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

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2010

- 0683 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2010

– NE

– 25

- 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 in clude on

condition 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



### Replace 16.0 $ 1,360.0

0 

### $1,796 $ 3,156.00 

### 11 1 $ 35 0,316.00

$ 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: $ 350,316



### 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 Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Esti mated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### 9 Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Polici es 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 Alas ka. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. RICHARDSON:
       H.R. 6287.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I Section 8 Clause 3
```
**U.S.C.      SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | 1.  | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended, and                        |
|--------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                  |   |   |
|   | 2.       | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reeds,                Inc. |

|                                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                Christopher J. Reed                                                                                    |   |   |        |
| Christopher                J. ReedChief                Executive Officer, President November                13, 2007 |   |   |        |

|                                                                                                                                |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                David M. Kane                                                                                                    |   |   |        |
| David                M. KaneChief                Financial Officer and Principal Accounting OfficerNovember                13, 2007 |   |   |        |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Wynn, Appellant.

— Reargument and clarification granted to extent of recalling an vacating this Court’s unpublished decision and order entered on June 25, 1991 and substituting therefor a new decision and order, decided simultaneously herewith. Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.) rendered on January 31, 1991, which, upon defendant’s plea of guilty to the charge of violation of probation, resentenced defendant as a youthful offender to a term of one to three years imprisonment upon his prior conviction in Suffolk County, for criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, rendered on April 17, 1989, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to Supreme *764Court, New York County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Upon his conviction in Suffolk County on April 17, 1989 for the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to five years probation. Defendant violated his probation by leaving New York for California where, on April 9, 1990, he was sentenced in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, West Branch (Perez, J.) to a five year term of imprisonment upon his conviction for the crimes of Grand Theft and Forgery. Defendant returned to New York in the summer of 1990 when his probation by the California authorities was transferred to New York where, on August 29, 1990, he was arraigned on the present violation of probation charge. On September 4, 1990, defendant was released on his own recognizance and directed to report to the probation department. After several adjournments, a hearing was held on January 9, 1991 to assess defendant’s progress in respect to possible probation. The record indicates that defendant failed to meet even the most minimal of the demands required of him so as to avoid the imposition of a sentence of incarceration.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction,” we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.) We further note that on March 25, 1991, while on bail pending appeal, defendant was arrested for substantially the same crimes previously committed in Suffolk County and Los Angeles. On May 6, 1991, bail was revoked and defendant has since failed to appear and is presently the subject of an arrest warrant issued by Supreme Court. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4464 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4464

 To repeal the rule issued by the National Credit Union Administration 
                     titled ``Risk-Based Capital''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 28, 2017

  Mr. Posey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the rule issued by the National Credit Union Administration 
                     titled ``Risk-Based Capital''.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Common Sense Credit Union Capital 
Relief Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    The rule issued by the National Credit Union Administration titled 
``Risk-Based Capital'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 66626 (October 29, 
2015)) shall have no force or effect, and any regulation revised by 
that rule shall be applied as if that rule had not been issued.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 1998 FOR THE
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STAEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000909124
<NAME>              ALTON REAL ESTATE
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                       168
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,689
<PP&E>                                          25,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            65
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,421
<SALES>                                         31,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                       265
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,191
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4916-H4917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1210
                               TAX HIKES

  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

[[Page H4917]]

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Just when I thought the administration's 
economic policies couldn't get worse, the President is now calling for 
a tax increase that will hit 53 percent of small business income.
  At a time when small businesses aren't able to hire because of the 
constant threat of higher taxes, that just doesn't make sense.
  The President's tax plan does nothing to reduce the ever-increasing 
national debt. Instead of threatening job creators with more job-
destroying taxes, we need to cut spending, get our fiscal house in 
order, and ensure that American families and businesses will not have 
to fork over more of their hard-earned money to Uncle Sam.
  The President should recognize that job creators put their own blood, 
sweat, and tears into building their own businesses and that the 
government shouldn't be destroying small business owners with any tax 
hike.

                          ____________________
```
#### ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. v. STATE.

No. 36072.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 25, 1954.

Satterfield, Franklin & Harmon, Oklahoma City, John E. McCullough, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

. James G. Welch, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

On April 13, 1951, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, plaintiff in error, filed an application with the Corporation Commission to discontinue the maintenance of a regular station agent at Sasakwa, Oklahoma. This application was denied and the railway company appeals.

 The railway company introduced the total station revenue over a period of two years preceding the date of the hearing and the total expense of operation. The operation showed a loss. The only possible legal way to require a railroad to maintain an agency is to show either that it is profitable or that there are peculiar circumstances in the case showing that the public convenience and necessity is such that it would require them to operate there in any *339event. No such showing was made. Lowden v. State, 182 Okl. 549, 78 P.2d 1059; Kurn v. State, 175 Okl. 379, 52 P.2d 841; and Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. State, 189 Okl. 485, 118 P.2d 202.

We are of the opinion and hold that from a review of the entire record it is shown that the Corporation Commission erred in refusing the application.

The cause is remanded to the Corporation Commission with directions to vacate the order denying the application and enter an order granting the application in accordance with the views herein expressed.

