 206L , 206L - 1, 206L - 3, 206L - 4, and 407 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 265 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the emergency floatation gear to deploy during an emergency

event. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 2 for the inspection $165 for the inst allation Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour x $ 8 5 /workhour for the inspection) (1 work- hour x $85/work hour for the installation) $ 85 $85 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 87 for the inspection $250 for the installation Total US Fle et Cost $ 23,055 for the inspection $89,305 for the installation 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 Be low No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Venessa Stiger
#### E. J. Blume, *Appellant,*v. P. M. Newman *et al., Appellees.*

Opinion Filed March 11, 1913.

An unauthorized transcript from the books of original entry possesses no evidentiary value, to prove an account.

*282Appealed. from, the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. •

. Decree affirmed.

*Rees*& *Rees,*for Appellant;

*■J. F. Harrell,*for Appellees.

Cockrell, J.

J.—This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to enforce a mortgage lien. The mortgage was in form a deed of conveyance, but in fact a security for an indebtedness. The defenses were payment and estoppel in behalf of a' purchaser from the mortgagor, by reason of a statement to him' by the mortgagee prior to the purchase, that the indebtedness had been paid and that the mortgage would be cancelled. Upon either defense, the evidence, though conflicting, is yet sufficient to prevent interference by us with the finding of the Circuit Court.

Error is assigned upon the supposed ruling excluding certain evidence. It does not appear with certainty that the ruling was made by the court, but both parties here proceed upon that hypothesis. It is, however, certain that the evidence was subject to the objections interposed.

To rebut the evidence as to payment, the complainant offered a statement, alleged to have been taken from his books of original entry, in order to prove that a certain note of a third party given him by the mortgagor had never been credited on the account. The books themselves might in this casé have been evidence, but we fail to see how an unauthorized transcript from them could of itself. possess evidential value, or add any *283weight to the sworn statement of the witness that this note had not been credited on this account.

The decree is affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
chief executive officer of Iron Age Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

         1)       the Company's 10-K 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 Company's 10-K fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.


                              /s/ William J. Mills
                              ------------------------------------
                              William J. Mills
                              Chief Executive Officer, President and Director


Dated: May 12, 2003
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3247

___________ Christine V. Gregory, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Columbus McKinnon Corporation, * Yale Hoists Division; Yale Industrial * [UNPUBLISHED] Products, Inc., its subsidiary, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 10, 2000 Filed: October 16, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Christine V. Gregory appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Gregory's employer, Columbus McKinnon Corporation, and its subsidiary, Yale Industrial Products, Inc., in her gender discrimination suit. Having carefully reviewedthe record and the parties' briefs, we cannot find any evidence suggesting that Gregory was discharged because of her gender. We thus affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 25.1159 Supercharger controls.

Each supercharger control must be accessible to the pilots or, if there is a separate flight engineer station with a control panel, to the flight engineer.
§ 129.1 Applicability and definitions. ( a ) *Foreign air carrier operations in the United States.* This part prescribes rules governing the operation within the United States of each foreign air carrier holding the following: ( 1 ) A permit issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 41301 through 41306, or
( 2 ) Other appropriate economic or exemption authority issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
( b ) *Operations of U.S.-registered aircraft solely outside the United States.* In addition to the operations specified under paragraph (a) of this section, §§ 129.5, 129.7, 129.9, 129.11, 129.14, 129.20 and 129.24, and subpart B of this part also apply to operations of U.S.-registered aircraft operated solely outside the United States in common carriage by a foreign person or foreign air carrier.
( c ) *Definitions.* For the purpose of this part— ( 1 ) *Foreign person* means any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who operates a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage solely outside the United States.
( 2 ) *Years in service* means the calendar time elapsed since an aircraft was issued its first U.S. or first foreign airworthiness certificate.
[Doc. No. FAA-1999-5401, 67 FR 72762, Dec. 6, 2002, as amended by Amdt. 129-43, 72 FR 63413, Nov. 8, 2007; Amdt. 129-45, 73 FR 12570, Mar. 7, 2008; Amdt. 129-45, 74 FR 32801, July 9, 2009; Amdt. 129-49, 76 FR 7489, Feb. 10, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>






<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                           
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                              0000797917
<NAME>                             RAYTECH CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. DOLLARS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1
   
<CASH>                             5,616 
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      28,108
<ALLOWANCES>                       676
<INVENTORY>                        27,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   70,445
<PP&E>                             138,603
<DEPRECIATION>                     80,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     145,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              61,430
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           5,410
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         40,371 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       145,623
<SALES>                            176,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   176,132
<CGS>                              136,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      136,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 2,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    19,459 
<INCOME-TAX>                       5,812
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                13,135
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       13,135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      3.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                      3.73



    

</TABLE>