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

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 0095 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NE

- 01

- 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 an d then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Blade replacement 4.0 $ 340.00 $250,000 $ 250,340.00 

### 6 $ 1,502,040.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 1,502,040 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) 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 A **nalysis** ( 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 “significan t 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? E xplain 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 

### :
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT WALKER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 581

[ February 13, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Glenn Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CF000290A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear,

Assistant Attorney Genera l, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, C IKLIN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
June 24, 1957

No. 60985.

Suit 4893.

#### Plus Computing Machines, Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1785 reversed May 7, 1957. C. A. D. 655.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 409 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 17, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
years 2007 and 2009 through 2012. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable for one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Budget.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
June 27, 1955

No. 59208.

protest 212913-K.

#### Kittay & Blitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32

         CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
              PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
               AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union National
Financial Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D. Gainer,
President/CEO, and I, Clement M. Hoober, Treasurer/CFO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added pursuant to Section
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.

    2.  To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects the financial
       condition and results of operations of Union National as
       of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.



                               By  /s/ Mark D. Gainer
                                   __________________
                                   Chairman/President/CEO

                                   Date: August 14, 2006


                               By  /s/ Clement M. Hoober
                                   _____________________
                                   Treasurer/CFO

                                   Date: August 14, 2006
From: hbsdowsley@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:37:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Diana Owsley

Springfield, MO 65810
From: dfinnegan@ehi.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:35 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Don Finnegan

Saint Louis, MO 63131
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 364 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 49
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 364

                          [Report No. 110-120]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal 
    assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
             prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2007

   Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal 
    assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
             prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal 
assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The 
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1592 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as 
may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                  House Calendar No. 49

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 364

                          [Report No. 110-120]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal 
    assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to 
             prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 2, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., Inc., Appellant, v Old Westbury Golf & Country Club, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And Other Titles.)

[632 NYS2d 21]

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated May 16,1994, as granted the motion of the defendant Old Westbury Golf & Country Club, Inc., to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney from further representation of it in connection with this action, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for sanctions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*390Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiffs attorney *(see, Solow v Grace & Co.,*83 NY2d 303; *Cardinale v Golinello,*43 NY2d 288; *Young v Oak Crest Park,*75 AD2d 956, 957; *Rose Ocko Found, v Liebovitz,*155 AD2d 426, 427; *Burton v Burton,*139 AD2d 554).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
From: jmfre910@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:32:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jill Fredrickson

Eden Prairie, MN 55347
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 260 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 22, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the 
District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation 
in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 
or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as 
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour and twenty minutes of debate, with one hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1433 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 24 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES W. CHESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LEE GREEN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Federal Bureau of Prison, North Central Region; KATHLEEN HAWKS, Director, Federal Bureau of Prison, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-1064 (D.C. No. 96-WM-1544) (District of Colorado)

ORDER

Before SEYMOUR, PORFILIO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing without prejudice appellant’s pro se civil rights case for failure to obtain service within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Mr. Chester claims to have established proof of service because he filed with the district court “certified mail receipts” which the district court did not recognize. The “receipts” in the record purport to show payment of postage for certified mail sent to Kathleen Hawks and Lee Green and delivery of certified mail to Ms. Hawks. There is no authenticating post office stamp on any receipt showing they actually passed through the mails, nor is there a receipt or acknowlegment showing- 2 -

actual delivery of the complaint to the purported defendants. Moreover, there is nothing in the record indicating compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) pertaining to service upon officers of the United States. Because the action was dismissed without prejudice, Mr. Chester can file again and obtain proper service. We can find nothing erroneous in the disposition made by the district court. Mr. Chester faults the district court for making no effort to “arbitrate the case” or “get the parties together on the phone to resolve the issue.” Having chosen to file a civil action in the district court, Mr. Chester assumed the responsibility for complying with the rules of civil procedure. The first requirement of those rules is to obtain service on the defendants so the court would have jurisdiction over them. In the absence of such jurisdiction, the court had no authority over the defendants, even to the extent of “get[ting] the parties together.” Mr. Chester has failed to comply with this court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to pay the assessment of fees made by the clerk. In view of that failure the appeal is DISMISSED

.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
From: mlirot@jjc.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:18:42 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Lirot

Joliet, IL 60435
No. 64519.

#### Miya Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23060 and 59/30237 (New York).

*259Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Sho-ji panels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United Enterprises et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 73, C.D. 2023), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.