alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1206 Entry permit. The entry permit that documents compliance with this section and authorizes entry to a permit space must identify: ( a ) The permit space to be entered;
( b ) The purpose of the entry;
( c ) The date and the authorized duration of the entry permit;
( d ) The authorized entrants within the permit space, by name or by such other means (for example, through the use of rosters or tracking systems) as will enable the attendant to determine quickly and accurately, for the duration of the permit, which authorized entrants are inside the permit space; Note to paragraph ( d
).
This requirement may be met by inserting a reference on the entry permit as to the means used, such as a roster or tracking system, to keep track of the authorized entrants within the permit space.
( e ) Means of detecting an increase in atmospheric hazard levels in the event the ventilation system stops working;
( f ) Each person, by name, currently serving as an attendant;
( g ) The individual, by name, currently serving as entry supervisor, and the signature or initials of each entry supervisor who authorizes entry;
( h ) The hazards of the permit space to be entered;
( i ) The measures used to isolate the permit space and to eliminate or control permit space hazards before entry; Note to paragraph ( i
).
Those measures can include, but are not limited to, the lockout or tagging of equipment and procedures for purging, inerting, ventilating, and flushing permit spaces.
( j ) The acceptable entry conditions;
( k ) The results of tests and monitoring performed under § 1926.1204(e), accompanied by the names or initials of the testers and by an indication of when the tests were performed;
( l ) The rescue and emergency services that can be summoned and the means (such as the equipment to use and the numbers to call) for summoning those services;
( m ) The communication procedures used by authorized entrants and attendants to maintain contact during the entry;
( n ) Equipment, such as personal protective equipment, testing equipment, communications equipment, alarm systems, and rescue equipment, to be provided for compliance with this standard;
( o ) Any other information necessary, given the circumstances of the particular confined space, to ensure employee safety; and
( p ) Any additional permits, such as for hot work, that have been issued to authorize work in the permit space.
RE: Requested Materials - Capacity Factor Information Higgins, Cortney to: RobertJ Wayland
11/22/2011 03:43 PM
Cc: Bill Maxwell

Hi Bob, Thanks. I've looked through my files and can't find the area source list/sheet -- can you resend?

Thanks,
Cortney

-----Original Message----- From: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 3:48 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Requested Materials - Capacity Factor Information

Cortney -

This is the first of five emails providing some of the information you requested last week. To try and reduce confusion, I am not resubmitting the area source information because nothing has changed on this issue since the two files we provided at proposal. If you can't find that information, just let me know and I'll resubmit that information to you as well. Call either Bill or me if you have any questions.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

********************************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************

(See attached file: Oil Boilers_cap factor_102811.xlsx)

(See attached file: Coal_Boilers_cap factor_111711.xlsx)
§ 1919.12 Recordkeeping and related procedures concerning records in custody of the vessel. ( a ) A fully completed and up-to-date register shall be kept in the form prescribed or approved by the Administration, giving the particulars required with respect to: ( 1 ) The inspections and thorough examinations required by § 1919.15(a) and (b).
( 2 ) The thorough examinations required by § 1919.15(c).
( 3 ) The thorough examinations required by § 1919.17.
( 4 ) The heat treatment required by § 1919.16 (a) and (b), and § 1919.19.
( b ) Certificates in the form prescribed or approved by the Administration shall be kept up-to-date, be attached to the register, and shall contain the particulars required with respect to: ( 1 ) The testing and examinations required by §§ 1919.14, 1919.15(a), and 1919.19.
( 2 ) The heat treatment required by §§ 1919.16 and 1919.19.
( c ) The certificates and entries in the register shall be signed by a person qualified under § 1919.37.
( d ) Adequate means shall be provided to enable persons examining the register, or any certificate attached thereto, to identify items of cargo gear referred to therein. Small items of gear, such as shackles, shall bear a mark to indicate that they have been initially tested.
( e ) Records shall be kept aboard vessels identifying wire rope or articles of loose gear obtained from time to time and required to be certificated under the regulations of this part.
( f ) An accredited person shall instruct the vessel's officers, or the vessel's operator if the vessel is unmanned, that the vessel's register and certificates shall be preserved for at least 5 years after the date of the latest entry except in the case of nonrecurring test certificates concerning gear which is kept in use for a longer period, in which event the pertinent certificates shall be retained so long as that gear is continued in use.
( g ) In cases where derricks, spouts, suckers, or cranes are mounted permanently aboard barges which remain in domestic inland waters service, the certification documentation shall comply with the provisions of § 1919.90 of this part.
[39 FR 22096, June 19, 1974, as amended at 76 FR 33610, June 8, 2011]
#### INDUST COMM v CHAMBERS

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Sandusky Co

No 211,

Decided April 1, 1929

Gilbert Bettman, Atty Gen and R R Zurmehly, Columbus, for Commission.

