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

Docket No. FAA-2012-1334 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NE-49-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 10.0 $ 850.00 $0 $ 850.00 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 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

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): N/A
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:
§ 227.2 Submission of evidence by claimant or counterclaimant in support of default determination. ( a ) *General.* If a respondent or counterclaim respondent fails to appear or ceases to participate in the proceeding and the Board elects to proceed to a *default determination,* the Board shall require the claimant or counterclaimant to submit written direct testimony, as set forth in § 222.15(b) of this subchapter.
( b ) *Additional evidence.* Following submission of the claimant's or counterclaimant's written testimony in support of a *default determination,* the Board shall consider the claimant's or counterclaimant's submissions and may request any additional evidence from the claimant or counterclaimant within the claimant's or counterclaimant's possession.
§ 18.413 Employment criteria. ( a ) A recipient may not use any employment test or other selection criterion that screens out or tends to screen out handicapped persons or any class of handicapped persons unless: ( 1 ) The test score or other selection criterion, as used by the recipient, is shown to be job-related for the position in question; and
( 2 ) Alternative job-related tests or criteria that do not screen out or tend to screen out as many handicapped persons are not shown by the Secretary to be available.
( b ) A recipient shall select and administer tests concerning employment to best ensure that when administered to an applicant or employee who has a handicap that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the applicant's or employee's job skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflect the applicant's or employee's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except when those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
---



##### 



1. Consent .
 2. Amendment to Loan Agreement .
  Permitted Contingent Obligations
       2




---



##### 



Amendments to Durect Agreements
 3. Additional Covenant .
 3




---



##### 



4. Expense Reimbursement
 5. Miscellaneous .
 Remainder of page intentionally left blank; Signatures begin on following page
 4




---



##### 



Very truly yours,BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
as Agent and a LenderBy:
    
    /s/ John M. Olsen

John M. Olsen, Senior Vice PresidentDNB NOR BANK ASA, as a LenderBy:
Name:
Title:
    
    /s/ Philip F. Kurpiewski

     Philip F. Kurpiewski

     Senior Vice PresidentBy:
Name:
Title:
    
    /s/ Kristin Riise

     Kristin Riise

     Vice PresidentPNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as a LenderBy:Name:Title:[Signatures continue on following page.]




---



##### 



BORROWERS:ALPHARMA INC.By:
    
    /s/ Jeffrey S. Campbell

Jeffrey S. Campbell, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial OfficerALPHARMA OPERATING CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane, President and TreasurerALPHARMA U.S. INC.By:
    
    /s/ Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane, President and TreasurerALPHARMA EURO HOLDINGS INC.By:
    
    /s/ Richard Barrow

Richard Barrow, SecretaryALPHARMA (BERMUDA) INC.By:
    
    /s/ Richard Barrow

Richard Barrow, Secretary[Signatures continue on following page.]




---



##### 



ALPHARMA USHP INC.By:
    
    /s/ Richard Barrow

Richard Barrow, SecretaryALPHARMA ANIMAL HEALTH COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/ Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane, Vice President and
TreasurerMIKJAN CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane, President and TreasurerALPHARMA HOLDINGS INC.By:
    
    /s/ Richard Barrow

Richard Barrow, Secretary[Signatures continue on following page.]




---



##### 



ALPHARMA SPECIALTY PHARMA INC.By:
    
    /s/ Richard Barrow

Richard Barrow, SecretaryPUREPAC PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane, PresidentALPHARMA PHARMACEUTICALS LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Richard Scott Shively

Richard Scott Shively, Sr. Vice President,Pharmaceutical Commercial OperationsBARRE PARENT CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane, President and Treasurer
HomeNATO Status Lists...26. Protocol Amending the Security Annex to the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, done at Brussels June 2, 1998

# 									26. Protocol Amending the Security Annex to the Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information, done at Brussels June 2, 1998							

Depositary – Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Not yet in force.

In accordance with Article 3, the Protocol enters into force upon receipt by the Government of the United States of America of notification from all states Parties to the Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty for Co-operation regarding Atomic Information that they are willing to be bound by the terms of the Protocol.
Download Status List						 [145 KB]

Tags

MultilateralNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 18.516 Affirmative action by recipients.

