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

Docket No. FAA-2012-1087 Directorate ID: 2009-SW-32-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, L, and L1 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 5 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack, to prevent loss of airframe 

structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $1,793

Labor per Helicopter

(4.25 x $85/work-hour for the 

initial inspection)

(0.25 x $85/work-hour for the 

recurring inspection

$361.25

$21.25

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $3,429 assuming 60 repetitive inspections would be 

performed each year and assuming the helicopter is 

modified and no cracks are found.

Total US Fleet Cost $17,145 assuming 60 repetitive inspections would 

be performed each year and assuming the entire 

fleet is modified and no cracks are found.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 156

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1474)

3 entitled ‘‘An Act providing for conveyance of the Palmetto

4 Bend project to the State of Texas.’’, the Secretary of the

5 Senate shall make the following correction:

6 In section 7(a) insert ‘‘not’’ after ‘‘shall’’.

Passed the Senate October 26 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 156

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To make a correction in the enrollment of the bill

S. 1474.
#### Paula G. PARKER and James C. Parker, her husband, Appellants, v. LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; Gary M. Ainsworth, M.D.; Umesh Mhatre, M.D.; Umesh Mhatre, M.D., P.A.; D.G. (Dana Gerald) Killam, M.D.; D.G. (Dana Gerald) Killam, M.D., P.A.; and Brookwood Medical Center of Lake City, Inc., d/b/a Lake City Medical Center, Appellees.

No. 88-338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 22, 1988.

Walter C. Ward of Ward & Caggiano, P.A., Miami, for appellants.

A.H. Lane of Lane, Trohn, Bertrand & Williams, P.A., for appellee Lakeland Regional Medical Center.

*981PER CURIAM.

The appellants contend, and appéllee, Lakeland Regional Medical Center, agrees that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against the appellants because a genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment entered and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. .

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

# AGENCY:

Forest Service.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on April 4, 2012 to review the annual program of work, finalize key items for the fall field meetings, and listen to a presentation on the Deschutes County wetlands inventory. The meeting will also provide updates on the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act (CFLRA) and the sustainable recreation subcommittee. Members will meet at the Deschutes National Forest Supervisors office (63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon) from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. All Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Keown, Province Liaison, Sisters Ranger District, Pine Street and Highway 20, Sisters, Oregon 97759, Phone (541) 549-7735.

John Allen,

Deschutes National Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2012-6770 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL & ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Voyant International Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David Wells, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the date and for the periods indicated.





|                    |  |                                                                  
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 19, 2009 |  |                                                                  
|                    |  | /s/ David Wells                                                  
|                    |  | David Wells
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FRANKLIN SILVERIO,

Appellant,

v.

TIFFANY SILVERIO,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00038

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of Bell County, Texas

(TC# 84,349)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and h is sureties, if any, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 43. 5, on the judgment and all

costs in this Court for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for

observance

.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2021.

GI NA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Palafox, J., Alley, J., and Dominguez, Judge

Dominguez, Judge, sitting by assignment
#### Gary Dale LIGHTSEY v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 57294.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 29, 1987.

J. Ronald Parish, Laurel, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Before WALKER, C.J., and ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jones County; James D. Hester, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:17 AM

To: Pettyjohn, Mary

Cc: Donaldson, Guy; Feldman, Michael

Subject: Region 6 Response on AEP Flint Creek

Hi Mary,

Thank you for forwarding the email from AEP/SWEPCO last week. Here is Region 6’s response to the comments from

AEP/SWEPCO regarding Flint Creek. Let me know if you would like to discuss.

SO 2 Control Efficiency

Thank you for the explanation that in the testimony before the Arkansas PSC, AEP/SWEPCO was basing its discussion of

removal efficiency on the unit’s allowable SO 2 emission rate of 1.2 lb/MMBtu and not necessarily on actual historical

emissions. We still believe, however, that the BART analysis should have additional discussion of the potential

performance of the proposed NID technology. As AEP/SWEPCO pointed out in their response, in the Oklahoma FIP we

found it appropriate to select 0.06 lb/MMBtu for SO 2 BART using dry scrubbers. With NID, which can achieve a higher

removal rate than dry scrubbers, one might expect to see a controlled emission rate below 0.06 lb/MMBtu. ADEQ

should ensure that the controlled emission rates evaluated in the BART analysis reflect what NID is capable of achieving

and is not based on analysis of conventional dry scrubbers.

