alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                           
<ARTICLE>                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1,000
                                                 
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                                       276
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                404
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                6,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           8,221
<PP&E>                                                    11,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                             3,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            17,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      2,270
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  22,337
<OTHER-SE>                                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              17,431
<SALES>                                                   17,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          17,796
<CGS>                                                      9,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             19,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (2,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (2,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               27
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (2,291)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.23)
        
 

</TABLE>
Email us with accessibility issues regarding this report.

Freight Rates for Mandatory Wholesale Pork Cuts

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News April – June 2024

The United States is divided into ten regions with one region for Mexico and three regions for Canada. 

Below is a description of these regions: 

(1) WASHINGTON, OREGON, CALIFORNIA

(2) IDAHO, MONTANA, WYOMING

(3) NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, MINNESOTA

(4) MICHIGAN, INDIANA, OHIO, KENTUCKY, WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS

(5) PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, MASSACHUSETTS,

VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, MAINE

(6) UTAH, ARIZONA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, NEVADA

(7) NEBRASKA, IOWA, KANSAS, MISSOURI

(8) TEXAS, OKLAHOMA, LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS

(9) TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, GEORIGA, FLORIDA

(10) SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, MARYLAND, DELAWARE,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(11) MEXICO

(12) QUEBEC, NEW BRUNSWICK, NOVA SCOTIA

(13) MANITOBA, ONTARIO, NU NAVUT

(14) BRITISH COLUMBIA, ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN, YUKON, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

The respective per mile rates by region are listed in the table below: 

REGIONS

FREIGHT RATE

($/Loaded Mile)

Region 1 $2.88

Region 2 $3.47

Region 3 $3.64

Region 4 $3.53

Region 5 $3.57

Region 6 $3.33

Region 7 $4.57

Region 8 $3.53

Region 9 $3.47

Region 10 $3.60

Region 11 $3.53

Region 12 $3.14

Region 13 $3.29

Region 14 $3.44
Email us with accessibility issues regarding this report.

Freight Rates for Mandatory Wholesale Pork Cuts

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News April – June 2024

3.57

3.60

3.47

3.53

3.53

3.53

4.57

3.64

3.33

2.88 3.47

3.44

3.29

3.14
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00009]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0530]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office 
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance on Medical 
Devices: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings With FDA Staff; 
Withdrawal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
notice that published in the Federal Register of December 11, 2012 (77 
FR 73662).

DATES: This notice is withdrawn on January 7, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of 
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., 
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-5156, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94d0f5fafdf1f8bad3fde0e0f8f1e7fbfad4f2f0f5bafcfce7baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4f0d5daddd1d89af3ddc0c0d8d1c7dbdaf4d2d0d59adcdcc79ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA published a notice in the Federal 
Register of December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73662), informing interested 
parties that the proposed collection of information entitled ``Guidance 
on Medical Devices: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with FDA 
Staff'' had been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
inviting the public to submit comments on the proposed study to OMB. As 
of the date of this notice, FDA has not finalized the policy document 
underlying this information collection request. Thus, FDA is 
withdrawing the proposed collection of information published on 
December 11, 2012, at this time.

    Dated: December 31, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-00009 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
June 2, 2014 

Attention: United States Secretary of Transportation 

Mr. Anthony Foxx 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington DC, 20590

Dear Mr. Secretary,

In accordance with Section 333(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, VDOS Global LLC is requesting 

permission to use its Aeryon SkyRanger small unmanned vertical lift system 

to perform flare stack inspections for Shell Oil Company in the Gulf of 

Mexico for a period of 24 months. 

The attached documentation contains waiver requests per 14 CFR Part 11 

and corresponding explanations of why these exemptions are in the public 

interest and maintain at least an equal level of safety to existing regulations. 

Also attached is a Operations Guide outlying the operations, procedures,

and Aeryon SkyRanger operating system. 

VDOS Global LLC will be responsible to ensure compliance with applicable 

Federal Aviation Regulations and International Civil Aviation Organization 

regulations in relation to this operation. A “best practice” policy will be 

assumed toward regulations that are not applicable to this operation. 

Individuals performing this operation will all hold at least a current Federal 

Aviation Administration Commercial Pilots License and a valid FAA Class II 

Medical Certificate. 

Performing these inspections with unmanned systems is a benefit to the 

public interest in several ways: 

i) The operation significantly improves safety and reduces risk by 

alleviating human exposure to danger. 

VDOS Global LLC 230 SW 6th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333 www.vdosglobal.us

VDOS GLOBAL LLC
ii) There is a compelling need to improve such inspection processes and 

save operating costs.

iii) This service can provide a means of environmental monitoring during 

inspections. These unmanned inspections will aid in documenting and 

ensuring the structure emissions process is working properly and that 

harmful gases are not being released into the environment. 

iv) VDOS Global LLC is prepared to share operational data with the FAA. 