Even in the absence of a finding of discrimination, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity on the basis of age.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)
EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 DATE: December 1, 2008
    /s/ Christian G. FarmanChristian G. FarmanSenior Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer
§ 1.950 Prompt referral. ( a ) VA shall promptly refer debts to Department of Justice (DOJ) for litigation where aggressive collection activity has been taken in accordance with §§ 1.900 through 1.953, and such debts cannot be compromised, or on which collection activity cannot be suspended or terminated, in accordance with §§ 1.930 through 1.936 and §§ 1.940 through 1.944. Debts for which the principal amount is over $1,000,000, or such other amount as the Attorney General may direct, exclusive of interest and other late payment charges, shall be referred to the Civil Division or other division responsible for litigating such debts at DOJ. Debts for which the principal amount is $1,000,000, or less, or such other amount as the Attorney General may direct, exclusive of interest or penalties, shall be referred to DOJ's Nationwide Central Intake Facility as required by the Claims Collection Litigation Report (CCLR) instructions. Debts should be referred as early as possible, consistent with aggressive agency collection activity and the observance of the standards contained in §§ 1.900 through 1.953, and, in any event, well within the period for initiating timely lawsuits against the debtors. VA shall make every effort to refer delinquent debts to DOJ for litigation within 1 year of the date such debts last became delinquent. In the case of guaranteed or insured loans, VA should make every effort to refer these delinquent debts to DOJ for litigation within 1 year from the date the loan was presented to VA for payment or reinsurance.
( b ) DOJ has exclusive jurisdiction over the debts referred to it pursuant to this section. VA shall immediately terminate the use of any administrative collection activities to collect a debt at the time of the referral of that debt to DOJ. VA should advise DOJ of the collection activities that have been utilized to date, and their result. VA shall refrain from having any contact with the debtor and shall direct all debtor inquiries concerning the debt to DOJ. VA shall immediately notify DOJ of any payments credited to the debtor's account after referral of a debt under this section. DOJ shall notify VA, in a timely manner, of any payments it receives from the debtor.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711; 38 U.S.C. 501)
[69 FR 62200, Oct. 25, 2004]
#### American Express Company *v.*The State.

[No. 20,565.

Filed November 27, 1906.]

From Lawrence Circuit Court; *James B. Wilson,*Judge.

Action by the State of Indiana against the American Express Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*Matson & Giles*and *Baker & Daniels,*for appellant.

*Charles W. Miller,*Attorney-General, *Miller & Hadley*and *Brooks & Brooks,*for appellee.

Monks, J.

The questions presented in this case are the same as those involved and decided in *Adams Express Co.*v. *State*(1906), *ante,*428, *American Express Co.*v. *State*(1906), *ante,*319, *American Express Co.*v. *Southern Ind. Express Co.*(1906), *ante,*292, and *Adams Express Co.*v. *State*(1903), 161 Ind. 328, and upon the authority of said cases, this case is affirmed.
First Amendment to the Production Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 PRODUCTION
AGREEMENT 
  
 This First Amendment to the Production
Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made as of the 7th day of August, 2003, by and between Aurora Foods Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Buyer”), and Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation, a Missouri corporation (“Producer”). 
  
 WITNESSETH 
  
 WHEREAS, Buyer and Producer entered into that certain Production Agreement dated as of June 4, 1998 (the “Agreement”); 
  
 WHEREAS, Producer first delivered Products, as defined in the Agreement, to
Buyer effective January 19, 1999; and 
  
 WHEREAS, both parties
desire to amend the Agreement. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual and
adequate consideration, Producer and Buyer agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be amended so that the Original Term shall end January 19, 2005. 

  

	2.	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective duly authorized
representative to be effective as of the date first set forth above. 
  

	 AURORA FOODS INC.
 (“Buyer”)
	 	 	 	 GILSTER-MARY LEE CORPORATION
 (“Producer”)

					
	By:	 	 /s/    Steve Smiley        
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/    Donald Welge

	 	
	 	 	 	 	

	 Print Name:
	 	 Steve Smiley
	 	 	 	 Print Name:
	 	 Donald E. Welge

	 Title:
	 	 VP Purchasing
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 President and General Manager
§ 21.6100 Counseling. A veteran requesting or being furnished assistance under this temporary program shall be provided professional counseling services by the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Division and other qualified staff as necessary, and in the same manner as such services are provided veterans participating in a chapter 31 program. *See §§ 21.100 , 21.380 .* (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(a)(1), (2) and (b)(2))
[53 FR 4397, Feb. 16, 1988, as amended at 87 FR 8744, Feb. 16, 2022]
§ 1.478 Disclosures to prevent multiple enrollments in detoxification and maintenance treatment programs; not applicable to records relating to sickle cell anemia or infection with the human immunodeficiency virus. ( a ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) *Central registry* means an organization which obtains from two or more member programs patient identifying information about individuals applying for maintenance treatment or detoxification treatment for the purpose of avoiding an individual's concurrent enrollment in more than one program.
( 2 ) *Detoxification treatment* means the dispensing of a narcotic drug in decreasing doses to an individual in order to reduce or eliminate adverse physiological or psychological effects incident to withdrawal from the sustained use of a narcotic drug.
( 3 ) *Maintenance treatment* means the dispensing of a narcotic drug in the treatment of an individual for dependence upon heroin or other morphine-like drugs.
( 4 ) *Member program* means a non-VA detoxification treatment or maintenance treatment program which reports patient identifying information to a central registry and which is in the same State as that central registry or is not more than 125 miles from any border of the State in which the central registry is located.
( b ) *Restrictions on disclosure.* VA may disclose patient records to a central registry which is located in the same State or is not more than 125 miles from any border of the State or to any non-VA detoxification or maintenance treatment program not more than 200 miles away for the purpose of preventing the multiple enrollment of a patient only if: ( 1 ) The disclosure is made when: ( i ) The patient is accepted for treatment;
( ii ) The type or dosage of the drug is changed; or
( iii ) The treatment is interrupted, resumed or terminated.
( 2 ) The disclosure is limited to: ( i ) Patient identifying information;
( ii ) Type and dosage of the drug; and
( iii ) Relevant dates.
( 3 ) The disclosure is made with the patient's written consent meeting the requirements of § 1.475 of this part, except that: ( i ) The consent must list the name and address of each central registry and each known non-VA detoxification or maintenance treatment program to which a disclosure will be made; and
( ii ) The consent may authorize a disclosure to any non-VA detoxification or maintenance treatment program established within 200 miles after the consent is given without naming any such program.
( c ) *Use of information limited to prevention of multiple enrollments.* A central registry and any non-VA detoxification or maintenance treatment program to which information is disclosed to prevent multiple enrollments may not redisclose or use patient identifying information for any purpose other than the prevention of multiple enrollments unless authorized by a court order under §§ 1.490 through 1.499 of this part.
[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2318 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction for 

State and local income and property taxes under the alternative minimum 

tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2007 

Mr. ANDREWS (for himself and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

deduction for State and local income and property taxes 

under the alternative minimum tax. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL INCOME 

4 AND PROPERTY TAXES ALLOWED UNDER THE 

5 ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 56(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

8 to general limitation on deductions) is amended by strikmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2318 IH

1 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (i) and by striking clause 

2 (ii) and inserting the following new clauses: 

3 ‘‘(ii) for any foreign real property 

4 taxes described in paragraph (1) of section 

5 164(a), or 

6 ‘‘(iii) for so much of paragraph (3) of 

7 section 164(a) as relates to foreign income, 

8 war profits, and excess profits taxes.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
§ 17.504 Disclosure methods. ( a ) Disclosure of confidential and privileged quality assurance records and documents or the information contained therein outside VA, where permitted by the statute and the regulations in §§ 17.500 through 17.511, will always be by copies, abstracts, summaries, or similar records or documents prepared by the Department of Veterans Affairs and released to the requestor. The original confidential and privileged quality assurance records and documents will not be removed from the VA facility by any person, VA employee or otherwise, except in accordance with § 17.508(c) or where otherwise legally required.
( b ) Disclosure of confidential and privileged quality assurance records and documents to authorized individuals under either § 17.508 or § 17.509 shall bear the following statement: “These documents or records (or information contained herein) are confidential and privileged under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5705, which provide for fines up to $20,000 for unauthorized disclosures thereof, and the implementing regulations. This material shall not be disclosed to anyone without authorization as provided for by that law or the regulations in §§ 17.500 through 17.511.”
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5705)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8115
In Re: GEORGE H. VAN WAGNER, III, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-92-200-BR) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. George H. Van Wagner, III, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Van Wagner, a federal prisoner, brought this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to grant his motion to proceed pro se in a multi-party 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) civil action. Specifically, he seeks an order directing the district court to allow him to proceed pro se or with paid counsel of his choosing. The district court originally denied Van Wagner's motion because of the confusion and d elay that would develop at this advanced stage of the proceedings. However, upon learning new information concerning Van Wagner's financial ability, the court reconsidered its previous order and granted Van Wagner's request to proceed pro se or hire an attorney with his own funds. Because the issue has been resolved, the petition is moot. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis but deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
41707.

#### GREER v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was convicted of possessing an automobile with an altered serial number. On appeal the defendant complains that the verdict of guilty was unauthorized by the evidence and that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. In support of such contentions the defendant argues that the State failed to' prove that he was “knowingly” in possession of such automobile with an altered serial number. *Held:*

1. The sole question for decision is whether the jury was authorized by the evidence to find that the defendant was “knowingly” in possession of the automobile, since the evidence was uncontradicted that the defendant was in possession of the automobile with such altered serial number.

2. The assertion of the defendant, while making his unsworn statement, that he had a notarized bill of sale for the auto*343mobile, was not evidence that he had such a bill of sale. If he desired to corroborate his statement by such a bill of sale it should have been properly identified and offered in evidence. See *Allen v. State,*150 Ga. 706 (3) (105 SE 369); *Edenfield v. State,*40 Ga. App. 251, 256 (149 SE 283), and citations.

Argued January 5, 1966

Decided February 23, 1966

Rehearing denied March 14, 1966.

*A. L. Haden, Jr.,*for appellant.

*W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Solicitor General,*for appellee.

3. The State introduced evidence that the automobile was found in the defendant’s possession with the serial number changed, that it also had a license tag thereon issued to another make and model automobile, and that when arrested the defendant stated that he had a “bill of sale” for such automobile but would not produce it until trial. In making his unsworn statement the defendant stated that he was holding a notarized 'bill of sale for the automobile but did not introduce it in evidence. Under the decision in *Mitchem v. State,*53 Ga. App. 280 (185 SE 367), the verdict of guilty of possessing an automobile with an altered serial number was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Been, J.J., concur.*