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

Docket No. FAA-2016-3704 Directorate Identifier: 2016-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 29 $2,465.00

$ 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:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,465

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

Repair & 

Replacement 8.0 $ 680.00 $177 $ 857.00

$ 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:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with Italian MFA Secretary General Guariglia

# 									Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Call with Italian MFA Secretary General Guariglia							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

February 29, 2024

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell spoke yesterday with Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Secretary General Riccardo Guariglia.  The Deputy Secretary thanked Ambassador Guariglia for Italy’s leadership of the G7 and vital contributions to Ukraine’s security.  They discussed the urgent humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the protection of civilians, efforts to increase life-saving aid to those in need, and the need to prevent the conflict from spreading.  They committed to continue working together to protect ships from Iranian-backed Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and discussed shared security concerns in the Indo-Pacific.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateG7 SummitItalyOffice of the SpokespersonSecurity

Back to Top
Motion Granted; Order filed January 10, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00844-CV

____________

ALEXANDER OIL COMPANY, Appellant

V.

JOHNNY CLINE; CLINE FUELS, INC.; GULFTECH MARKETING, LP;

JAMES L. AHERN, JR.; AND YELLOW BILL, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-53723

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 28, 2018. On October 23, 2018, 

this court abated the appeal and ordered the parties to conduct mediation. On 

December 21, 2018, appellant filed a motion in which it notified this court that 

appellant and appellees, Johnny Cline and Cline Fuels, Inc., have settled their 

dispute. Appellant moved to dismiss appellees Johnny Cline and Cline Fuels, Inc. 

from the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The appeal is reinstated and the motion is 
granted. Accordingly, appellees, Johnny Cline and Cline Fuels, Inc., are ordered 

dismissed from the appeal.

The style of the case shall now read Alexander Oil Company v. Gulftech 

Marketing, LP; James L. Ahern, Jr.; and Yellow Bill, LLC. The record is due to be 

filed in this court 30 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.
# C_2006048EN.01002802.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 December 2005 — Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament

(Case T-146/04) (1)

1

(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Review of use of allowances - Justification of expenses - Recovery of a debt by offsetting)

(2006/C 48/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (Saint-Pierre-d'Irube, France) (represented by: D. Rouget, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by H. Krück, C. Karamarcos and D. Moore, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by its Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Application for

Annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 February 2004 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant as parliamentary expenses and allowances

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 February 2004 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant as parliamentary expenses and allowances in so far as it provides that the sum owed by the applicant will be recovered by offsetting. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 February 2004 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant as parliamentary expenses and allowances in so far as it provides that the sum owed by the applicant will be recovered by offsetting.

| 2) | Dismisses the remainder of the application. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the remainder of the application.

| 3) | Orders the applicant, the Parliament and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the applicant, the Parliament and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.

1

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Violator of Price Cap Policy on Russian Oil

# 									Designating Violator of Price Cap Policy on Russian Oil							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

January 18, 2024

The United States is taking additional action today to enforce the Price Cap Coalition’s policies, designating the shipping company Hennesea Holdings Limited, whose fleet includes the *HS Atlantica*, a vessel that was blocked last year after it transported Russian crude oil priced above the cap while using a U.S.-based service provider.

Today’s action demonstrates that violating the price cap will result in consequences.  Alongside our Price Cap Coalition partners across the G7, European Union, and Australia, we are steadfast in our commitment to hindering evasion that helps Russia fund its illegal war against Ukraine.

*The price cap policy prohibits Price Cap Coalition services related to the maritime transport of oil of Russian Federation origin unless that oil is bought and sold at or below specific price caps established by the Coalition.  The Department of the Treasury actions were taken pursuant to**Executive Order 14024**for operating or having operated in the marine sector of the Russian Federation economy.  For more information on today’s action, see Treasury’s**press release**.*

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsMaritime MattersOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaSanctions

Back to Top
#### A. M. SANDERS, d/b/a Sanders Pest Control v. Pat GLISSON.

No. 47643.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 19, 1974.

Smith, Downs, Coleman & Ross, Corinth, for appellant.

W. C. Sweat, Jr., Windsor & Brewer, Corinth, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ.

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of Draft Technical Standard Order (TSO)-
C154c for Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipment Operating on Frequency of 978 
MHz

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing the availability of and requesting 
comment on proposed TSO-C154c. The Avionic Systems Branch of the 
Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA has 
presented a proposed revision of existing TSO-C154b. RTCA, Inc. Special 
Committee (SC)-186 is revising RTCA Document DO-282A, Minimum 
Operational Performance Standards for Universal Access Transceiver 
(UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), which will 
become the Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) for the proposed TSO-
154c. Proposed TSO-C154c can be found at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/. Comments may be filed electronically following 
instructions on the Web page. Comments may also be filed using the 
addresses provided below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than October 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by the above deadline to Mr. Chip 
Bulger, AIR-130, Orville Wright Bldg. (FOB10A), 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-385-4651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chip Bulger, Avionics Systems 
Branch, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 
DC 20591; telephone 202-385-4882; [email protected].