It is the hope of VDOS Global LLC that this request for flight approval in 

accordance with Section 333(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 will be granted. It is with the 

knowledge of and respect for current airspace operations that we request 

this exemption to provide flare stack inspections commercially to the Shell 

Oil Company in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Very Respectfully,

Brian Whiteside 

President, VDOS Global LLC
2010-Oct-16

United States Powered Paragliding Association (USPPA)

931 West 75th Street

#137-150,

Naperville, IL 60565

737jeff@gmail.com

To Whom It May Concern,

Pilots in our sport, powered paragliding, enjoy two valuable exemptions to FAR 103 that allow two-place

training with Powered Paragliders, 

USPPA #9751A (Docket FAA-2002-12476) and 

ASC #9785A (Docket FAA-2001-10583). 

These are indeed making our sport safer by allowing two-place training but we would like a clarification in

order to insure we are operating within the law.

The applicability language says:

“3. All flights operating under this exemption must be for training purposes only. This exemption

applies only to flights for the purpose of giving instruction in foot-launched, two-place powered

paragliders.”

ASC has interpreted this to mean that, if the powered paraglider is foot launchable, it may have wheels, and

it may take off and/or land using those wheels, legally under the exemption. 

The USPPA agrees that this interpretation would indeed make two place tandem training safely available to

more instructors. And if this interpretation is correct then we will educate our instructor members

accordingly.

Would you please provide clarification by answering the questions below? 

1. Is it acceptable that a foot launchable powered paraglider that happens to have wheels be

launched or landed on a tandem instructional flight, using those wheels, under either

exemption listed above?

Further, the USPPA exemption grant says: The petitioner defines a powered paraglider as “any

ultralight vehicle where the powerplant is attached to the pilot and the pilot/student supports at least

their own weight on foot during launch and landing until the wing begins generating lift.” 

The intent of this wording was to allow the motor to support its own weight, even if that means wheels,

so that lightweight pilots can still do foot launching. The instructor and student run during takeoff and

landing but the motor supports its own weight. Such craft are being designed but the builders,

understandably, want to make sure their craft will indeed operating appropriately under the law. which

brings up the last question:

2. Is it acceptable that the motor unit has skids or wheels intended to support its own

weight during launch and landing. The instructor and student are supporting their own

weight during the launch and landing. 
Thank you for clarifying this issue. 

Jeff Goin

President

United States Powered Paragliding Association
#### In the Matter of John H. Nichols et al., Appellants, v Board of Education, Harpursville Central School District, et al., Respondents.

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Smyk, J.), entered December 21, 1990 in Broome County, which denied petitioners’ application pursu*968ant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Order affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice Stephen Smyk.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice Stephen Smyk.
You are here: EPA Home Pesticides Regulating Pesticides Registration Review 

A periodic look at pesticides 

The Food Quality Protection Act mandated a new program: 

registration review. All pesticides distributed and sold in the 

United States must be registered by EPA, based on scientific 

data showing that they will not cause unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the 

environment when used as directed on product labeling. The new registration review program 

makes sure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all 

registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse 

effects. 

Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through 

the new registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make 

sure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can still be used safely. The 

registration review program challenges EPA to continuously improve its processes, science, 

and information management while maintaining a collaborative and open process for 

decision-making. 

 

Quick Resources 

Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP) 

- Tier 1 Battery, Test 

Guidelines, and Schedule - 

October 16, 2009

Pesticides: Registration Review 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/

Last updated on Monday, December 28, 2009

Registration Review | Pesticides | US EPA Page 1 of 1

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/ 5/24/2010
#### Melvin Padawer, Appellant, v Elliot Shapiro, Doing Business as Den of Antiquity, Respondent.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated December 6, 1989, which denied his motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 13, 1990, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 13, 1990, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 6, 1989, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order of preclusion which dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the three-year default in serving a bill of particulars and that he had a meritorious cause of action *(see, White v Leonard,*140 AD2d 518; *La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center,*98 AD2d 711, *affd*62 NY2d 1014). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our report dated
February 15, 2002 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and
schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company, included in Pre-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-76230) and
related Prospectus of Retirement Income Builder III Variable Annuity.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 25, 2002
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We have issued our reports dated November 12, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Luby’s, Inc. and its subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended August 28, 2013. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Luby’s, Inc. and its subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-186326, effective January 30, 2013; File No. 333-135058, effective June 16, 2006; File No. 333-81606, effective January 29, 2002; File No. 333-81608, effective January 29, 2002; File No. 333-55140, effective February 7, 2001; File No. 333-70315, effective January 8, 1999).



|/s/    GRANT THORNTON LLP
|-------------------------
|                         
|Houston, Texas           
|November 12, 2013
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1152 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

revise certain ethylene oxide emissions standards under the Clean Air 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2019 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, and Ms. UNDERWOOD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to revise certain ethylene oxide emissions 

standards under the Clean Air Act, 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. ETHYLENE OXIDE EMISSIONS STANDARDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

6 Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this sec7 tion as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall amend— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1152 IH

1 (1) subparts O and FFFF of part 63 of title 

2 40, Code of Federal Regulations, to revise the stand3 ards for the emission of ethylene oxide under those 

4 subparts based on the results described in the report 

5 of the National Center for Environmental Assess6 ment of the Environmental Protection Agency enti7 tled ‘‘Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of 

8 Ethylene Oxide’’ and dated December 2016; and 

9 (2) subpart O of part 63 of title 40, Code of 

10 Federal Regulations, to apply maximum achievable 

11 control technology (within the meaning of the Clean 

12 Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)) requirements to 

13 chamber exhaust vents. 

14 (b) NOTIFICATION.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after 

16 the Administrator learns of a violation of the stand17 ards revised under subsection (a), the Administrator 

18 shall notify the public of the violation in a manner 

19 determined to be appropriate by the Administrator. 

20 (2) FAILURE TO NOTIFY.—If the Administrator 

21 fails to notify the public under paragraph (1) by the 

22 end of the period described in that paragraph, the 

23 Inspector General of the Environmental Protection 

24 Agency shall carry out an investigation to deter25 mine— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1152 IH

1 (A) the reason or reasons for which the 

2 Administrator failed to notify the public; 

3 (B) the public health risks associated with 

4 the failure of the Administrator to notify the 

5 public; and 

6 (C) any steps the Administrator should 

7 take to ensure the Administrator meets the re8 quirements described in paragraph (1) in the 

9 future. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### L. Woerner, Inc., Doing Business as HCR, Respondent, v Travelers Companies et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Gail Whiteford et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court properly compelled answers to those questions that were asked of defendants’ representative and objected to by defendants’ counsel at the examination before trial. The lawsuit involves defendants’ determination to reject plaintiffs claim as not payable under the insurance policy; it therefore necessarily involves an inquiry into the facts and criteria on which defendants relied in making that determination. The conduct and opinions of those who reviewed the claim are relevant to the action, and therefore the court properly directed the witness to answer those questions.

As the court’s decision makes clear, the court did not purport to determine the propriety of a hypothetical line of questioning concerning a policy exclusion, nor does it direct answers to prospective questions. Consequently, that aspect of defendants’ appeal is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Discovery.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
USDA PDP Analytical Methods

Laboratories participating in the PDP program use a modified version of the QuEChERS (Quick,

Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe) method to extract pesticides and pesticide residues

from tested commodities.  The QuEChERS method was originally developed at the USDA

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Eastern Regional Research Center in Wyndmoor,

Pennsylvania by Michelangelo Anastassiades, Steve Lehotay, et al (1) to extract residues from

fruit and vegetable samples with a multi‐residue method (MRM) for pesticide screening.  The

exact method used by participating laboratories can vary depending on commodity; however,

all follow the same basic steps.  A homogenized sample is added to an extraction vessel with an

acetonitrile/acetic acid mixture.  Salts are added and vortexed into the mixture before being

centrifuged.  The addition of the salts helps promote separation of the water phase, promotes

pesticide elution to the organic phase, and buffers the solution for better recovery of pH‐

sensitive residues.  The supernatant is decanted off and concentrated under nitrogen stream.  

The samples are further cleaned up by solid phase extraction (SPE).  These newer methods are

considerably less time‐intensive and generate significantly less hazardous waste compared to

previously used methods.  Detection methods used include gas chromatography coupled with

tandem mass spectrometry (GC‐MS/MS) and liquid chromatography (LC‐MS/MS).  These

detection methods allow for accurate detection in the parts per billion (ppb) range.   

Additional information on a specific method is available on request.  

(1) Anastassiades M. and Lehotay S.J.; Fast and easy multiresidue method employing

acetonitrile extraction/partitioning and "dispersive solid‐phase extraction" for the

determination of pesticide residues in produce. J. of AOAC International, 2003, 86, 412‐

431.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7880

ALAN L. MEADOWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT RAYNOR; MR. HARRIS, Unit Manager; HINNIAN, Sgt.; HOLLINGSWORTH, Sgt.; MOYLE, C/O, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-03-506-BO) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan L. Meadows, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Ra leigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alan L. Meadows appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Meadows v. Raynor , No. CA-03-506-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED