alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECTION F

TOLERANCE PROPOSAL

Tolerances are proposed for combined residues of spiromesifen: 2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-

trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate, its enol metabolite 

(4-hydroxy- 3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro [4.4 ] non-3-en-2-one) and its 

metabolites containing the 4-hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)-

2,6-dimethyl phenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one) and its conjugates, calculated as 

parent compound equivalents, on the following commodities from crops grown as 

rotational crops:

Rotational Crop

Commodity

Plant-Back

Interval

Proposed 

Tolerance (Ppm)

vegetable , bulb, (Crop Group 3-07) 30 0.09
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

November 24, 2014

Mr. Dennis Hall 4816 Hickory Lane McHenry, IL 60051

Dear Mr. Hall:

This is in response to yo ur letter dated August 25, 2014, posted to the public docket (No. FAA-2014-0725) petitioning th e Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate rulemaking to amend § 121.383(e)(1) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). In your petition, you request an extension of th e mandatory retirement age of commercial airline pilots to at least age 67.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA mu st use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have availabl e to address these issues.

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers the most value to the aviation system.

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the i ssue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will examine when we consider future rulemaking.2 If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this ar ea in the future, you would be able to find out and track it through one of the two following websites:

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website ( http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings ).

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Re gulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website ( http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu Director, Office of Rulemaking
PUBLIC LAW 113–132—JULY 25, 2014 128 STAT. 1727 

Public Law 113–132 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field 

Air Museum in Riverside, California. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Distinguished Flying Cross 

National Memorial Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS NATIONAL 

MEMORIAL IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) The most reliable statistics regarding the number of 

members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the 

Distinguished Flying Cross indicate that 126,318 members of 

the Armed Forces received the medal during World War II, 

approximately 21,000 members received the medal during the 

Korean conflict, and 21,647 members received the medal during 

the Vietnam War. Since the end of the Vietnam War, more 

than 203 Armed Forces members have received the medal 

in times of conflict. 

(2) The National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, 

Missouri, burned down in 1973, and thus many more recipients 

of the Distinguished Flying Cross may be undocumented. Currently, the Department of Defense continues to locate and identify members of the Armed Forces who have received the medal 

and are undocumented. 

(3) The United States currently lacks a national memorial 

dedicated to the bravery and sacrifice of those members of 

the Armed Forces who have distinguished themselves by heroic 

deeds performed in aerial flight. 

(4) An appropriate memorial to current and former members of the Armed Forces is under construction at March Field 

Air Museum in Riverside, California. 

(5) This memorial will honor all those members of the 

Armed Forces who have distinguished themselves in aerial 

flight, whether documentation of such members who earned 

the Distinguished Flying Cross exists or not. 

(b) DESIGNATION.—The memorial to members of the Armed 

Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, 

located at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California, is 

hereby designated as the Distinguished Flying Cross National 

Memorial. 

Distinguished 

Flying Cross 

National 

Memorial Act. 

16 USC 431 note. 

July 25, 2014 

[H.R. 330] 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
128 STAT. 1728 PUBLIC LAW 113–132—JULY 25, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 330: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–79 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 159 (2013): Oct. 29, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 160 (2014): July 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

(c) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memorial designated by this section is not a unit of the National Park System, 

and the designation of the national memorial shall not be construed 

to require or permit Federal funds to be expended for any purpose 

related to the national memorial. 

Approved July 25, 2014. 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
Denied and Opinion Filed November 16, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-01299-CV

IN RE SONIA ALVAREZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-55108-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Boatright

Opinion by Justice Myers

In this original proceeding, relator seeks relief from temporary orders that abate her rights 

to possession and access to her children and prohibit her from any contact with the children until 

certain conditions are met. This Court is authorized to issue mandamus relief to correct a clear 

abuse of discretion for which relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. 

Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Because temporary orders in suits 

affecting the parent-child relationship are not appealable, a petition for a writ of mandamus is an 

appropriate means to challenge them. Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991); In re 

Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, 

orig. proceeding); In re Pensom, 126 S.W.3d 251, 257 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. 

proceeding). It is relator’s burden to provide the court with a record sufficient to establish her 

right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 

52.7(a).
–2–

Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown that either trial court 

abused its discretion by entering the orders at issue. Relator has, therefore, not shown she is 

entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. . 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not 

entitled to the relief sought). 

171299F.P05 /Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 12.1

<TABLE>
                                                     ULTRAPETROL (BAHAMAS) LIMITED


                                            STATEMENT OF RATIO OF EARNING TO FIXED CHARGES



<CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------
                                                        2000         2001          2002          2003          2004
                                                        ----         ----          ----          ----          ----

                                                                     (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>        <C>          <C>              <C>
 Consolidated income (loss) before
 Income tax and minority interest                     $ (-5,783)       $ 2,805   $ (-13,571)   $ (-10,000)       $ 6,921
 Investment in affiliates                                  1,646           692            45      (-3,140)         (406)
 Interest expense                                         16,061        17,113        16,178     (1)15,622     (1)15,566
 Amortization of debt issue costs                            585           585           585           585           568
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Earnings                                        12,509        21,195         3,237         3,067        22,649
                                                   ======================================================================

 Interest expenses                                        16,061        17,113        16,178     (1)15,622     (1)15,566
 Amortization of debt issue costs                            585           585           585           585           568
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fixed Charges                                    16,646        17,692        16,763        16,207        16,134
                                                   ======================================================================
   Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                  _ (2)            1.2             _ (2)        _ (2)           1.4

(1)  The interest expenses amounts presented in this exhibit do not include the
     Financial gain (loss) on extinguishments of debt amounting $ 1,782 and $
     (5,078) for the year ended December 31, 2003 and 2004, respectively.

