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

Docket No. FAA-2012-0420 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-284-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

Retained

Revision/Deactivation/

Removal/Inspection/Re

placement from 

AD 2011-23-08

33.0 $2,805.0

0

$3,054 $5,859.00 605 $3,544,695.0

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: $3,544,695

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

Retained

Replacement from 

AD 2011-23-08

8.0 $ 680.00 $0 $ 680.00

$ 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:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5
<CIK>      0000027099
<NAME>    DATATAB, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         20,539
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 150,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,165
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              176,993
<PP&E>                                        126,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                124,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                180,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         166,513
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         788,955
<PREFERRED>                                   788,955
<COMMON>                                      788,955
<OTHER-SE>                                   (722,276)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  180,134
<SALES>                                        72,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               76,440
<CGS>                                          90,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 128,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (51,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,656)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,656)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)



        

</TABLE>
#### LISBON HOLDING AND INVESTMENT CO., Ltd., a Bahamas corporation, Appellant, v. VILLAGE APARTMENTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-589.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 16, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 4, 1970.

*200Shutts & Bowen, and Herbert L. Na-deau, Miami, for appellant.

Tobias Simon, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by defendant below from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County, granting plaintiff relief by way of specific performance of a contract for the sale of improved real estate.

The agreement provided in part as follows :

> “(c) The balance, plus or minus all other proration of closing, to be paid in the form of a credit against the obligation of the seller to the purchaser as evidenced by that certain promissory note dated December 6, 1966, in the original principal amount of $167,194.25, wherein Lisbon Holding and Investment Co., Ltd., was the maker and Village Apartments, Inc. a Florida corporation was the payee, * *

> “8. Seller is to furnish an abstract of title within ten (10) days from date (otherwise, purchaser is authorized to obtain one at seller’s expense), showing good and marketable title in the seller in fee simple, subject only to the matters hereinabove described; and in the event that title shall be found not to be good and marketable, seller shall have a reasonable time, not to exceed ten (10) days to make it so; and upon failure to do so, the purchaser shall have the option to declare the contract cancelled, and obtain immediate refund of the deposit made hereunder; or to accept title in its existing condition.”

> *“9.*This transaction shall be closed and all funds and instruments delivered on or before June 1, 1968.”

> “12. Time shall be of the essence.”

Plaintiff alleged in its complaint that it was ready, willing and able to perform but that defendant refused to execute a deed in accordance with the terms of the contract.

The defendant in its answer admitted the execution of the contract but denied that plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for, and further alleged (1) that the contract sought to be specifically enforced provided that a note executed by the defendant and made payable to the plaintiff would be credited on the purchase price of the property and (2) that the plaintiff, note holder, had previously elected to file suit on that note, and that by electing to sue upon the note which was to be a part of the purchase price, plaintiff had waived and abandoned the contract for the purchase of the property; and therefore, (3) that such action constituted an election of remedy.

Upon final hearing, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought and entered final judgment accordingly. Defendant has appealed from the entry of such judgment.

We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the points on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. Gautier v. Bradway, 87 FLa. 193, 99 So. 879.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                            0000021828
<NAME>                           COLONIAL COMMERCIAL CORP.

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                               1,784,811
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                       12,033,410
<ALLOWANCES>                           902,262
<INVENTORY>                          7,927,466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    21,801,333
<PP&E>                               1,090,553
<DEPRECIATION>                         336,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      26,974,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               14,850,459
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                             77,012
<COMMON>                                75,791
<OTHER-SE>                          10,876,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        26,974,424
<SALES>                             12,329,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    12,329,068
<CGS>                                8,914,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        8,914,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       120,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      82,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        399,728
<INCOME-TAX>                           177,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    222,528
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           222,528
<EPS-BASIC>                              .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .07



</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Russell E. STRICKLAND.

No. 60943.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Denied; no error in ruling of the trial judge.
#### Norman OTT, Appellant, v. MIAMI TOYOTA, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1203.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 23, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
2002 2003 May-03 May-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 

1 Gross Purchases of Domestic Securities 13,022.9 15,733.5 13,831.7 17,765.4 1,440.1 1,774.7 2 Gross Sales of Domestic Securities 12,475.4 14,988.0 13,191.7 16,918.2 1,354.9 1,692.2 3 Domestic Securities Purchased, net (line 1 less line 2) /1 547.6 745.4 639.9 847.2 85.3 82.4 

4 Private, net /2 508.3 606.1 565.2 616.1 63.0 44.4 5 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 112.8 163.5 147.4 198.0 20.9 27.6 6 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 166.6 138.0 184.5 144.8 18.4 1.1 7 Corporate Bonds, net 176.7 266.4 199.0 251.8 21.2 29.2 8 Equities, net 52.2 38.1 34.2 21.4 2.4 -13.5 9 Official, net 39.3 139.4 74.8 231.1 22.3 38.1 

10 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 7.1 109.3 36.2 199.2 16.1 33.9 11 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 28.6 24.9 35.1 24.7 5.9 2.9 12 Corporate Bonds, net 5.6 5.5 3.6 7.3 0.2 1.2 13 Equities, net -2.0 -0.4 -.2 -.1 0.1 0.0 14 Gross Purchases of Foreign Securities 2,640.0 3,533.2 2,831.8 4,344.2 402.0 486.4 15 Gross Sales of Foreign Securities 2,613.0 3,578.2 2,816.0 4,405.3 403.7 492.0 16 Foreign Securities Purchased, net (line 14 less line 15) /3 27.0 -45.1 15.8 -61.1 -1.7 -5.6 17 Foreign Bonds Purchased, net 28.5 26.7 38.3 22.4 0.7 -1.7 18 Foreign Equities Purchased, net -1.5 -71.8 -22.4 -83.5 -2.4 -4.0 19 Net Long-Term Flows (line 3 plus line 16) 574.6 700.4 655.7 786.1 83.6 76.8 

/1 Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+)/2 Includes International and Regional Organizations/3 Net U.S. acquisitions of foreign securities (-)Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury

12 Months Through
#### John Steven MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-42.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Mary E. TRUCKSESS and Norris B. Trucksess, her husband, Appellants, v. Charles J. FIORELLO doing business as Personalized Construction, Appellee.

No. 69-294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32636]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. C-3726]


Baxter International Inc.; Prohibited Trade Practices, and 
Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent Order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order requires, among other things, Baxter 
International (``Baxter''), an Illinois-based corporation, to divest 
its Autoplex product to a Commission-approved buyer, and to license 
Immuno International AG's (``Immuno'') product in development to a 
Commission-approved licensee within four months of the date Baxter 
signs the consent. This would resolve antitrust concerns raised by the 
$463 million acquisition of Immuno by Baxter, which both manufacture a 
wide variety of biologic products derived from human blood plasma.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued March 24, 1997.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Taylor, FTC/S-2308, Washington, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2237.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Friday, January 3, 1997, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 62 FR 408, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Baxter International Inc., for 
the purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested parties were given 
sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, suggestions or objections 
regarding the proposed form of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to divest, as set 
forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition of this 
proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46, Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32636 Filed 12-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### Edward EMBRY, Appellant, v. Joseph F. JANECZEK and Dorothy M. Janeczek, Appellees.

No. 73-1504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# B LU 

# REEN A l l 

## A N C E
Testimony of Matt Sinclair, CWA Local 2201, Richmond, VA May 24,2012 Hello, my name is Matt Sinclair, and I ' m a proud member of CWA Local 2201 in Richmond , Virginia. I work for a large telecommunications company, and I am here to testify in support of the proposed standards limiting carbon emissions from new power plants. Unjon workers like my self are often on the front lines when it comes to pollution and hazardous chemicals, and every day , we see how safeguards and regulations make our workplaces safer and cleaner. While some try to say that there has to be a choice between having a clean environment orjobs, thls is simply not the case. We have repeatedly seen how Americans can turn environmental challenges into new economic opportunities, and the proposed carbon emission standards for new power plants once again g ives us thi s chance. The standard will r equire new plants to emit fewer greenhouse gases, or carbon pollution, into the air when they operate. This mea ns new plants will be built cleaner and more energy efficient than current plants. Building new power plants that are cleaner and more energy efficient will drive innovation in clean technologies , spur development and production of clean technologies in the United States

- creating jobs and economic growth

- and reduce greenhouse gas emi ssions , which will address the worst impacts of climat e change. These regulation s will also protect the health of our families and make sure that we have a healthier environment, all while creating jobs and making America more competitive in the g lobal economy. In fact, it is likely we will see an improvement in the job performance and productivity of American workers and long-term env ironmental growth with the se standards.The need for these standards is becoming even greater as international competitors and other governments take actions to increase the use of clean energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In today 's economy, America isn ' t an island and we must continue to move forward to remain competitive internationally. America has made strides over the past few years to get back to where we should be economically following the recession. EPA action like this , coupled with specificjobs policies , will make the U.S. economy more competitive, put millions back to work, strengthen existing industries , and building the industries ofthe future.
I am proud to be a union member, and an essential part of what that means is I know I have a moral responsibility to defend the long

-term interests of working people. We want to know we can have not only , good jobs but a planet that will be safe and healthy for future generations of worker. My fellow union members and I do not accept the false idea that we must choose betweenjobs and a healthy environment. I know that, in truth, we will have both or we will have neither. Thank you.
#### Victoria G. TAN-GATUE, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 02-3034.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 2, 2002.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Victoria G. Tan-Gatue moves for reconsideration of the court’s June 27, 2002 order dismissing her petition for review for failure to file a joint appendix, with the joint appendix now submitted, and for leave to file a corrected brief. Tan-Gatue states that the Office of Personnel Management takes no position on the motions.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted, the mandate is recalled, the June 27, 2002 order is vacated, and the petition for review is reinstated.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3253]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IL153-b1; FRL-5684-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 11, 1996, Illinois submitted a negative declaration 
regarding the need for rules controlling air emissions from sources 
classified as part of the ``Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Industry'' (AMRI)) or ``Aerospace Coatings'' category in the Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. This negative declaration 
indicates that the State of Illinois has determined that there are no 
major sources (sources with a potential to emit twenty-five or more 
tons per year of volatile organic material (VOM) in the Chicago ozone 
nonattainment area or the Metro-East ozone nonattainment area. In this 
action, USEPA is proposing to approve the State's finding that no 
additional control measures are needed. In the final rules section of 
this Federal Register, the USEPA is approving these actions as a direct 
final rule without prior proposal because USEPA views this as a 
noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no 
adverse comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If 
USEPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be 
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. USEPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this notice should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before 
March 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18-J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are 
available for inspection at: Regulation Development Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR18-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph O. Cano, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 23, 1997.
Steve Rothblatt,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-3253 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
256 La. 372

#### Mrs. Bessie B. LEDOUX et al. v. OLD REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 50589.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Old Republic Life Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Evangeline. 233 So.2d 731.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000861050
<NAME> UNISTONE, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,498
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,001
<OTHER-SE>                                     (14,499)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,475)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


</TABLE>