alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
~· 

" 's GREATEST; AIRcRAFT CoLLECTION',. INc~: 

. nRebuilding and Reliving the Passion of the Past!'' 

. February, 19, 2014 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption Renewal 10517 A from 14 CFR- Docket# F AA-2009-1169 

Dear Sirs: 

Please consider this nptice of our request for renewal of the FAA exemption F AA-2009-1169 for 

the operation of our North American P-51 Mustang under the World's Greatest Aircraft 

Collection. 

1400 BROADWAY BLVD. S.E .. POLK CITY. FL 33868 

'"-

TEL: (863) 984-3500 FAX (863) 984-9503 
. -~ ---

\2-t~( e_JtL'""l rho v\ ( 

016H26522091 Q0 

Date: 01/06/2014 ~ ~ Exemption No: 10517A from 14 CFR (FAR Secti~n) .J 

Part: 119.21 (a); 119.5 (g); 91.319 (a)(2); 91.315 0 0 

will expire on 513112014. If appropriate,,please.st.f!tnl!i; 

your request to extend this exemption (inetud!ng·:tffe~ 

docket number FAA-2009-1169) within 30 days %t the 

date of this notice. Otherwise, the FAA may not be able 

to process your request for extension before the 

expiration date. You may either submit your request 

electronically through the internet using the Docket 

Management System web site at: 

http://RGgulations.govl or mail your request to: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Submission to other locations may delay processing. 

Any request for extension must meet the 

Kermit Weeks 

$00.33Q 

01/08/2014 

Mailed From 20591 

US POSTAGE 

Worlds Greatest Aircraft Collection, 

Inc. 

1400 Broadway Boulevard S.W. 

Polk City, FL 

33868 

.. re.quirements of_14 CFR part 11.JfV'ou ~ve 'lre;d~ . . • . ., . 

requested an extension for this ex~,.~jldn1~ftt~lll::l~~t'rl1 1 I Jlt 1 I I J hI II •IIIII d 1•1 lt·I•'!IJI•Irl'll 

need this exemption, please ignore this notice.
Editorial Note on Part 801
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 801 appear at 86 FR 54641, Oct. 4, 2021.

§ 801.53 Records exempt by statute from disclosure. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3), the NTSB will not disclose records specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552(b)), provided that such statute: ( a ) ( 1 ) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
( 2 ) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
( b ) If enacted after the date of enactment of the Open FOIA Act of 2009, Public Law 111-83, Title V, section 564, 123 Stat. 2142, Oct. 28, 2009, specifically cites to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3).
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses December 16, 2010



## APPENDIX A

Summary of Significant Comments

And District Responses

December 16, 2010

A-1 Final Draft Staff Report for

Proposed Negative DeclarationSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses December 16, 2010

This page intentionally blank.

A-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Proposed Negative DeclarationSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses December 16, 2010



### Summary of Significant Comme nts and District Responses for

Proposed Negative Declaration for the CTG for Control of Volatile

Organic Emissions From Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires

(EPA-450/2-78-030)

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

COMMENT: EPA would like to see a statement added to the discussion that shows

that the District went beyond just looking at their permit files and

emissions inventory to see that ther e were no sources in this category

found in the District. It is recommended that the District state that other

sources such as SIC Codes, telephone yellow pages, or an internet

search were used to determine that no sources were found in the District.

RESPONSE: Staff has performed the requested resear ch and the final draft staff report

has been amended to reflect such resear ch. Please see the final draft

staff report for changes.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

No comments have been received from ARB at this time.

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

No comments have been received from stakeholders or the general public at this time.

A-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Proposed Negative DeclarationSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Significant Comments and District Responses December 16, 2010

This page intentionally blank.

A-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for

Proposed Negative Declaration
§ 845.3 Sessions open to the public. ( a ) All investigative hearings shall normally be open to the public. However, no person shall be allowed at any time to interfere with the proper and orderly functioning of the hearing.
( b ) Sessions shall not be open to the public when evidence of a classified nature or which affects national security is to be received.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1140

SUKHBIR SINGH, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: December 2, 2009 Decided: December 30, 2009

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas J. Mundy, NICHOLAS J. MUNDY, PLLC, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Sukhbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his second motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse

of discretion. INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992);

Stewart v. U.S. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Motions to reopen “are disfavored . . . [because] every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to

remain in the United States.” Doherty , 502 U.S. at 323. The court will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Sevoian v.