(2)  In these fiscal years the earnings are inadequate to cover fixed charges.

</TABLE>
§ 1207.1 Establishment of special adjustment boards (PL Boards). Public Law 89-456 (80 Stat. 208) governs procedures to be followed by carriers and representatives of employees in the establishment and functioning of special adjustment boards, hereinafter referred to as PL Boards. Public Law 89-456 requires action by the National Mediation Board in the following circumstances: ( a ) *Designation of party member of PL Board.* Public Law 89-456 provides that within thirty (30) days from the date a written request is made by an employee representative upon a carrier, or by a carrier upon an employee representative, for the establishment of a PL Board, an agreement establishing such a Board shall be made. If, however, one party fails to designate a member of the Board, the party making the request may ask the Mediation Board to designate a member on behalf of the other party. Upon receipt of such request, the Mediation Board will notify the party which failed to designate a partisan member for the establishment of a PL Board of the receipt of the request. The Mediation Board will then designate a representative on behalf of the party upon whom the request was made. This representative will be an individual associated in interest with the party he is to represent. The designee, together with the member appointed by the party requesting the establishment of the PL Board, shall constitute the Board.
( b ) *Appointment of a neutral to determine matters concerning the establishment and/or jurisdiction of a PL Board.* ( 1 ) When the members of a PL Board constituted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, for the purpose of resolving questions concerning the establishment of the Board and/or its jurisdiction, are unable to resolve these matters, then and in that event, either party may ten (10) days thereafter request the Mediation Board to appoint a neutral member to determine these procedural issues.
( 2 ) Upon receipt of this request, the Mediation Board will notify the other party to the PL Board. The Mediation Board will then designate a neutral member to sit with the PL Board and resolve the procedural issues in dispute. When the neutral has determined the procedural issues in dispute, he shall cease to be a member of the PL Board.
( c ) *Appointment of neutral to sit with PL Boards and dispose of disputes.* ( 1 ) When the members of a PL Board constituted by agreement of the parties, or by the appointment of a party member by the Mediation Board, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, are unable within ten (10) days after their failure to agree upon an award to agree upon the selection of a neutral person, either member of the Board may request the Mediation Board to appoint such neutral person and upon receipt of such request, the Mediation Board shall promptly make such appointment.
( 2 ) A request for the appointment of a neutral under paragraph (b) of this section or this paragraph (c) shall; ( i ) Show the authority for the request—Public Law 89-456, and
( ii ) Define and list the proposed specific issues or disputes to be heard.
#### W. M. Bostwick, Appellant, v. Seaboard Air Line Railway, a Corporation, Appellee.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Appeal dismissed on praeecipe of counsel for Appellant.

Axtell & Rinehart, for Appellant.
#### § 1621.2 Definitions.

For purposes of this part, the term *the Act* shall mean the Equal Pay Act the *Commission* shall mean the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any of its designated representatives.
#### ALBERT FUR SHOP CO v MOSKOWITZ

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10040.

Decided October 7, 1929

Messrs. Klein, Harris & Diehm, Cleveland, for Fur Shop Co.

Messrs. Sanders, Monaghan. & Sanders, Cleveland, for Moskowitz.

SULLIVAN, J.

It appears that two years after the purchase of the goods in question the Seidners moved to Cleveland and incorporated The Albert Fur Shop Co., under the laws of Ohio and did .business at East lQ5th St. in this city. In order to hold the Ohio corporation, it would have to be shown by the record that the assets of the New York corporation were taken over by The Albert Fur Shop Co., the Ohio corporation and that there was a mutual agreement that the successor corporation would pay the debts of the. old corporation, particularly the debt in question, but there is no evidence of a legal nature in the record, establishing this foundation for recovery. On the contrary it appears that the Seidners personally assumed the indebtedness by correspondance that what was known as the Albert Fur Shoppe, was not a corporation but a partnership of the Seidners, notwithstanding that subsequently The Albert Fur Shop Co., was organized under Ohio laws, and these letters are signed by Mrs. Seidner and S. Seidner and there are several of them which are convincing as against the Seidners personally although at the time the property was sold, the Seidners were doing business as a New York corporation.

We do not think that the court, under the record, in pronouncing judgment against The Albert Fur Shop Co., had any foundation in law for such action as there was no evidence of an affirmative nature that the deal was made with the Ohio corporation or that the Ohio corporation succeeded to the assets and had agreed to take over the accounts of the corporation in New York. In fact there is no connection between the Ohio corporation as to the responsibility for the old, accounts with the New York corporation or *651with the partnership or the individual, and therefore we find no basis for the conclusion reached by the learned judge below.

Holding these views the judgment of the lower court is hereby'reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law, on the ground that the judgment is contrary to the weight of the evidence and the law.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.