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 8, 2009.
David W. Hempe,
Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division.
[FR Doc. E9-21951 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# C_2006036EN.01002102.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova by order of that court of 31 January 2005 in Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1 v Porto Antico di Genova SpA

(Case C-427/05)

(2006/C 36/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova of 31 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1 and Porto Antico di Genova SpA on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 55 of DPR (Decree of the President of the Republic) No 917 of 22 December 1986 (in the version in force in the year 2000), under which EEC contributions are taken into account for the purpose of determining taxable income, compatible with Article 21(3) of Regulation No 2082/93 (1), which provides that '[t]he payments shall be made to the final beneficiaries without any deduction or retention which could reduce the amount of financial assistance to which they are entitled'? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 55 of DPR (Decree of the President of the Republic) No 917 of 22 December 1986 (in the version in force in the year 2000), under which EEC contributions are taken into account for the purpose of determining taxable income, compatible with Article 21(3) of Regulation No 2082/93 (1), which provides that '[t]he payments shall be made to the final beneficiaries without any deduction or retention which could reduce the amount of financial assistance to which they are entitled'?

1

| 2. | If there is a finding of incompatibility, will it apply solely to funds granted and payable by Community bodies or will it also apply to funds that are described in the SPD (Single Programming Document) as being payable by national bodies? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If there is a finding of incompatibility, will it apply solely to funds granted and payable by Community bodies or will it also apply to funds that are described in the SPD (Single Programming Document) as being payable by national bodies?

---

(1)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993 p. 20.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMARILLO MESQUITE GRILL, INC. FOR THE
FISCAL QUARTER ENDED AUGUST 1, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1999
<CASH>                                         286,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,233
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    112,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               658,365
<PP&E>                                       9,790,145
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,577,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,633,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,103,140
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,839
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,879,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,633,877
<SALES>                                      4,429,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,429,388
<CGS>                                        1,525,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,192,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,031
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01



</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.406 Acquisition of pancreata for islet cell transplant. ( a ) Medicare only covers and pays for reasonable costs of acquisition on or after October 1, 2004, of pancreata for islet cell transplants into Medicare beneficiaries participating in a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases clinical trial of islet cell transplantation in accordance with section 733 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.
( b ) Pancreata procured under paragraph (a), for covered islet cell transplants must be assigned a full standard acquisition charge and be treated as solid organs for procurement purposes.
§ 419.47 Coding and Payment for Category B Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Studies ( a ) *Creation of a new HCPCS code for Category B IDE Studies.* CMS will create a new HCPCS code, or revise an existing HCPCS code, to describe a Category B IDE study, which will include both the treatment and control arms, related device(s) of the study, as well as routine care items and services, as specified under § 405.201 of this chapter, when CMS determines that: ( 1 ) The Medicare coverage IDE study criteria in § 405.212 of this chapter are met; and
( 2 ) A new or revised code is necessary to preserve the scientific validity of such a study, such as by preventing the unblinding of the study.
( b ) *Payment for Category B IDE Studies.* Where CMS creates a new HCPCS code or revises an existing HCPCS code under paragraph (a) of this section, CMS will: ( 1 ) Make a single packaged payment for the HCPCS code that includes payment for the investigational device, placebo control, and routine care items and services of a Category B IDE study, as specified under § 405.201 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Calculate the single packaged payment rate for the HCPCS code based on the average resources utilized for each study participant, including the frequency with which the investigational device is used in the study population.
[87 FR 72291, Nov. 23, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 175 (Friday, September 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46798-46799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21976]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2009-0314; Docket No. 50-461]


Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee) to 
withdraw its June 15, 2009 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091660580), application for proposed 
amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for the Clinton 
Power Station, Unit No. 1, located in DeWitt County.
    The proposed amendment would have eliminated the requirement for 
main steamline isolations on high turbine building temperatures from

[[Page 46799]]

Technical Specifications Section 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment and 
Drywell Isolation Instrumentation,'' Table 3.3.6.1-1.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on July 16, 
2009 (74 FR 34594-34596). However, by letter dated August 4, 2009, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 15, 2009, and the licensee's 
letter dated August 4, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML092170159), which 
withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 
or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#463622346834233529333425230628342568212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d2d392f732f382e32282f3e381d332f3e733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of September 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cameron S. Goodwin,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-21976 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 21

HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL CORPORATION
SUBSIDIARIES

|Name                                               |  |              | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------ | -----------------------------
|Harleysville
      National Bank and Trust Company |  | Pennsylvania
|Cornerstone
      Advisors Asset Management, Inc.  |  | Pennsylvania
|Cornerstone Financial Consultants, Ltd.            |  | Pennsylvania
|Cornerstone Institutional Investors, Inc.          |  | Pennsylvania
|HNB Auto Sales, LLC                                |  | Pennsylvania
|HNC
      Insurance Agency, Inc.                   |  | Pennsylvania
|Harleysville Management Services, LLC              |  | Pennsylvania
|East Penn Mortgage Company                         |  | Pennsylvania
|East Penn Mortgage Company LLC                     |  | Pennsylvania
|BeneServ, Inc.                                     |  | Pennsylvania
|Willow Grove Investment Corporation                |  | Delaware    
|D
      and S Service Corporation                  |  | Pennsylvania
|D
      & F Projects, Inc.                         |  | Pennsylvania
|Wildman
      Projects, Inc.                       |  | Pennsylvania
|HNC Financial
      Company                        |  | Delaware    
|HNC Reinsurance
      Company                      |  | Arizona     
|Harleysville
      Statutory Trust I               |  | Connecticut 
|HNC Statutory Trust
      II                       |  | Delaware    
|HNC Statutory
      Trust III                      |  | Delaware    
|HNC Statutory Trust
      IV                       |  | Delaware    
|East Penn
      Statutory Trust I                  |  | Connecticut 
|Willow Grove Statutory Trust
      I               |  | Connecticut 

---
# C_2005253EN.01000501.xml

| 13.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3931 — Transgourmet/Prodirest)

(2005/C 253/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 September 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3931. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3931. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---