alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# AMERICAN AIRLINES

September 3, 2010

Esta Rosenberg, Chief U.S. Carrier Licensing Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines, U.S.-Mexico Transborder Routes (AA* on Alaska Airlines or Horizon Air) (DOT-OST-2010-0222)__________________________

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

American Airlines, Inc. has completed its poll of the parties served with our application of September 2, 2010 in the captioned docket. We are seeking exemption authority to serve U.S.-Mexico transborder routes by codesharing (AA*) on flights operated by Alaska Airlines or Horizon Air.

We have received non-objections from each of the parties we served. We request expedited approval.

Respectfully submitted,

Carl B. Nelson Associate General Counsel American Airlines, Inc. 1101 17 th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 496-5647 carl.nelson@aa.com

cc: Docket Branch Linda Lundell Service list**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the following persons:

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com mrosia@crowell.com mcmillin@woa.com bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com jeffrey.manley@united.com dpdean@jamhoff.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com msinick@ssd.com donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil gbleopard@fedex.com john.allen@faa.gov dvaughan@kelleydrye.com byerlyjr@state.gov kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hhlaw.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com howard.kass@usairways.com rpommer@atlasair.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com sophy.chen@hklaw.com russell.bailey@alpa.org david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com

_______________________________ CARL B. NELSON, JR.

September 3, 2010
## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO

12866 and EO 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

EO 12866 Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft final rule titled, “Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and

Biomass

- Based Diesel Volume for 2017,” RIN 2060

- AS22



### As mentioned above , the short timeframe provided for the annual renewable fuel rule process does not allow sufficient time for EPA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of the 2015 and 2016 standards and the statute does not require it. Moreover, as discussed in the final rule establishing the 1.28 billion gallon requirement for BBD in 2013, the costs and benefits of the RFS program as a whole are best assessed when the program is fully mature in 2022 and beyond. 1 

### We continue to believe that this is the case, as the annual standard

- setting process encourages consideration of the program on a piecemeal (i.e., year

- to

- year) basis, which may not reflect the long

- term economic effects of the program. Therefore, for the purpose of this annual rulemaking, we have not quantified benefits for the 2015 and 2016 final standards. We do not have a quantified estimate of the GHG impacts for the single year (e.g., 2015, 2016). When the RFS program is fully phased in, the program will result in considerable volume s of renewable fuels that will reduce GHG emissions in comparison to the fossil fuels which they replace. EPA estimated GHG, energy security, and air quality impacts and benefits for the 2010 RFS2 final

rule for 2022. These arguments ; however, are clearly most applicable to annual volume rulemakings: the costs but also the potential benefits of the standards being finalized would be an important consideration in any future reassessment of the RFS program.

1 77 FR 59477, September 27, 2012. Deleted: While it would be instructive to show not only the costs but also the potential benefits of the standards being

finalized and u nderstanding analyzing both would will be an important consideration in any future reassessment of the RFS program

Deleted: If, at some point in the future, the agency need s to issue a rulemaking to modify the applicable volumes set forth in the statute as a result of lowering the applicable statutory volumes by at least 20 percent for two consecutive years or at least 50 percent for a single year, then the agency

will condu ct a comprehensive benefit

- cost analysis of the
revised volumes at that time.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08902**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08902\08902_Checklist.xlsx EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08902\08902_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08902\08902_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08902\08902_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08902\08902_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08902\08902_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08902\08902_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08902\08902_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08902\08902_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08902\08902_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08902\08902_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

08902\Certification Statement Plant ID 08902.pdf Plant certification statement x 08902\Supplemental Documents\08902_A5-2 Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08902\Supplemental Documents\08902_A5-3 wb-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08902\Supplemental Documents\08902_D3-1 Pond-1 D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08902\Supplemental Documents\08902_D3-1 Pond-2 D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08902\Supplemental Documents\08902_Submittal Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Assessment of the livestock andpoultry industries [electronic resource]: ... report.**
 
SuDoc Number:A 113.2:C 28/ | A 1.2:L 75/4/

Item Number:0031-F (online) | 0010 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000795784
 