L K Chambers, Genoa, for Chambers.

RICHARDS, J.

The Industrial Commission contends that the claimant has had compensation for all the impairment of earning power which he suffered. The evidence discloses that the claimant was left handed and that the injuries to the fingers of that hand were very severe, necessitating several operations on different fingers. After these surgical operations infection set in and continued upward beyond the amputation line, affecing the palm of the hand and the metacarpal bones. Incisions were made in the palm of the hand and pus and pieces of bone removed. The evidence clearly justified a finding that by reason of the infection extending from the fingers into the palm of the hand, resulting in permanent stiffening and weakening of the entire hand, increased impairment of earning capacity resulted. Medical testimony shows that the disability is permanent and is equal to 66 2-3 per cent of the loss of function of the whole hand. The claimant has been paid for impairment resulting from fingers which were amputated and fingers which were ankylosed, but we find nothing in the record showing any compensation for impairment of earning capacity resulting from the shrunken condition of' the hand nor from its having become, as a result of the injury, weak and stiff. Certainly if the original injury had been the crushing of one or more fingers and then infection had set in, spreading to the hand and necessitating its amputation, the claimant would have been entitled to compensation for the loss of the hand. In the present case, while the infection spread to the palm of the hand while the physicians have been able to save the hand, it is in a weakened and partially disabled condition, and the case comes within the first paragraph of Section 1465-80, General Code.

It is urged, however, that the claimant has been able to e,arn compensation since his injury, equal to that which he was earning theretofore. We do not think the record justifies that claim. We find from the evidence that the compensation he was able to earn was materially less than he was receiving at the time of his injury.

The trial court allowed compensation in a lump sum at $1200.00, instead of making, an allowance of a fixed sum per week. The claimant himself would be the only one who was prejudiced by the court’s failure to make a weekly allowance for the future in addition to the sum that had accumulated up to the time of the trial.

Finding no prejudicial error the judgment will be affirmed.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Felipe Menendez Ross, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.





This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: March 14, 2011





/s/ Felipe Menendez Ross


Felipe Menendez Ross


Principal Executive Officer
### Request for Information Manuel Lopez and Nico las Sora (FAA-2015-3650) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Messers Lopez and Soro: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3650). This information is necessary for the Fede ral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition.

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by December 22, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : T uesday , December 08, 2015 9:19 AM To: droneoftheday@gmail.com
# EUR-Lex - 31997R1068 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R1068

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1068/97 of 12 June 1997 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs **

*
Official Journal L 156 , 13/06/1997 P. 0010 - 0010 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1068/97 of 12 June 1997 amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 535/97 (2), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 1 (1) thereof,

Whereas cochineal and cork should be included in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 to meet the expectations of certain agricultural producers for whom those products are one of their main sources of income; whereas, since agricultural products are concerned, such producers might conceivably submit applications for registration of such products under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 in view of the link which such products may have with certain geographical areas;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following products are hereby inserted in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92:

'- cork

- cochineal (raw product of animal origin).`

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 June 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 83, 25. 3. 1997, p. 3.
§ 13.26 Notice. ( a ) The contractor must notify all employees performing work on or in connection with a covered contract of the paid sick leave requirements of Executive Order 13706 and this part by posting a notice provided by the Department of Labor in a prominent and accessible place at the worksite so it may be readily seen by employees.
( b ) Contractors that customarily post notices to employees electronically may post the notice electronically, provided such electronic posting is displayed prominently on any Web site that is maintained by the contractor, whether external or internal, and customarily used for notices to employees about terms and conditions of employment.
Exhibit 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jean-Pierre Tirouflet, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Rhodia, asociété
anonymeorganized under French law, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Rhodia on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, to my knowledge:



| |  | By: | /s/JEAN-PIERRE TIROUFLETName: Jean-Pierre Tirouflet
Title:Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
June 26, 2003

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Rhodia and will be retained by Rhodia and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

Exhibit 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Pierre Prot, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Rhodia, asociété
anonymeorganized under French law, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Rhodia on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, to my knowledge:



| |  | By: | /s/PIERRE PROTName: Pierre Prot
Title:Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
June 26, 2003

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Rhodia and will be retained by Rhodia and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### KOON v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Marion Co

No. 706.

Decided Dec. 19, 1928

Homer E Johnson, Marion, for Koon.

Frank Wiedemann, Pros Atty and Carter M Patton, both of Marion, for State.

*100JUSTICE, J

It is urged, by counsel for Koon, as the first ground of error, that there was no evidence tending, to prove that Koon, at the time he struck and mortally wounded Henry Foos, intended to rob him, and that, therefore, the verdict and judgment of the court of common pleas are contrary to law. With this contention we do not agree. Surely what Koon’s intention w,as when he struck Foos can be determined by his acts and conduct prior to, at, and after the struggle. The attending circumstances of the striking 'were put in evidence by the state, and, in our opinion, they spoke louder than words, clearly tending to prove that Koon intended to rob Henry Foos at the time he inflicted the mortal wound.

Coming now to the last assignment' of error, that is, error in the charge. The trial court, in part, instructed the jury as follows:

> “It is for you to determine, from the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not this defendant was engaged in a robbery or attempting to perpetrate a robbery, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense as charged in the second count in the indictment.”

Also:

> “In order to find the defendant guilty of murder in perpetrating, or attempting to perpetrate, a robbery, as charged in the second count in the indictment, the state must Drove, by the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, not only that the killing, was done by the defendant in manner and form, and at thé time and place, charged in the indictment, but that it was done purposely.”

Counsel fór Koon insists that these instructions were erroneous. With this contention we are not in accord. They were proper instructions, and, when taken in connection with the entire charge, correctly stated the law. The charge should be construed as a whole. Graham vs State, 98 Ohio St., 77. ,

Upon the whole case,we are unanimously of the opinion that Everett Koon had a fair trial.

Judgment of the court of common pleas should be .affirmed.

Hughes and Richards, JJ, the latter of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting by designation, concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lisa R. Hood, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ LISA R. HOODLisa R. Hood Interim Chief Financial Officer


May 27,
2010

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### James Cowan, an Infant, by Guardian *ad*litem, Resp’t, *v.*John H. Snyder, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 13, 1889.)*

Negligence—Personal injuries—Question eor the jury.

In an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, an infant, resulting from being struck and knocked down by a team of horses and a coach in charge of a servant of defendant, *Held,*that whether the driver of the coach was chargeable with negligence was a question for the jury.

Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict rendered at the Kings county circuit court.

*I S.*Catlin, for app’lt; *Christopher S. Kin sley (William Jl*Courtney, of counsel), for resp’t.

Dykman, J.

This action was brought against the defendant, for the recovery of damages resulting from injuries sustained by the plaintiff, who was an infant. In March, 1882, the plaintiff, who was then about eight years of age, wits crossing Second street, about twenty feet from the North side of Broadway in the city of Brooklyn, when he stumbled on the railroad track, and fell forward on his face. When he was in the act of rising from the ground, he was struck and knocked down by a team of horses and a coach, alleged to have been in charge of a servant of the defendant. The team was coming up Broadway from the Ferry, and came around the corner of Second street, and struck the boy as he was about to rise, and knocked him down, and the testimony was, that the hind wheel of the coach passed over his leg, and caused the injury complained of.

The usual questions respecting the negligence of the coachman of the defendant were raised upon the trial, and the question was properly presented to the jury. It was ■ the insistence of the defendant also upon the trial, that he was not the owner of the coach or team of horses, and ’that the driver was not in his em*439ploy, and was not his servant at the time of the accident; but the mother of the boy testified that the defendant came to her house soon after the accident and stated, “ that unfortunately he owned the coach that ran over the boy.’’ The defendant testified that he was not the owner of the coach, and had no recollection of making any such statement; but that question was also submitted to the jury, and as the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff we must assume that the fact was found against the defendant, and the question of negligence was, also, decided against him by the jury.

There was a motion made to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence against the driver of the coach, but that was a question for the jury, and it was properly submitted.

We are unable to find that there was not a fair preponderance of testimony in favor of the plaintiff and sufficient to sustain a verdict

The appeal is from the order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes, and there is no appeal from the judgment; yet our examination has extended to the whole case, and we find no sufficient reason for reversing the order or the judgment.

The order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.
#### CLAY v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. B. Smith.

No counsel marked for appellant.

M. M. Ullman, and W. A. Jenkins.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0720 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM252AD

AMM 32 -34 - 00 --- 7/5/10 MPD 1 - 32 --- 7/5/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008