Ashcroft , 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). By regulation, a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days” after the date on which the administrative decision at issue becomes final. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2009). The ninety day time limit does not apply (1) if the alien is claiming “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), or (2) if

23 the alien is seeking to reopen a removal order entered in absentia and files the motion within 180 days of the entry of

the order of removal or if the alien failed to receive notice of the hearing or did not appear through no fault of the alien because the alien was in federal or state custody. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2009). Insofar as Singh believes he did not receive proper notice of the hearing, that issue is abandoned because he does not raise the issue in his opening brief. See Yousefi v. INS , 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal because Singh failed to show he was entitled to any of the relief he was seeking. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
National Tribal Air Association

NTAA

- EPA Air Policy Call Agenda

– October 25 , 2012

This will be a short call with no documents.
T he general Go to Meeting ID : 138

- 746

- 896

Call In Number: 888

- 824

- 5783 Conference Code: 97728037#

(10 AM Alaska, 11 AM Pacific, 12 Noon Mountain, 1 PM Central, 2 PM Eastern)



### Agenda for Today’s Call:

1. P roposed rule making on startups/shutdowns and malfunctions.

– Phil Lorang, OAQPS ( 5 Minutes)

2. FY 2014 NPM Guidance

- Mike Hadrick, OAR (10 Minutes)

3. Tribal Minor NSR Registration Database

- Tami Laplante (OAQPS) ( 15 Minutes)

4. Other EPA Air Updates (OTAQ, ORIA, Etc.)

5. NTAA /OAQPS Update s

Next Call will be on Thursday, November

, 2 9 201 2 at 12:00 noon Mountain Time
# U.S. Blackhawk helicopter crashes off Yemen coast

/ Published Aug. 26, 2017
Tampa, Fla., August 25, 2017Release Number 20170825-02FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEU.S. Blackhawk helicopter crashes off Yemen coastTAMPA, Fla. – A U.S. Black Hawk helicopter crashed while the crew was training approximately 20 miles off the southern coast of Yemen, Aug. 25, around 7 p.m. local time (noon Eastern).U.S. forces in the region are conducting an ongoing search for one U.S. service member who was aboard the aircraft. Five U.S. service members who were also aboard the aircraft were rescued by U.S. forces following the crash. An investigation will be initiated.
Editorial Note on Part 801
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 801 appear at 86 FR 54641, Oct. 4, 2021.

§ 801.21 Initial determination. ( a ) The NTSB FOIA Officer will make an initial determination as to whether to comply with the request within 20 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the request is received.
( b ) Upon the FOIA Office's receipt of a FOIA request, the time limit is tolled while the FOIA Office seeks reasonable information from the requester: ( 1 ) About the scope of the request, such as whether docket items and other publicly available information on the NTSB website satisfy the request; and
( 2 ) Necessary to resolve fee assessment issues.
( c ) If unusual circumstances exist, this time limit may be extended up to 10 additional days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) in accordance with § 801.23. The requester will be notified immediately of an extension in accordance with § 801.23. If a determination is made to release the requested record(s), such record(s) will be made available promptly.
( d ) If the FOIA Officer determines not to release the record(s), the FOIA Office will notify the requester of: ( 1 ) The reason for the determination;
( 2 ) The right to appeal the determination to the Managing Director within 90 calendar days;
( 3 ) The name and title or positions of each person responsible for the denial of the request;
( 4 ) The right to seek dispute resolution services from the NTSB's FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS.
----

(2004/C 84 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3941/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination over issue of housing permit in Rotterdam

According to recent press reports (see the Portuguese newspaper ‘Expresso’, 6 December 2003), the city council of Rotterdam (Netherlands) has decided that in future housing licences in the city will be issued only to persons who earn at least 120 % of the minimum wage and, if they are immigrants, have taken an ‘integration course’ and passed the relevant examination.

These proposals are unacceptable and contrary to the principles of the European Union, notably those of solidarity, non-discrimination, action for social inclusion and the free movement of persons.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Tampere European Council (1999) set the guidelines for a common EU asylum and immigration policy. This policy includes the fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally on the territory of Member States. The European Council conclusions state that the legal status of legally resident third country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States' nationals. Third country nationals should be granted a set of uniform rights, which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens.

This is concretised by Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents. Article 11(f) of the Directive provides that third country nationals entitled to long-term resident status should enjoy equality of treatment with nationals as far as access to goods and services are concerned. This includes in particular access to procedures for obtaining housing. The Member States must transpose this Directive by 23 January 2006 at the latest.

For other migrants, who are not long-term residents, there is no legal provision at EU level for the moment which guarantees the equal treatment in terms of access to housing.

For migrant workers who are nationals of Member States, it should be underlined that, according to Article 9 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC, they shall enjoy all the rights and benefits accorded to national workers in matters of housing including ownership of the housing they need.

In the case of the measures taken in Rotterdam, the situation described seems, however, to demonstrate that no discrimination is being made between nationals and third country nationals as far as the attribution of housing permits is concerned, because the level of 120 % of minimum wages is applied to both.

As far as the general conditions for granting housing permits are concerned, this falls clearly within the exclusive competence of the Member States. The Commission is, therefore, not competent to assess such measures.

----
§ 91.13 Refunds. ( a ) Where, in his discretion, the Secretary finds that good cause has been shown, the Secretary may authorize a refund of collected compensatory charges. For purposes of this section, good cause includes, but is not limited to, an error of fact, a miscalculation, or a determination that an original conclusion of entitlement was insufficient, invalid, erroneous or invalidated by subsequent events.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 91.9(e) the Secretary may suspend for a reasonable time the issuance of a certificate of entitlement upon a showing by a payor of compensatory charges that there is a substantial likelihood that the payor will make a showing of good cause under § 91.13(a).
( c ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the issuance of a certificate of entitlement under § 91.9(e) or the distribution to U.S. flag air carriers of funds collected under this part shall be with prejudice to any claim for refund under this section.
From: Ken Vogel [mailto:kenv.roehrscon@verizon.net] 

Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:31 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Cc: kenv.roehrscon@verizon.net; Kv2342@aol.com 

Subject: Annuities

In response to the article in the Poughkeepsie Journal Newspaper of 

Monday, February 22, 2010, Page 6B 

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Regulations and Interpretations 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, N-5655 

200 Constitution Avenue NW 

Washington DC 20210 

Phone: 

Fax: 

Attn: Lifetime Income RFI 

E-mail: E-ORI@dol.gov 

If my 401K and IRA has lost its value so much, Its gone below a four digit 

number, Is not there a way of transferring it tax-free to a U.S. Government 

Bond 

Just Like the one my wife and I got as a wedding present, and our son got on 

his birthday 

Then I will not have to worry about it going up and down in value every 

year, and just cash it out at retirement or 30 Years from now 

Or when an emergency arises, but with less interest accruing 

Thank You 

Kenneth J. Vogel 

488 New Unionville Road 

Wallkill, New York 12589 

Cell: 845-401-1908 

E-mail: kv2342@aol.com

Or better, my work 

E-mail: kenv.roehrscon@verizon.net
§ 840.2 Definitions. As used in this part, the following words or phrases are defined as follows: ( a ) *Railroad* means any system of surface transportation of persons or property over rails. It includes, but is not limited to, line-haul freight and passenger-carrying railroads, and rapid transit, commuter, scenic, subway, and elevated railways.
( b ) *Accident* means any collision, derailment, or explosion involving railroad trains, locomotives, and cars; or any other loss-causing event involving the operation of such railroad equipment that results in a fatality to a passenger or employee, or the emergency evacuation of persons.
( c ) *Joint operations* means rail operations conducted on a track used jointly or in common by two or more railroads subject to this part, or operation of a train, locomotive, or car by one railroad over the track of another railroad.
( d ) *Fatality* means the death of a person either at the time an accident occurs or within 24 hours thereafter.
[41 FR 13925, Apr. 1, 1976, as amended at 47 FR 49408, Nov. 1, 1982]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SENTEX SENSING TECHNOLOGY, INC, (B)
ANNUAL REPORT, FILED ON FORM 10-KSB, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. $

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  676,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,788
<INVENTORY>                                    962,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,716,192
<PP&E>                                         332,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                 209,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,493,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,935,144
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,880,079
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,482,451)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,493,322
<SALES>                                      4,114,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,133,023
<CGS>                                        2,241,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,241,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,102,220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             238,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,440,447)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,440,447)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,440,447)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129963 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129963 COA: 262020 Wayne CC: 01-004014-01 DEANGELO L. HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
§ 9.11 Legal proceedings between private litigants: Demands. ( a ) If an employee receives a demand that has not been validly issued or served, agency counsel may instruct the employee not to comply with the demand.
( b ) If an employee receives a demand (validly issued and served) to testify or produce records, agency counsel, in his or her discretion, may grant the employee permission to testify or produce records only if the purposes of this part are met or agency counsel determines that an exception is appropriate.
( c ) If a demand is issued to an employee, agency counsel shall contact the requester of the demand, inform that person of the requirements of this part, and may, in agency counsel's discretion, ask that the demand be withdrawn.
( d ) If the requester of the demand refuses to have it withdrawn or fails to comply with this part, the Department may seek to quash the demand.
( e ) If the court or other competent authority declines to grant the Department's motion to quash, agency counsel shall instruct the employee whether to testify or produce documents pursuant to the demand. Agency counsel may permit the testimony under § 9.1(c) of this part. If response to a demand is required before the court or other competent authority rules on the motion to quash and the court fails to stay the demand, the employee must appear at the stated time and place, produce a copy of this part, and respectfully refuse to provide any testimony or produce any documents. Agency counsel shall take steps to arrange for legal representation for the employee. Agency counsel shall advise the employee how to respond, including not to testify, if the court or other competent authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of these regulations.
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.9 Determination of a safety rating. ( a ) Following a compliance review of a motor carrier operation, the FMCSA, using the factors prescribed in § 385.7 as computed under the Safety Fitness Rating Methodology set forth in appendix B of this part, shall determine whether the present operations of the motor carrier are consistent with the safety fitness standard set forth in § 385.5, and assign a safety rating accordingly.
( b ) Unless otherwise specifically provided in this part, a safety rating will be issued to a motor carrier within 30 days following the completion of a compliance review.
[62 FR 60042, Nov. 6, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 17241, Apr. 5, 2010; 77 FR 28450, May 14, 2012]