HALLEY, C. J., and WELCH, 'CORN, ARNOLD, O’NEAL and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

DAVISON and BLACKBIRD, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 6, 2011





/s/ Gary Rabin


Gary Rabin, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer


and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Pyramid Company of Holyoke, Appellant, v King & King Architects, Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.). We add only that, were we to agree with plaintiff’s contention that this action for money damages is premised on the "same transaction or occurrence” (CPLR 205 [a]) as that involved in its fourth-party claim against defendant for indemnification in a prior Federal court action, we would nevertheless be required to hold that this action was not timely commenced because the indemnification claim in the prior action was terminated by "a final judgment upon the merits” (CPLR 205 [a]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Green and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2009044EN.01002801.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2008 — Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert

(Case C-510/08)

(2009/C 44/47)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vera Mattner

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Velbert

Defendant:

Question referred

Are Articles 39 EC and 43 EC and Article 56 EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC to be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the charging of gift tax which, where land situated within the country is acquired by a non-resident person, provides for a tax-free amount of only EUR 1 100 for the non-resident acquirer, while on the gifting of the same land a tax-free amount of EUR 205 000 would apply, if at the time the gift was effected the donor or acquirer were domiciled in the Member State concerned?

---
® " BASF 

The Chemical Company 

Federal Ex ress - Tracking # 561742155560 

REGi:.IV i-~ 

op~Y cDic 

12 A~ i~' 58 W3 DEC 

December 11, 2013 

OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) 

EPA East Building Room E6428 (202-564-8930) CBIC Control Number 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 357318 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Scanned &Processed ln Washington, DC 20004 - CIS by: SHARON 

ATTN: 40 CFR 799.5089; Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 

RE: BASF Corporation: CASRN 68610-90-2 

Dear Sir/Madame: 

Included with this letter is the OECD 422 (combined repeated dose toxicity study with 

reproduction/developmental toxicity screening) study on 2402-58-6 referred to in my 2 December 

2013 communication regarding the TSCA Test Rule for 68610-90-2 . I have also included a 

document that identifies the test substance (C-SAT) evaluated in the water solubility study included 

with that letter. This information is being submitted in both paper (one copy) and electronic (disk) 

formats. 

Test Rule Identification : 40 CFR § 799 .5089 Testing of Certain High Production Volume 

Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals. 

Chemical Subiect to Testing: 2-butenedioic acid (2E)-, di-C8-18-alkyl esters (CASRN 68610-90-2) 

Firm Providing Data: BASF Corporation 

100 Park Avenue 

Florham Park, NJ 07932 

Contact Person: Ralph Parod, Ph.D., DABT 

Senior Toxicologist 

Environment, Health & Safety 

1609 Biddle Avenue 

Wyandotte, Michigan 48192 

Phone: 734-324-6212 

Email: ralph .parod(@basf .com 

. . 

EP A 

..-- 

y!' . ; 

~ l 2~~3 

DOUCKET CENTER 

1 

BASF Corporation 

1609 Biddle Avenue 

Wyandotle, MI 48192 

wrvw.basLcom/usa 
® BASF 

The Chemical Company 

Based on the information provided herein and on 2 December, BASF believes EPA has sufficient 

screening level information to assess the risks posed by 68610-90-2 to human health and 

environmental safety . 

Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me via the coordinates above. 

Sincerely, 

BASF Corporation 

Ralph Parod, Ph.D., DABT 

Senior Toxicologist 

Environment, Health & Safety 

Enclosures: Didodecyl fumarate, Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the Reproduction 

/ DevelopmentalToxicity Screening Test in the Han Wistar Rat 

PSR/Test Substance Registration : C-SAT 111087 

Cc: Dr. Paul Lewis, US EPA (Email to Lewis. paul(a)Epa .gov ) 

Mr. John Schaeffer, US EPA (Email to Schaeffer.iohnCc)Epa.oov ) 

BASF Corporation 

1609 Biddle Avenue 

Wyandotte, MI 48192 

v,hwv bast com/usa
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              NOMINATIONS

  Executive nominations received by the Senate:

                INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES

        ERIC J. JOLLY, OF MINNESOTA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     NATIONAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES BOARD FOR A TERM 
     EXPIRING DECEMBER 6, 2016, VICE KAREN BROSIUS, TERM EXPIRED.
        SUSANA TORRUELLA LEVAL, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     NATIONAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES BOARD FOR A TERM 
     EXPIRING DECEMBER 6, 2015, VICE KATHERINE M. B. BERGER, TERM 
     EXPIRED.
```
Exhibit 8

List of Principal Subsidiaries of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited



|                                                              |  |                        |     |  |                            |  |        | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | ------ | 
|Subsidiary Name                                               |  | Place of Incorporation |     |  | Our ownership 
interest(%) | 
|Shanghai Petrochemical Investment Development Company Limited |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 100.00 | 
|China Jinshan Associated Trading Corporation                  |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 67.33  | 
|Shanghai Jinchang Engineering Plastics Company Limited        |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 74.25  | 
|Shanghai Golden Phillips Petrochemical Company Limited        |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 60.00  | 
|Zhejiang Jin Yong Acrylic Fiber Company Limited               |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 75.00  | 
|Shanghai Golden Conti Petrochemical Company Limited           |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 100.00 | 
|Shanghai Jinshan Trading Corporation                          |  |                        | PRC |  |                            |  | 67.33  |
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Glenn
      Welstad, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
      "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
      March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:August
                13, 2007/s/
                Glenn WelstadGlenn
                WelstadPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ANNUAL REPORT OF

LANDRYS RESTAURANTS, INC.

I, Tilman J. Fertitta, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Landrys Restaurants, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: April 29, 2010



/s/ Tilman J. FertittaTilman J. Fertitta Chairman of
the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer