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

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -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 3.0 $ 255.00 $0 $ 255.00 838 $213,690.00

$ 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 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $213,690

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Corrective Action 4.0 $ 340.00 $0 $ 340.00

$ 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:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. James Boyd, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 7, 1962, which dismissed the writ without a hearing and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed *(People ex rel. Bell*v. *Murphy,*18 A D 2d 17). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Sophie Bertini, Respondent, v. Albert Bertini, Appellant.

Motion to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on typewritten briefs. The parties are directed to file five copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                PROVIDENT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference (1) in Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-93603),
(2) in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-34904) pertaining to the 1990 Provident Financial Group, Inc.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (3) in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-90792) pertaining to the Provident Financial Group, Inc.
Retirement Plan, (4) in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.
33-51230 and Form S-8 No. 33-62707) pertaining to the 1992 Outside
Directors' Stock Option Plan and the 1992 Advisory Directors' Stock
Option Plan, (5) in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-96503
and Form S-8 No. 333-55698) pertaining to the Glenway Financial
Corporation 1990 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, Fidelity Federal
Savings Bank 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, Fidelity Financial of Ohio, Inc.
1997 Stock Option Plan, and OHSL Financial Corp. 1992 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan, (6) in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-67754) pertaining to the Dividend Reinvestment Plan, (7) Provident
Financial Group, Inc. 1988 Stock Option Plan, (8) Provident Financial
Group, Inc. 1996 Non-Executive Officer Stock Option Plan, (9) Provident
Financial Group, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, (10) Provident Financial
Group, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, (11) Provident Financial Group, Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan, and (12) Provident Financial Group, Inc. 2002
Outside Directors Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 17, 2004
except for Note 24, as to which the date is February 17, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Provident Financial
Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.





                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP






Cincinnati, Ohio
March 9, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 24, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry
D. Frandsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15 (d) 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ TERRY D. FRANDSEN
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
April 12, 2007


                                       19
#### 1552.216-74 Payment of fee.

As prescribed in 1516.307(b), insert the following clause:

# Payment of Fee (MAY 1991)

(a) The term *fee* in this clause refers to either the fixed fee under a cost-plus-fixed-fee type contract, or the base fee under a cost-plus-award-fee type contract.

(b) The Government will make provisional fee payments on the basis of percentage of work completed. Percentage of work completed is the ratio of direct labor hours performed to the direct labor hours set forth in clause 1552.211-73, *Level of Effort—Cost-Reimbursement Term Contract.*

(End of clause)

[56 FR 43711, Sept. 4, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 46899, Sept. 3, 1998]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4177-4180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable 
legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property 
subject to U.S. jurisdiction these persons are blocked, and U.S. 
persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with 
them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

[[Page 4178]]

    OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; 
Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-
622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and 
additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available 
on OFAC's website (https://www.treas.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action(s)

    On January 11, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed 
below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JA21.000


[[Page 4179]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JA21.001


[[Page 4180]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JA21.002

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C

    Dated: January 11, 2021.
Andrea M. Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2021-00767 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
#### Rae Robinson et al., Appellants, v Trade Link America et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 243]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), entered March 6, 2006, which granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The injured plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a patch of “black ice” in the defendants’ driveway. A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or construe*617tive notice thereof *(see Fahey v Serota,*23 AD3d 335 [2005]; *Zabbia v Westwood, LLC,*18 AD3d 542 [2005]; *Cody v DiLorenzo,*304 AD2d 705 [2003]; *Voss v D&C Parking,*299 AD2d 346 [2002]; *see also Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*84 NY2d 972 [1994]).

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants either created the complained of condition, or had actual or constructive notice thereof *(see Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra; Dwulit v Walters,*19 AD3d 535 [2005]). Significantly, the injured plaintiff stated that he did not notice any ice in the area where he fell prior to his fall, and that he safely traversed this very area only minutes before the accident occurred. In view of this testimony, as well as the other facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants had notice of the “black ice” or that said condition was the result of improper snow removal was conclusory and speculative, and thus insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Makaron v Luna Park Hous. Corp., 25*AD3d 770 [2006]; *Stoddard v G.E. Plastics Corp.,*11 AD3d 862 [2004]; *Carminati v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr.,*6 AD3d 481 [2004]; *Carricato v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership,*299 AD2d 444 [2002]). Similarly, the conclusion reached by the plaintiffs’ expert was also insufficient to raise a material issue of fact since “a close reading of the affidavit reveals that it merely addressed general conditions in the vicinity rather than the origin of the specific ice on which the plaintiff [alleges that he] fell” *(Reagan v Hartsdale Tenants Corp.,*27 AD3d 716, 718 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68*NY2d *320*[1986]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### Anne De Matteis, Appellant, v. Andrew De Matteis, Respondent.