2006 | 2007
 
March 23, 2020
Jame s Turner/R6/USEPA/U S T o Rebamburg@aol.co m :• * -" - 06/07/200 7 01:4 6 P M c cShaw n Ghose/R6/USEPA/US@EPA , Mar k Peyck e Subject Roger s Roa d EasemenVRCs S Bob , I hav e revise d th e Gentr yinstrumen tconsisten t wit h ou rdiscussion s an d don e som e reformattin g an d mad e mino rnon-substantiv e change s t o comport . Pleas e loo k a t th e Acknowledgement , a s I hav e change d i t t o reflec tth e fac t tha tMrs . Gentr yi s no wth e owne ra s he rhusban d i s deceased . I hav e gon e ahea d an d prepare d a statemen t o fexistin g use s o fth e propert ya s exhibi tB . Pleas e loo k a t tha t also , an d discus s wit h th e Gentry' s i fnee d be . Ou rRPM , Shaw n Ghos e i s runnin g th e lega l descriptio n o n th e 1.3 8 acr e trac to n GP S propert yrecord s softwar e t o chec k

i tout . I wil l le tyo u kno wa s soo n a s tha t i s complete , whic h shoul d b e b yearl ynex t week . Otherwise , w e shoul d b e abou t read yt o g o forwar d wit h this . Thank s an d tak e care . 

# S I H-

1 R oge rs R d D ra f( E asementOG0707, do

cE lAto R R

E asemen(0G0707, do

cExBtoRR E asementOG0707, do c 

### Iw l E xCloR R E asement060707 , do c Jame s L . Turne r Senio rAttorne y Offic e o fRegiona l Counse l (6RC-S ) U.S . EP ARegio n 6 144 5 Ros s Avenue , Ste . 120 0 Dallas , Texa s 75202-273 3 E-Mail : Turner.James@epa.go v Ph : (214)665-315 9 Fax:(214)665-646 0 Rebamburg@aol.co m

Rebamburg@aol.co m 06/05/200 7 05:4 0 A M '^ ° Jame s Turner/R6/USEPA/US@EP A c c Subjec t Re : Graham/Roger s Roa d lega l

Jim : Th e groundwate rrestrictio n sound s goo d t o me , an d Frederic k an d Mrs . Gentr yar e oka ywit h i t a s well . I f you'l l includ e tha t an d th e othe rchange s I mentione d i n th e previou s email , I thin k w e hav e a fina l versio n tha ti s satisfactor yt o bot h ends . Le t m e kno wi fyo u determin e anythin g els e need s t o b e included . Otherwise , emai l m e th e fina l version , an d I'l l pas s i talon g t o Frederic k an d Mrs . Gentr yfo rrevie wan d approval . ^ —" ^ ~ ' 905033 8

### Thanks, Bob

See what's free at AOL.com.
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, OFFICER SCHNEIDER, PROSECUTOR, v. PERCY PECK, DEFENDANT.

Decided November 29, 1929.

Por the defendant, *Ezra JKarkus.*

Bodinb, J.

On November 18th, *1929,*an order was entered to review the conviction of Percy Peek, the defendant, before the Honorable Edward J. Currie, justice of the peace, of the offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The matter was brought before the court on Tuesday November 26th, 1929, at the court house in Freehold, at eleven-thirty A. m. An examination of the complaint, the warrant, and the record of the conviction satisfy the court that the same are in form. The complaint, the warrant and the proceedings before the justice of the peace were of a sufficiently formal character and sufficiently accurate in nature to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him. A full opportunity was afforded him to offer such evidence as he might have to prove facts different from those testified to by the witnesses' called on behalf of the state.

He availed himself of none of the opportunities afforded, but contended that the proceedings were not in form. This contention seems not to be true in fact.

The order of November 18th, 1929, will therefore be vacated, and the judgment of Edward J. Currie, justice of the peace, is affirmed and the sentence sustained.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2072 

To authorize States to use funds provided for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program to provide vouchers to cover tuition costs at private 

schools, and transportation costs to and from public schools, of foster 

children of all ages. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2009 

Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Mr. COOPER, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mr. HERGER, Mr. PENCE, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. PAUL, Ms. GINNY

BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. CANTOR, 

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Ms. 

FALLIN, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. KING of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To authorize States to use funds provided for the Chafee 

Foster Care Independence Program to provide vouchers 

to cover tuition costs at private schools, and transportation costs to and from public schools, of foster children 

of all ages. 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2072 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘School Choice for Fos3 ter Kids Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF STATES TO USE FUNDS PROVIDED 

5 FOR THE CHAFEE FOSTER CARE INDEPEND6 ENCE PROGRAM TO PROVIDE VOUCHERS TO 

7 COVER TUITION COSTS AT PRIVATE SCHOOLS 

8 AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO AND FROM 

9 PUBLIC SCHOOLS, OF FOSTER CHILDREN OF 

10 ALL AGES. 

11 Section 477 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

12 677) is amended— 

13 (1) in subsection (a)(6), by inserting ‘‘and to 

14 make available vouchers for tuition costs at private 

15 schools and transportation costs to and from public 

16 schools, to youths in foster care regardless of their 

17 age’’ before the period; 