NOx BART

The only explanation offered in the BART analysis for the selection of 0.23 lb/MMBtu using LNB/OFA is that discussions

with the vendor and experience with similar boilers have led to the selection of this emission level. Please provide

documentation from the vendor and any other available documentation to support the selection of 0.23 lb/MMBtu.

While we recognize that the control efficiency of LNB/OFA can depend on factors specific to the boiler, we note that we

approved in the Oklahoma SIP emission limits of 0.15 lb/MMBtu on all 6 coal

‐ fired subject

‐ to

‐ BART units in the state.

Thank you,

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD

‐ L)

214

‐ 665

‐ 7241

medina.dayana@epa.gov
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIALREPORT**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of WII Components, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2009 to which this certification is beingfurnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the ExchangeAct.  In accordance with clause (ii) ofItem 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” forpurposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to theliability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, exceptto the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 
| **Date:  November 12, 2009** | ** **                      |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                         | /s/ John  Fitzpatrick           |
|                         | Name: John  Fitzpatrick         |
|                         | Title: Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 978

To specify that the legal public holiday known as Washington’s Birthday

be called by the name.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 6, 1999

Mr. WARNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To specify that the legal public holiday known as

Washington’s Birthday be called by the name.

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 ‘‘George Washington

5 Bicentennial Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WASHINGTON’S BIRTHDAY.

7 The legal public holiday know as ‘‘Washington’s

8 Birthday’’ as specified in section 6103 of title 5, United

9 States Code, shall be referred to by that name and no

10 other—
2

S 978 IS

1 (1) by all entities and officials of the United

2 States Government; and

3 (2) whenever it appears in any federally funded

4 publications.

Æ
50209.

#### LYNCH v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

*114Argued February 10, 1975

Decided February 26, 1975.

*Hill, Jones & Farrington, E. Lundy Baety,*for appellant.

*King & Spalding, Charles H. Kirbo, Charles M. Shaffer, William A. Clineberg, Jr.,*for appellee.

Deen, Presiding Judge.

*Fowler v. Southern Wire & Iron,*104 Ga. App. 401 (122 SE2d 157) martials the strongest arguments we have found for the conclusion that an assault by a fellow servant is not within workmen’s compensation jurisdiction where the facts show that the assault was *115intentional, was generated by ill will, and was initiated by a person in authority in the corporate hierarchy. This case was reversed by the Supreme Court in *Southern Wire & Iron v. Fowler,*217 Ga. 727 (124 SE2d 738).

If the defendant’s version of the affray is correct of course, the plaintiff can recover in neither forum. If the plaintiffs version is true, he denies only that he knew the cause of the assault, but not that the cause stated is incorrect. The strongest statements in the counter affidavit are that he was "attacked without warning” and that he was at no time "requested, ordered or directed to stop by the security guard.” The authority of the guards to stop him for a proper purpose is not denied. No other reason for their action is suggested. On the contrary, the complaint alleges that the guards were at all times acting within the scope of their employment. It thus appears without contradiction from the pleadings, affidavits, and exhibits unobjected to, that the security guards had probable cause to question the plaintiff before he left his employer’s premises and were acting within the scope of their authority in attempting to do so, under rules and regulations which were a part of the work contract of both. The plaintiff contends that, since his work shift had been completed, the incident did not arise "in the course of’ his employment; that is, "within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be in the performance of his duties, and while he is fulfilling those duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.” *Hartford Acc. &c. Co. v. Welker, 75*Ga. App. 594 (44 SE2d 160). It is, however, uncontradicted that the employer had security guards posted within the building and that such guards had the right under company regulations to interrogate employees (though not, of course, the right to commit an unprovoked assault). The question remains, therefore, one of fact, since the employee was within the security administration of the employer until he departed the premises, and thus in the course of employment for this purpose, it being a duty incident to his employment to observe proper security regulations within the area.

The trial judge correctly held in favor of the defendant that the plaintiffs alleged injury, if any, arose *116out of and in the course of his employment, thus precluding a common law action for damages.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.*
#### Luther Ray BLACK, II v. Mary Keane BLACK.

No. 89-CC-1311.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Black, Luther Ray II; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 88850-D; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW89 0562.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the periodic report of ENERGENX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the
“Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, GARY A. BEDINI, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)-14(b) or
      15(d)-14(b), as applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.





Date:
      May
      12, 2008




By:
            /s/ Gary
              A.
              BediniGary A.
              Bedini
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 70 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 70

Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
 postage stamp honoring the national veterans service organizations of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 5, 1999

  Ms. Snowe submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative 
 postage stamp honoring the national veterans service organizations of 
                           the United States.

Whereas United States service personnel have fought, bled, and died in every 
        war, conflict, police action, and military intervention in which the 
        United States has engaged during this century and throughout the 
        Nation's history;
Whereas throughout history, veterans service organizations have ably represented 
        the interests of veterans in Congress and State legislatures across the 
        Nation, and established networks of trained service officers who, at no 
        charge, have helped millions of veterans and their families secure the 
        education, disability compensation, and health care benefits they are 
        rightfully entitled to receive as a result of the military service 
        performed by those veterans; and
Whereas veterans service organizations have been deeply involved in countless 
        local community service projects and have been constant reminders of the 
        American ideals of duty, honor, and national service: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Congress requests that--
            (1) the United States Postal Service issue a series of 
        commemorative postage stamps honoring the legacy and the 
        continuing contributions of veterans service organizations to 
        the United States; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee recommend to the 
        Postmaster General that such a series of commemorative postage 
        stamps be issued.
                                 <all>
```
#### BRUNSON BONDING & INSURANCE AGENCY INC. v. ELM ENTERPRISES INC.

No. 89-CC-0719.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Bonaventure, Ann Duhon; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 22403; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW88 1494.

Prior report: La.App., 540 So.2d 530.

Denied.
aDIg- ?IlxcxAs Overruled by amendment to 

Aus- 11. .rEzsas Art. 45.04, C.C.P. and to 

.--60th Arta. 998 and 

Lang., 

1967, 999, ah* V.C.S., 

523, 

Pmphlet No. 4, Pagea ‘. 

March 28, 1961 1171-1172 

Honorable J. Edward Line 

County Attorney 

Deaf Smith County 

Hereford, Texas 

Dear Mr. Line: 

Re: Whether a police officer of 

a city has the authority to 

execute a warrant of anrest 

issued out of the corporation 

court, outside of the city 

but within the county in which 

the city is located? 

You have asked the following questions: 

"Can a police officer of the City of Hereford, Texas, execute a warrant of arrest issued out of the corporation court 

of Hereford, Texas, outside of the city limits of Hereford, 

Texas, within Deaf Smith County." 

The City of Hereford is located within Deaf Smith County. 

Article 998, Vernon's Civil Statutes, concerning the powers and duties 

of police officers, states that: 

11 . . . such officers shall have like powers, rights 

and authority as are by said title vested in city 

uiarshals." 

Article 999, Vernon's Civil Statutes, on the powers and duties of 

niarshals states: 

at 

. . . he shall have like power, with the sheriff 

of the county to execute warrants; . . . In the 

prevention and suppression of crime and arrest of 

offenders, he shall have, possess and execute like 

power, authority, and jurisdiction as the sheriff 

. ..nIn Newburn v. Durham,. 88 Tex. 288, 31 S.W. 195, 196 (1895) the 

Supreme Court stated: 

"Since the jurisdiction of the marshal is 

measured by that of the sheriff in the 'prevention and suppression of crime and arrest of 

offenders' against the laws of the state, it must 

be co-extensive with the limitations of the county." 
\ 

Hon. J. Edward Line, Page 2 (~~-1028) 

. 

. However, 'in#Minor v. State, 219 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. Crim. 1949) a 

majority of the court of Criminal Appeals specifically stated that they 

do not agree. Judge Beauchamp, in his concurring opinion stated: 

"I cannot subscribe to the implication that a 

city policemau has authority equal to that of the 

sheriff co-extensive with the bounds of the county." 

This view was also expressed by Judge Hawkins in his dissenting opinion. 

See also 28 Tex. maw Rev. 862,(note' 1950). 

We must therefore conclude that a police officer may not execute 

a warrant of arrest outside the limits of the city of which he is an officer unless there is a specific statute giving him authority in a specific 

case. See Hurley v. State, 234 S.W.2d 1006 (Tex. Crim.1950). 

SUMMARY 

A police officer of a city does not have the authority to execute awarraritof arrest issued out 

of the corporation court, outside of the city but 

within the county in which the city is located. 

Very truly 'yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

,Wk--=+$? 

Cecil Cammack. Jr. 

AssistantAttorney General 

CC:br 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMlTTFE 

W.V. Geppert, chairman 

W. Ray Scruggs 

Jerry Roberts 

Dudley McCall-a 

John Phillips 

REVIEWEBFORTHF.ATTORNEYGENERAL 

BY: Morgan Nesbitt