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

Docket No. FAA-2015-0900 Directorate Identifier: 20 15-NE-12-AD 

((you make changes to the values in the tahle bef01r, you must ensure the totals update ccordin ~\ ·. If 

they do not. d ick (or Tab) into and then olll of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

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

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

rep Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost lacement) 

Do no (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet t include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Insp e ction 2.0 96 

Pump_ driver $1,094 96 

Oil pump . 

$16,218 96 

'• 

,, 

. ' 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1 ,678,272 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action 

Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and closereplacement) up) 

0 

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* 0 NO cgj 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? -

YES* 0 NO cgj 

*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 0 NO cgj 

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* 0 NO cgj 

*Explanation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT *SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

V.

< ' */''p z ,plaintig, -

. vs.v zkpwzlsAx Y o J/ /.Jpy

Y 'WV '*

//,7:/,-/-;oN ,oerendants) FlL':.'',..,. z D..

Mlt 272024

M otion ForReferralToVolunteerAttorney P-aITIZ/L'j!((?7;:ftl,!(.q.!.tj)(()l-6 ,/' ,..-k s t.-),.CJ,:

!,.y-u-/utzjm r.,j,(k..,,,

'

''

1,x.. î,t4ty 2.V'),.>m/'t- ,smaprosepartyrepre-se-ku-n'gmyself

in thiscase,and have requested authozization to proceed informapauperis

(z::-v-u.,c,/yvy casexo.

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.â 1915 or nm otherwise unable to aford a lawyer.

Therefore,1request that the Courtrefer m y request to the Court's Volunteer

Attorney Progrnm . Iunderstand thatitV IIbe up to volunteerattorneys,not

the Court,to determ ine w hether they wish to represent m e. If a volunteer

attom ey agrees to take m y representation,1willcooperatew ith thatcounselin

the preparation and presentation ofm y case.

r

'

,.) .- . /

Signature: -.-. ' ..

z' .''

Printed nam e: Q*J

Address'. X u.z-,

xz-l,'eCertificate ofService

Ihereby certify thata true and correctcopy of

(specifymethodofserdce--handdelivery/u.s.

counselorpartiesofrecord on the Service List

SBRW CE LIST

Attorney orParty Nam e

Attorney orParty E-m ailAddress

Firm Nnm e

theforegoingw as served by

Mail/other) on Idatejona1

bCIOW . i yr'tS1 . .,

.,) ' .T,)

Signature: -,. ' V,

.

'Vl-z-e J.'->

Brinted nam e: r >fxUw a- -

..--

.)X ?tvg'//zzzzzs-z(sz-ro.z..we,r.zw.zx'r

- ,iY-,k7-g,,

'-b,..o zZFr

StreetAddress City,State,Zip Code

Telephone:(xxx)xxx-xxxx

Facsim ile:(u # xxx-xxxx

AttorneysforPlnintiff/Defendant

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1876 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2024 Page 1 of 2
#'

Z

s& >< o '

-#:>z<#/)

< m ?

>

œ

>

œ

O

œ

t

c

m

m

œ

*

M

*

>

*

D

t

J < M O

= = =

?D cu o

%' np.

o

o m

c m-sW rnlMo' û)

m o =

* N N

# œ

A' T

. l.-

!2r' '

I

A

+#

à

$

xx/ ,y . ,

.,

/xN.j ...

t.,.,.y.s

WN.E ,

%>

N

.-.- 'X' .-,:-,

,L

,

q;,,,b,t'b'-

-..;.

, 1

k- j j u;jy,- .-,,.-.:,

-.-

-

-ipç;;k-k

--

'$p::,h,

''''Ct'--

-'

-)jg;:- - .-,y.-,-y

œ

z.

'''

ik-'-',$-;r

-'''

'''

''

-

---- '-:'.-''''---- ,-(tj- .

'-.-t.:.i?!'.-,'t;

'

'i;:t!;l:k--,.

'

'

-::::

*

-

*

h. -,,

h k . V Vj.,

( % , (>

'N z

N

jè

;g

t,M

kQ

*

t-.)

R91

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1876 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2024 Page 2 of 2
From: Guy Donaldson

To: pettyjohn@adeq.state.ar.us

Cc: Michael Feldman; Erik Snyder; Dayana Medina; Joe Kordzi

Subject: Whitebluff Baseline Emission Rates.

Date: 09/10/2012 07:15 AM

In follow up to our call Thursday, as requested, I am sending this E-mail

summarizing EPA's position regarding the baseline emissions for the Entergy

Whitebluff facility.

The BART Guidelines state that "The baseline emissions rate should represent a

realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source."

With respect to NOx emissions, the boiler tuning and addition of a neural network

will impact the anticipated annual emissions of the two units. The emissions from

the baseline period of 2001-2003 are no longer representative of anticipated NOx

emissions and therefore a more recent baseline period can be utilized that captures

the emission reductions due to these changes to the boilers. One of the five factors

considered in the BART analysis is consideration of any existing control technology

used at the source. In evaluating NOx controls for these two units, it is appropriate

to consider and account for NOx emission reductions that resulted from improving

the boiler efficiency.

In contrast, the SO2 emission rates have shown significant variability and there is

not sufficient information or an enforceable limit to suggest that the baseline period

of 2001-2003 is no longer representative of anticipated maximum future emissions.

We understand that modeling utilizing the baseline period has already been

completed and that the facility does not believe that the change in baseline period

will impact the outcome of the BART determination. The analysis already completed

may be sufficient to support the BART determination. However, we note that a

sensitivity study and/or revised modeling may be needed should the anticipated

increase in visibility benefit due to a change in baseline be significant enough to

impact the ultimate BART determination. We suggest that the cost-effectiveness in

terms of $/ ton removed be calculated based on both the 2001-2003 baseline and

the facility's proposed 2009-2011 baseline as this calculation is straightforward and

will directly demonstrate how the cost-effectivness can will be impacted by the

proposed revision in baseline emissions.

We also note that should the facility commit to a BART determination that consists

of the most stringent controls available, then there is no need to complete the

remaining BART analysis 

I hope you find this helpful, Please feel free to forward as necessary.
#### § 177.26 Where request filed.

The request shall be filed with the Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, Headquarters, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.

[T.D. 83-13, 48 FR 1189, Jan. 11, 1983, as amended by T.D. 99-27, 64 FR 13677, Mar. 22, 1999]
#### § 190.168 [Reserved]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-34 May 19, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of the Oyster Creek

nuclear power plant next Wednesday to discuss the results of the agency’s latest Plant Performance

Review for the facility. The plant, which is located in Forked River, N.J., is operated by GPU Nuclear

Incorporated.

Issuance of the reviews was announced in NRC news release 00-059 on April 5 -

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/00-059.html . The Plant Performance Review letter can be

found on the agency’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/219ppr3.html .

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, will be held at 1:30 p.m. in the

Administration Building at the Oyster Creek site, on Route 9 in Forked River. At its conclusion, NRC

staff will be available to answer questions from interested observers.

#
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62465-62466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23901]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the 
Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting 
on November 3, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, November 3, 2004--1:30 p.m.-5 p.m.

    The purpose of this meeting is to review the License Renewal 
Application and associated Draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) related 
to the License Renewal of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Station. The 
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 
and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee 
will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and 
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
Cayetano Santos (telephone 301/415-7270) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between

[[Page 62466]]

7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working 
days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda.

    Dated: October 19, 2004.
John H. Flack,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 04-23901 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00411-CR

DAMIAN RAMIREZ CAVAZOS

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-08-4212-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 6, 2014.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-03-019 March 31, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO MEET WITH OFFICIALS FROM EXELON NUCLEAR

TO DISCUSS SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT LA SALLE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials from the Exelon

Generation Company on Thursday, April 3, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of the

La Salle nuclear power plant, located near Seneca, Illinois.

The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. at the Brookfield Township Hall, Grand Ridge-Mazon Road,

in Seneca. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available before the

conclusion of the meeting for questions and comments from the public.

A letter from the NRC to the Exelon Generation Company addresses plant safety performance

during the previous year and forms the basis for the meeting discussions. The letter states that,

overall, La Salle operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and that plant

performance was at a level requiring no additional NRC inspection beyond normal baseline activities. 

The letter also states that there was a safety significant performance indicator, which had to do

with the number of unplanned reactor scrams, and a substantive cross-cutting issue in the area of

human performance during the first two quarters of 2002. The NRC monitored those two areas closely

throughout the year and concluded that the utility’s corrective actions have effectively addressed both

issues. 