18 (2) in subsection (h)(2), by striking all that fol19 lows ‘‘vouchers’’ and inserting ‘‘as provided in sub20 section (i).’’; and 

21 (3) in subsection (i), by redesignating para22 graphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs (6) and (7), re23 spectively, and inserting after paragraph (4) the fol24 lowing: 

25 ‘‘(5) Vouchers under the program may be avail26 able to youths in foster care, regardless of age, for 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2072 IH

1 the cost of tuition at a private school offering ele2 mentary or secondary education, or the cost of 

3 transportation to and from a public school offering 

4 such education.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2050 

To prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 

commerce of novelty lighters, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2009 

Mr. MICHAUD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into 

interstate commerce of novelty lighters, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Children from 

5 Dangerous Lighters Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress makes the following findings: 

8 (1) Lighters are inherently dangerous products 

9 containing flammable fuel. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2050 IH

1 (2) If lighters are used incorrectly or used by 

2 children, dangerous and damaging consequences may 

3 result. 

4 (3) Novelty lighters are easily mistaken by chil5 dren and adults as children’s toys or as common 

6 household items. 

7 (4) Novelty lighters have been the cause of 

8 many personal injuries to children and adults and 

9 property damage throughout the United States. 

10 SEC. 3. NOVELTY LIGHTER DEFINED. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—In this Act, the term ‘‘novelty 

12 lighter’’ means a device typically used for the igniting or 

13 lighting of cigarettes, cigars, or pipes that has a toy-like 

14 appearance, has entertaining audio or visual effects, or re15 sembles in any way in form or function an item that is 

16 commonly recognized as appealing, attractive, or intended 

17 for use by children of 10 years of age or younger, includ18 ing such a device that takes toy-like physical forms, in19 cluding toy animals, cartoon characters, cars, boats, air20 planes, common household items, weapons, cell phones, 

21 batteries, food, beverages, musical instruments, and 

22 watches. 

23 (b) EXCLUSION.—Such term does not include stand24 ard disposable and refillable lighters that are printed or 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2050 IH

1 decorated with logos, labels, decals, artwork, or heat 

2 shrinkable sleeves. 

3 SEC. 4. BAN ON NOVELTY LIGHTERS. 

4 (a) BANNED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE.—A novelty 

5 lighter shall be treated as a banned hazardous substance 

6 as defined in section 2 of the Federal Hazardous Sub7 stances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261) and the prohibitions set out 

8 in section 4 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 1263) shall apply to 

9 novelty lighters. 

10 (b) APPLICATION.—Subsection (a) applies to a nov11 elty lighter— 

12 (1) manufactured on or after January 1, 1980; 

13 and 

14 (2) that is not considered by the Consumer 

15 Product Safety Commission to be an antique or an 

16 item with significant artistic value. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KATHLEEN OWEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-13923 

 HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

THE TOWNSHIP OF REDFORD, et al., HON. STEPHANIE D. DAVIS 

 

 Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED EX PARTE MOTION 

TO APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM (DKT. 38) 

 This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Ex Parte 

Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem.1 (Dkt. 38.) In this motion, Plaintiff states 

that one of the decedent’s surviving dependents, Ashlyn Murphy, is a minor without 

a fiduciary. Pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.2922(6)(c)2, the motion asks the Court to 

appoint Attorney Bruce A. Rice (P75925) as guardian ad litem to represent the 

interests of Ashlyn Murphy and to review the terms of the proposed distribution of 

the settlement proceeds on her behalf. 

 The Court finds that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. See 

Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The Court 

                                                            

1 On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem (Dkt. 37) and an amended 

version of the same (Dkt. 38). Because the amended motion supersedes the original motion, the 

Court will address the amended motion in this Order and deny as moot the original motion. 

2This section states in relevant part that if “any interested person is a minor ... for whom a fiduciary 

is not appointed, a fiduciary or guardian ad litem shall be first appointed...” M.C.L. § 600.2922(6)(c).

4:14-cv-13923-TGB-SDD Doc # 40 Filed 05/17/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 335
2 

therefore orders that the Amended Ex Parte Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem 

will be decided without a hearing. 

 The decision to appoint a guardian ad litem rests with the sound discretion of 

the district court. Black v. Koch Transfer Co., 1988 WL 117115 (6th Cir. 1988); In re 

Kloian, 179 F. App’x 262, 265 (6th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the pending motion, 

the Court concludes that a guardian ad litem should be appointed for Ashlyn 

Murphy in this action. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Ex Parte Motion to Appoint 

Guardian Ad Litem (Dkt. 38) is GRANTED and this Court APPOINTS Bruce A. 

Rice (P75925) as guardian ad litem for Ashlyn Murphy. Attorney Rice shall submit 

his report on the proposed distribution of the settlement proceeds to this Court no 

later than two (2) days before the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve 

Distribution of Remaining Wrongful Death Settlement Proceeds (Dkt. 36). 

 Plaintiff’s original motion to appoint a guardian ad litem (Dkt. 37) is 

DENIED AS MOOT because it is superseded by the amended motion (Dkt. 38).

SO ORDERED.

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 17, 2016 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on May 17, 

2016, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. 

By: s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

4:14-cv-13923-TGB-SDD Doc # 40 Filed 05/17/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 336
May 10, 2012

Ms. Colleen Gillespie

Chief Wastewater Permitting Unit

U.S. EPA, Region VIII 

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202-8917

Re: Section 401 Water Quality Certification for Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit 

Dear Ms. Gillespie:

The Water Quality Control Division (Division) has reviewed the above draft NPDES permit. Provided 

the facility covered under the permit complies with the permit conditions, the Division is reasonably 

assured the Colorado Water Quality Control Act will not be violated by these activities. The Division 

conducted public notice from December 30, 2011 through January 30, 2012 regarding its intent to 

certify this draft permit without additional conditions. No public comments were received. 

If the permit changes from the public notice version, based on comments received during public notice, 

the Division would like to be informed of these changes as they may render this determination null and 

void. 

This certification does not constitute a relinquishment of the Division’s authority as delineated in the 

“Colorado Water Quality Control Act,” or any subsequent alterations thereto, nor does it fulfill or waive 

any other local, state or federal regulations.

If you have any questions, please give me a call at 303-692-3599

Sincerely,

Janet Kieler

Permits Section Manager

Cc: File : 401 Certifications – Federal Facilities – Vessel General Permit
§ 143.585 General requirements for propulsion, steering, and related controls on vessels that move tank barges carrying oil or hazardous material in bulk. ( a ) There must be an alternate means to control the propulsion and steering system which must: ( 1 ) Be independent of the primary control required by § 143.225;
( 2 ) Be located at or near the propulsion and steering equipment; and
( 3 ) Be readily accessible and suitable for prolonged operation.
( b ) There must be a means to communicate between each operating station and the alternate propulsion and steering controls.
( c ) There must be a means to stop each propulsion engine and steering motor from each operating station.
( d ) The means to monitor the amount of thrust, rudder angle, and if applicable, direction (ahead or astern) of thrust must be independent of the controls required by § 143.225.
( e ) The propulsion control system required by § 143.225 must be designed so that, in the event of a single failure of any component of the system, propeller speed and direction of thrust are maintained or reduced to zero.
( f ) On a towing vessel with an integrated steering and propulsion system, such as a Z-drive, the control system required by § 143.225 must be designed so that, in the event of a single failure of any component of the system, propeller speed and direction of thrust are maintained or the propeller speed is reduced to zero.
( g ) An audible and visual alarm must actuate at each operating station when: ( 1 ) The propulsion control system fails;
( 2 ) A non-follow up steering control system fails, if installed; and
( 3 ) The ordered rudder angle does not match the actual rudder position on a follow-up steering control system, if installed. This alarm must have an appropriate delay and error tolerance to eliminate nuisance alarms.
( h ) Alarms must be separate and independent of the control system required by § 143.225.
( i ) A means of communication must be provided between each operating station and any crewmember(s) required to respond to alarms.
( j ) The two sources of electricity required by § 143.555(a)(3) and (b)(8) must be capable of powering electrical loads needed to maintain propulsion, steering, and related controls for not less than 3 hours.
( k ) The second source of supply required by § 143.555(a)(3) must automatically start to help restore or maintain power to propulsion, steering, and related controls when the main power source fails.
( l ) Propulsion, steering, or related controls that are directly reliant on stored energy, such as compressed air, battery power, or hydraulic pressure, must have two independent stored energy systems, such as compressed air cylinders, battery banks, or hydraulic cylinders, that are capable of maintaining the vessel's propulsion, steering, and related controls.
( m ) After a power failure, electrical motors used to maintain propulsion and steering must automatically restart when power is restored, unless remote control starting is provided at the operating station.