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

Docket No. FAA-2015-3988 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-005-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 285 $24,225.00

Replacenment 58.0 $4,930.0

0

$0 $4,930.00 285 $1,405,050.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,429,275

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1999
FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1999             DEC-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,945                   4,945
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,458                   1,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,938                   1,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,176                  19,176
<PP&E>                                         136,283                 136,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,095                  22,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,858                 186,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,965                  36,965
<BONDS>                                        100,000                 100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            37                      37
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,533                  10,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,666                 186,666
<SALES>                                         67,648                 130,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,648                 130,682
<CGS>                                           18,493                  35,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,841                 128,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,431                   6,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,624)                 (4,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (461)                 (1,406)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,162)                 (2,814)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                     878
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,162)                 (3,492)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.39)                  (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)                  (1.17)


</TABLE>
### [§2362. Renumbered §4144]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2362, added Pub. L. 99–145, title I, §123(a)(1), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 599; amended Pub. L. 99–433, title I, §110(g)(4), Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 1004; Pub. L. 100–26, §7(k)(2), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 284, which related to testing requirements for wheeled or tracked armored vehicles, was repealed by Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §821(a)(3), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1704.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Medicinal Chemistry.                    

*Date:*                         February 28, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call)                     

*Contact Person:*                         Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review Officer, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-5388,                         *Wiethorp@ninds.nih.gov.*
      ( print page 10382)    
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due  to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 17, 201. 

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-4182 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
§ 514.17 How are fingerprint processing fees collected by the Commission? ( a ) Fees for processing fingerprint cards will be billed monthly to each Tribe for cards processed during the prior month. Tribes shall pay the amount billed within forty-five (45) days of the date of the bill.
( b ) The Chair may suspend fingerprint card processing for a tribe that has a bill remaining unpaid for more than forty-five (45) days.
( c ) Remittances and other communications about fingerprint processing fees shall be sent to the Commission by the methods provided for in the rates of fees notice published in the Federal Register.
,J. Hardesty

Parraguirre Cherry J. refund amount issue remained pending below, rendering the district court's decision interlocutory and nonappealable.

In their timely responses to our show cause order, the parties point out that they stipulated below to the amount of use tax paid on employee meals and, thus, that part of the amount of any refund due is not at issue. The parties also point to pending arguments regarding whether the requested refund should be offset against other taxes due and whether appellant is entitled to interest on the refund amount, however. Nevertheless, appellant urges this court to deem the district court's decision final and appealable. Cross-appellant asserts that these issues remain unresolved and that the matter should thus be remanded for further proceedings at the administrative level.

Because the district court has neither remanded this matter to the administrative agency to determine these issues nor ruled on these issues and the refund amount due itself, we conclude that they remain pending in the district court, such that no final judgment has been entered over which we may exercise jurisdiction. NRAP 3A(b)(1); NRS 233B.150. Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal and cross-appeal DISMISSED. 1 

# A 6A. XAA. 2 ‘

'This dismissal does not preclude any aggrieved party from filing a timely appeal or cross-appeal from the district court's final judgment once it is entered. NRAP 3A(b)(1); Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves, 112 Nev. 1487, 1488-89, 929 P.2d 936, 937 (1996).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) I947A • > 2

### cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge John Bartlett, Attorney at Law Henderson City Attorney Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

### 3
§ 241.2 Annette Islands Reserve; definition; exclusive fishery; licenses. ( a ) *Definition.* The Annette Islands Reserve is defined as the Annette Islands in Alaska, as set apart as a reservation by section 15 of the Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1101, 48 U.S.C. sec. 358), and including the area identified in the Presidential Proclamation of April 28, 1916 (39 Stat. 1777), as the waters within three thousand feet from the shore lines at mean low tide of Annette Island, Ham Island, Walker Island, Lewis Island, Spire Island, Hemlock Island, and adjacent rocks and islets, located within the broken line upon the diagram attached to and made a part of said Proclamation; and also the bays of said islands, rocks, and islets.
( b ) *Exclusive fishery.* The Annette Islands Reserve is declared to be exclusively reserved for fishing by the members of the Metlakatla Indian Community and such other Alaskan Natives as have joined or may join them in residence on the aforementioned islands, and any other person fishing therein without authority or permission of the Metlakatla Indian Community shall be subject to prosecution under the provisions of section 2 of the Act of July 2, 1960 (74 Stat. 469, 18 U.S.C. sec. 1165).
( c ) *Licenses.* Members of the Metlakatla Indian Community, and such other Alaskan Natives as have joined them or may join them in residence on the aforementioned islands, shall not be required to obtain a license or permit from the State of Alaska to engage in fishing in the waters of the Annette Islands Reserve.
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Lonni L. Dieck, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by AEP Texas Inc., as Servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated as of March 14, 2012 between AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer, in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





6. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee.





Date: March 23, 2018/s/ Lonni L. DieckName:  Lonni L. DieckTitle: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of theServicing Function, AEP Texas Inc., as Servicer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
CARLOS RIVAS;

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas January 29, 1999 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion 10/2/98, 5 Cir., 157 F.3d 364) Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. In denying rehearing the panel emphasizes that

we do not suggest that there are no circumstances under which force might be appropriate to
effectuate a border search. These are fact intensive inquiries.

The court having been polled at the request of one of its members and a majority of the judges

who are in regular active service not having voted in favor (Fed. R. App. P. 35, 5 th Cir. R. 35) the
suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
# C_2006237EN.01002601.xml

| 30.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/26

---

(2006/C 237/43)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

Past publications

OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:52 PM
To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gayt an; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fe rnstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Cork ran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coug hlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaro n; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert va n Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: Breakfast read?

Dear Colleagues,

You didn't really want to read about the Redskins did you? (And we can stipulate that Pakistan still hates us.)

Attached for your breakfast perusal (should you so choose) are two memos prepared by LBNL staff that hopefully will shed light on two conceptu al issues that have vexed our prior discussions of what really matters, transformers :

(a) the Department's methodology for constructing the LCC and how it relates to the dollars per watt metric that many of you are familiar with, and (b) the Department's assumptions about loading and load growth and how it is used in the analysis.

Thanks to Mike Hyland's incredible hospitality ther e will have copies ava ilable for you to look at at this meeting, but do try to peek at them in advance. We will try to work through these issues quickly, but thoroughly.

All best, Richard Parker
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,192
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,192
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,394
<OTHER-SE>                                    (48,202)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,192
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,834)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,834)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4144]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea9e988b8e8f8b848b8693998399aa8c8789c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8cccad9dcddd9d6d9d4c1cbd1cbf8ded5db96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Agreement No.: 012100-001.
    Title: CMA CGM/CSAV Gulf Bridge Express Vessel Sharing Agreement.
    Parties: CMA CGM S.A.; CMA CGM Antilles Guyane; and Compania Sud 
American de Vapores S.A.
    Filing Party: Draughn Arbona, Esq.; Associate Counsel & 
Environmental Officer; CMA CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright Drive, 
Norfolk, VA 23502.
    Synopsis: The amendment allows the parties to increase the number 
and size of vessels operated under the agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012118-000.
    Title: CMA CGM/OOCL Victory Bridge Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: CMA CGM S.A. and Orient Overseas Container Line Limited.
    Filing Party: Draughn Arbona, Esq.; Associate Counsel & 
Environmental Officer; CMA CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright Drive, 
Norfolk, VA 23502.
    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes CMA to charter space to OOCL in 
the trade between U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports and ports in 
Europe and Mexico.

    Agreement No.: 201199-001.
    Title: Port Fee Services Agreement.
    Parties: City of Los Angeles; City of Long Beach; Port Check LLC; 
APM Terminals Pacific Ltd.; Eagle Marine Services, Ltd.; Long Beach 
Container Terminal, Inc.; Total Terminals International; California 
United Terminals, Inc.; International Transportation Service, Inc.; 
Seaside Transportation Service, LLC; West Basin Container Terminal LLC; 
Pacific Maritime Services, LLC; SSA Terminal (Long Beach), LLC; Trans 
Pacific Container Service Corporation; SSA Terminals, LLC; and Yusen 
Terminals, Inc.
    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq. and Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen 
O'Connor; 1627 I Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20006.
    Synopsis: The amendment revises the ports' payment of vendor 
operating costs.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4144 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### [§2302a. Renumbered §3571]