alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -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

Replacement 142.0 $12,070.

00 $10,000 $22,070.00 13 $286,910.00

$ 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

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $286,910

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

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 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):
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: 

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:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

                          TERMINATION OPTION EXTENSION


     This Termination Option Extension is entered into this 30th day of
November, 2006, by and between Overhill Farms, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the
"COMPANY") and James Rudis, an individual residing in the state of New York
("RUDIS").

     The Company and Rudis entered into an Employment Agreement dated November
1, 1999 which was amended on October 30, 2003. Pursuant to the October 30, 2003
amendment, the term of the Employment Agreement was extended to October 31,
2006, and a provision added providing that the term would automatically extend
for additional successive one year periods unless either party gave written
notice to the other of its intention to terminate at least 90 days prior to the
end of the term (or any extended term).

     The parties acknowledge that they had forgotten the addition of the
provision for automatic extensions and had assumed that the Employment Agreement
was terminating by its terms on October 31, 2006. To remedy this oversight, the
parties have agreed to extend the time period for either party to provide notice
of his or its intention to terminate the Employment Agreement until December 1,
2006. If, on or before December 1, 2006, either party notifies the other in
writing of his or its intention to terminate the Employment Agreement, the
Employment Agreement shall be deemed terminated 90 days from the date the notice
is delivered. If no such notice is given by December 1, 2006, the term of the
Employment Agreement shall be deemed extended to October 31, 2007.

     Except for the extension specifically provided for herein, the Employment
Agreement, as amended, remains in full force and effect. This Termination Option
Extension may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument. Telecopied, scanned or other facsimile signatures on this Agreement
shall be deemed to be original signatures.



                                      Overhill Farms, Inc., a Nevada corporation

                                      By:  /S/ John L. Steinbrun
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Title: SVP, Chief Financial Officer &
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Chief Operating Officer
                                                  -----------------------



                                           /S/ James Rudis
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           James Rudis
§ 262.2 Officials. ( a ) *Chief Privacy Officer.* The Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) is responsible for the issuance of policy on the protection of privacy and the release of Postal Service records. The CPO has the power to authorize the disclosure of such records. Additionally, the CPO is responsible for establishing procedures and guidelines to ensure that record management practices are in compliance with the Privacy Act and FOIA. The CPO directs the activities of the Privacy and Records Office and may also delegate or take appropriate action if policies are not adhered to or if questions of interpretation or procedures arise.
( b ) *Deputy Chief FOIA Officer.* The Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, under the Privacy and Records Office, administers the Postal Service release of information program and has the power to authorize the disclosure of records. The Deputy Chief FOIA Officer oversees FOIA Requester Service Centers (RSCs).
( c ) *Records Custodian.* The Records Custodian is the postmaster or other head of a facility such as an area vice president, district manager, or head of a postal installation or department who maintains Postal Service records. Vice presidents are the custodians of records maintained at Headquarters. Senior medical personnel are the custodians of restricted medical records maintained within postal facilities.
( d ) *Information System Executive.* This is the Postal Service official, usually a vice president, who prescribes the existence of and the policies for an information system.
( e ) *Records Office.* The Records Office is responsible for the issuance of policy on the maintenance and disposition of Postal Service records and information, and to delegate or take appropriate action if such policy is not adhered to or if questions of interpretation or procedure arise.
[80 FR 45066, July 29, 2015]
###### Editorial Note on Part 67

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

#### § 67.10-30 Withdrawal of approval.

The Coast Guard may withdraw approval of a sound signal if it fails to meet the requirements of § 67.10-1 (a), (b), and (c).
#### § 6.8 Delegation of Authority for Continuity of Operations.

When, by reason of death, incapacity, or disruption of transportation and communications, a quorum of the Board of Governors cannot reasonably be assembled, or when vacancies on the Board make it impossible for a quorum to assemble, the remaining members of the Board who are able to assemble are constituted a Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, or in their absence any available member of the Board, may convene a meeting of such Temporary Emergency Committee for the consideration of such business as may be needed to provide for continuity of operations for the duration of the emergency, or for the duration of the period of time in which vacancies on the Board prevent a quorum from being assembled. The powers reserved to the Board under § 3.3 of these bylaws necessary to provide for continuity of operations are delegated to the Committee, which may exercise such powers until such time as sufficient members of the Board are again available to enable the Board to convene.

[86 FR 10014, Feb. 18, 2021]
Cheshire

No. 7973

#### Paul F. Rule, III v. Benjamin C. Adams, Commissioner, Department of Employment Security, *& a.*

May 9, 1978

*New Hampshire Legal Assistance,*of Keene *(Philip P. Mangones*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Edward F. Smith*and *Paul V. Kenneally,*of Concord *(Mr. Kenneally*orally), for the New Hampshire Department of Employment Security.

per curiam.

This is an appeal, pursuant to RSA 282:5 G(3), from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Because the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendants is supported by the evidence, we affirm.

On November 13, 1974, plaintiff Paul F. Rule filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the department of employment security. He had been unemployed since May 1974, when he left his employment at MPB Corporation, Keene, New Hampshire. He was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for a period of twenty-six weeks, from May 15,1974, to November 16, 1974. RSA 282:4 A(l) (Supp. 1975). As part of his November 13 application, Mr. Rule submitted a written statement: “I was discharged from MPB June 1974 because I was working third shift and could not keep up the hours *339and the company was not in a position to change my shift.” On a follow-up questionnaire, dated November 25, 1974, Mr. Rule indicated that he would not limit the hours during the day he would work; but it was not until March 10, 1975, that he submitted a written statement expressly indicating that he would take a third-shift job.

On March 18, 1975, the department’s certifying officer found Mr. Rule eligible for benefits commencing March 15,1975, but denied benefits of $624 for the period of November 25, 1974, through March 10, 1975. The basis for the denial was a finding that Mr. Rule was unavailable for third-shift work. Mr. Rule appealed the denial to the department’s appeal tribunal. RSA 282:5 B(6). In May, 1975, the appeal tribunal affirmed the certifying officer’s determination.

It concluded that Mr. Rule failed to “show that he was ready, willing and able to accept and perform suitable work on all of the shifts during all of the hours for which there was a market for the services he offered. ...” A trial de novo in Superior Court *(King,*J.) on the issue of Mr. Rule’s availability for third-shift work resulted in a judgment for the department.

The only question that may be raised here is whether the trial court’s findings are without evidence to support them. *Wheeler v. State,*115 N.H. 347, 350, 341 A.2d 777, 780 (1975), *cert. denied,*423 U.S. 1075 (1976); *see Hardware Mut Cas. Co. v. Hopkins,*106 N.H. 412, 417, 213 A.2d 692, 695-696 (1968).

Based upon the trial testimony and the administrative record before the trial court we cannot say that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that Mr. Rule was unavailable for work from November 25, 1974, through March 10, 1975.

*Exception overruled.*

BOIS, J., did not sit.
### Coal mine bumps as related to geologic features in the northern part of the Sunnyside District, Carbon County, Utah

By: Frank W. OsterwaldC. Richard DunrudDonley S. Collins

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1514

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (3644 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 2**                            (2080 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 3**                            (7441 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 4**                            (4166 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 5**                            (3715 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1046

___________

Audrey Montgomery, as Administratrix *

of the Estate of Leroy Montgomery and *

on behalf of Ivy R. Montgomery, Eddie *

Montgomery, Casey Montgomery, *

minors; Lerondria Montgomery; Corey *

Allen; Yuri Allen, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Appellants, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

United States of America, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 1999

Filed: October 4, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leroy Montgomery was treated at the Veterans Administration Medical Center

in Little Rock for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, an irreversible lung disease that

eventually causes respiratory failure and death. Following his death at the VA hospital,

his wife, plaintiff Audrey Montgomery, filed suit in the District Court under the Federal
1The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Tort Claims Act on behalf of Leroy Montgomery's estate and his children. The

complaint alleges medical negligence.

The case was tried to the District Court.1 After weighing the evidence, the court

made findings of fact adverse to plaintiffs' case and entered judgment dismissing the

complaint with prejudice.

For reversal, plaintiffs argue that the District Court's finding that they failed to

meet their burden of proof was clearly erroneous. More particularly, plaintiffs argue

that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the decision to discharge Montgomery

met the applicable standards of care and in finding that Montgomery had not been

scheduled for imminent lung-transplant surgery. Having reviewed the case, we

conclude that these findings are supported by the evidence and are not clearly

erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of CECO Environmental Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phillip DeZwirek, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Phillip DeZwirek                             
|Phillip DeZwirek                                 
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

May 11, 2009



27
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 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of AMERCO
(the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Jason A. Berg, Chief Accounting Officer of
the Company, certify, 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.




AMERCO,




a Nevada
corporation





/s/ Jason A.
Berg


Jason A.
Berg


Chief
Accounting Officer


Date:  November
5, 2008
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.                  

###### Peace Corps

# AGENCY:

Peace Corps.

# ACTION:

Notice of public use of form review request to the Office of Management and Budget.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Associate Director for Management invites comments on information collection requests as required pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This notice announces that the Peace Corps has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request to approve the continued use of the National Agency Check Questionnaire for Peace Corps Volunteers Background Investigation. Section 22 of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2501*et seq.*) mandates that “all persons employed or assigned to duties under the Act shall be investigated to ensure employment or assignment is consistent with national interest in accordance with standards and procedures established by the President.”                    

# DATES:

The Peace Corps invites comments on or before July 10, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

A copy of the information collection may be obtained from Paul Davis, Manager Placement Unit, Peace Corps, 1111 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20526. Mr. Davis may be contacted by telephone at (202) 692-1836. Comments on these forms should be addressed to Mr. David Rostker, Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, NEOB, Washington, DC 20523.

Dated: June 1, 2000.

Michael J. Kole,

Director of Administrative Services and Certifying Official.

[FR Doc. 00-14458  Filed 6-5-00; 1:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 6051-01-M
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4998

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a minimum

adjustment to payments to hospitals under the Medicare Program for

costs attributable to wages.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mrs. EMERSON) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and

Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee

concerned

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for a minimum adjustment to payments to hospitals

under the Medicare Program for costs attributable to

wages.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE INDEX.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(d)(3)(E) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(3)(E)) is amend6 ed by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In no case may
2

•HR 4998 IH

1 the factor established by the Secretary under this subpara2 graph be less than 0.9.’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) applies with respect to discharges occurring

5 fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 2000.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 116 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Intelligence Agency, Science and Technology Advisory 
Board Closed Panel Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, As amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Science and Technology 
Advisory board has been scheduled as follows:

DATES: 26-27 June 2000 (800am to 1600pm).

ADDRESSES: Joint Battle Center, 1161 Lake View Parkway, Suite 150, 
Suffolk, VA 23435.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maj. Donald R. Culp, Jr., USAF 
Executive Secretary, DIA Science and Technology Advisory Board, 
Washington, DC 20340-1328 (202) 231-4930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), 
Title 5 of the U.S. Code, and therefore will be closed to the public. 
The Board will receive briefings on and discuss several current 
critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, on related 
scientific and technical matters.

    Dated: June 9, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-15080 Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M