In an action for a judicial separation, in which judgment had been rendered in favor of the plaintiff wife directing the husband to make certain payments of alimony, the wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 7, 1963, which referred to a Special Referee “to hear and report or, if the parties so stipulate, to hear and determine ” her motion to punish the husband for contempt of court in failing to comply with the alimony provisions of the judgment. Appeal dismissed, without costs. An order referring a matter to a Referee for hearing and report is not appealable *[Ayers*v. *Ayers,*16 A D 2d 926; *Brinkman*v. *Brinkman,*13 A D 2d 1024). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### State Division of Human Rights, Respondent, v Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, Petitioner.

— Order of appeal board unanimously affirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In a proceeding brought pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law petitioner seeks to vacate the determination and order of the Human Rights Appeal Board dismissing as premature petitioner’s appeal pursuant to section 297-a of the Executive Law from a determination of the State Division of Human Rights finding probable cause. Petitioner contends that the State Division of Human Rights has been divested of jurisdiction because of delay and noncompliance with subdivisions 2 and 4 of the Executive Law. The division in moving to dismiss the appeal asserted that the finding of probable cause is a "non-final procedural determination” which is not reviewable by the appeal board pursuant to section 297-a of the Executive Law, and that "In so far as petitioner seeks to have the State Division of Human Rights divested of jurisdiction for alleged 'protracted delay’ a proceeding for such relief must be initiated in the Supreme Court under CPLR Article 78.” (See *Matter of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. v State Div. of Human Rights,*46 AD2d 1004). We agree with the appeal board’s action in dismissing the appeal inasmuch as the division’s determination is not an "order of the commissioner” that is appealable under the rules and regulations of the *1096State Human Rights Appeal Board (9 NYCRR 550.1 *et seq.),*adopted pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 295 of the Executive Law to implement the provisions of section 297-a of the Executive Law. A determination of probable cause is not an "order, decision, determination of the division which makes, or has the effect of making, a final disposition of any complaint” (9 NYCRR 550.3 [i] [5] and does not meet the other criteria for an appealable order of the commissioner in 9 NYCRR 550.3 [i]). (See *South African Airways v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*35 AD2d 516.) (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
### §852. Marketing agreements with handlers; exemption from antitrust laws

In order to effectuate the policy declared in section 851 of this title the Secretary of Agriculture shall have the power, after due notice and opportunity for hearing, to enter into marketing agreements with manufacturers and others engaged in the handling of anti-hog-cholera serum and hog-cholera virus only with respect to such handling as is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or which directly burdens, obstructs, or affects interstate or foreign commerce in such serum and virus. Such persons are in section 854 of this title referred to as "handlers." The making of any such agreement shall not be held to be in violation of any of the antitrust laws of the United States, and any such agreement shall be deemed to be lawful.

(Aug. 24, 1935, ch. 641, §57, 49 Stat. 781.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          18,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,221,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,819,328
<PP&E>                                     115,367,603
<DEPRECIATION>                              67,199,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,293,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,020,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,780,040
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,293,544
<SALES>                                      6,517,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,674,802
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,237,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            (1,563,058)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             569,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,132,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (597,229)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,535,734)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,535,734)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.12)
        




</TABLE>
### Proceedings of the 1990 Billings land reclamation symposium on Selenium in arid and semiarid environments, Western United States

By: Scott E. FisherL. P. Gough

Edited by: Ronald C. Severson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1064

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Eugene Laka, Appellant, v Kathleen Laka, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 14, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Blyn, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur-Murphy, P.J., Lupiano, Fein, Sandier and Sullivan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Percy Webb, Defendant.

-Motion by defendant to vacate order entered April 30, 1951 dismissing his appeal, and for other relief, denied. This denial, however, is with leave to renew after defendant shall have utilized the procedure of a *coram nobis*application in the court below for the purpose of establishing the truth of any claim which he may assert to the effect that his right to prosecute the appeal had been lost or effectively frustrated without any fault or knowledge on his part (see *People*v. Adams, 12 H Y 2d 417). Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    264,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               441,219
<PP&E>                                         332,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 832,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,116
<BONDS>                                        373,748
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                        12,694
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   832,992
<SALES>                                        812,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               812,995
<CGS>                                          706,482
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  706,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,038)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (764)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.52)
        

</TABLE>
13.401 General. ( a ) The fast payment procedure allows payment under limited conditions to a contractor prior to the Government's verification that supplies have been received and accepted. The procedure provides for payment for supplies based on the contractor's submission of an invoice that constitutes a certification that the contractor— ( 1 ) Has delivered the supplies to a post office, common carrier, or point of first receipt by the Government; and
( 2 ) Shall replace, repair, or correct supplies not received at destination, damaged in transit, or not conforming to purchase agreements.
( b ) The contracting officer shall be primarily responsible for determining the amount of debts resulting from failure of contractors to properly replace, repair, or correct supplies lost, damaged, or not conforming to purchase requirements (see 32.602 and 32.603).
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 73 FR 54001, Sept. 17, 2008]