 The letter is available from Region III Public Affairs Office and on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/lasa_2002q4.pdf

In addition, the letter notes: "As you are aware, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,

the NRC has issued several Orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities and improve

guard force readiness. We have conducted inspections to review your implementation of these

requirements and have monitored your actions in response to changing threat advisories. For calendar year

2003, we plan to continue these inspections and conduct portions of the security baseline inspection

program, as well as perform additional inspections to evaluate your compliance with new requirements

that may be ordered."
Current performance information for La Salle is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html#section2

###
#### § 4700.0-1 Purpose.

The purpose of these regulations is to implement the laws relating to the protection, management, and control of wild horses and burros under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 776 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 776

                   For the relief of Rebecca Trimble.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 2021

 Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Rebecca Trimble.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR REBECCA TRIMBLE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Rebecca 
Trimble shall be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Rebecca Trimble enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Rebecca 
Trimble shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall 
apply only if the application for issuance of immigrant visas or the 
application for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees 
within two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
immigrant visas or permanent residence to Rebecca Trimble, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, 
during the current or next following fiscal year--
            (1) the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
        available to natives of the country of birth of Rebecca Trimble 
        under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
        U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
            (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 
        are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
        Rebecca Trimble under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
        1152(e)).
                                 <all>
```
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-078 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, May 16, 1997)

NRC ESTABLISHES SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES

The NRC has designated a toll-free telephone number, 1-800-

368-5642, to assist small businesses in interpreting or complying

with NRC regulations. This special assistance responds to the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, which seeks

to give small businesses the same access to information that may

be better understood by larger organizations with greater

resources.

NRC's action is aimed, in particular, at materials licensees

that may be smaller in size, but still must bear a large share of

regulatory costs as compared to other larger licensees.

A rule announcing the establishment of the toll-free number

was published in the Federal Register on May 13. For more

information, contact David Meyer, Chief, Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. NRC,

Washington, DC, 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-7162; Web address

http://www.dlm1@nrc.gov

#
```

August 4, 2004

U.S. Can Corporation
700 East Butterfield Road, Suite 250
Lombard, Illinois 60148

Dear Sirs/Madams:

At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2004, of the facts relating to the change in the method of accounting
for inventory from the last-in, first-out method (LIFO) to the first-in, first-out method (FIFO). We believe, on the
basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to us by appropriate officials of the Company, that the
accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the
circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of U.S. Can Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries as
of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2003.  Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not
express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us
by officials of the Company, or on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of U.S. Can Corporation
and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2003.

Yours truly,

Deloitte & Touche LLP
```
464 P.2d 559

#### Tolbert J. LYON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATRON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Employer, and Security Insurance Group and the St. Paul Insurance Companies, Insurers, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 8985.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 21, 1970.

Ordered that application for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 350, 81 N.M. 120, 464 P.2d 410, he and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-44 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Monday, July 12, 1999)

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

MEETING AT BRUNSWICK

Meeting Is Open To Observation By The Public

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a meeting with Carolina

Power & Light, the operators of the Brunswick nuclear power plant, located in

Southport, North Carolina, at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 20 to discuss results of the

agency’s latest Plant Performance Review for the facility. Results of the review are

contained in NRC news release 99-11, issued on April 1. That news release and the

letter with details of the review are located on the NRC’s web page at

www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

The meeting will be held at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant Technical Training

Center Auditorium, 8470 River Road SE in Southport and is open to observation by

members of the public. NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to answer

questions from interested observers and meet with state and local officials who attend.

#
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 702 

To prohibit Federal funding of State firearm ownership databases, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2021 

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH (for herself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BRAUN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mr. CRAMER, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. ROUNDS, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. HAGERTY, 

and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding of State firearm ownership 

databases, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gun Owner Registra5 tion Information Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF STATE 

7 FIREARM OWNERSHIP DATABASES. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 702 IS

1 (1) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of 

2 the several States, the District of Columbia, the 

3 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 

4 of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 

5 Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and any 

6 other territory or possession of the United States. 

7 (2) STATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP DATABASE.— 

8 The term ‘‘State firearm ownership database’’ 

9 means a comprehensive or partial database of a 

10 State or political subdivision of a State that lists— 

11 (A) firearms lawfully owned or possessed 

12 by individuals; or 

13 (B) individuals who lawfully own or pos14 sess firearms. 

15 (b) PROHIBITION.—A Federal agency may not fund 

16 or otherwise support the establishment or maintenance of 

17 a State firearm ownership database. 

18 (c) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (b) shall not apply to 

19 a database of a State or political subdivision of a State 

20 that lists— 

21 (1) firearms that have been reported as lost or 

22 stolen; or 

23 (2) individuals who have reported their firearms 

24 as lost or stolen. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS