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

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

Add the 1rork hours. ports r.:ost, and nwnher <?/U.S. registered products to the tuhle helmr. 1Vhen you ore 

fiuished. d ick on the .. Upclute Fields ·· hull on to awomatically/111 in the totals. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Installation and 

119.0 $3,780 133 X I 

modification ) I I 

Inspection of Left & 

Right Engine MOV I 0 133 I Actuators ( concunent 

requirements) 

I} 'I ( ill "l I' (,' 

If 

I :• I 

. I ,, I II 

:} I I I II J1 

l r ., { l ll( 

0 I 1. {I I •I 

I · I' 

I l 

( ~ ) t;l 

I I) ''" 

0 I h • I II 

. , I 

,, i 

(J (:( 

I I If I I I II fJI 

)(1 1'(1 ( rl( 

The known number of products in compliance: ;-...;untb~·~ 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,859,340 

Costs covered under warranty (if/mown) \\'arrant~ 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 
p

& 

Right Engine MOV 105 $10,954 

Actuators 

·, 0 1){ \ " 

'\ II 

I II 011 

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): Concurrent 

requirements and on-condition costs associated with Boeing SB 777-28A0034 are limited to the 2 MOV 

actuators impacted by this AD. SB 777-28A0034 is applicable up to II MOV actuators as required by AD 

20 13-05-03. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory act on · 

YES* 0 NO IZJ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 0 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*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 0 NO 181 

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* 0 NO IZJ 

*Explanation:
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1773 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1773

 To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to limit the overall rate of 
   return for crop insurance providers and remove the requirement of 
        budget neutrality in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 7, 2017

Mr. Flake (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to limit the overall rate of 
   return for crop insurance providers and remove the requirement of 
        budget neutrality in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.

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

SECTION 1. REINSURANCE.

    Section 508(k) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) by striking ``(3) Share of risk.--The'' and 
                inserting the following:
            ``(3) Risk.--
                    ``(A) Share of risk.--The''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Limitation on average rate of return.--The 
                target average rate of return for reinsured companies 
                for the 2018 reinsurance year and each subsequent 
                reinsurance year shall be 9.6 percent of retained 
                premiums.''; and
            (2) in paragraph (8), by striking subparagraph (F).
                                 <all>
```
#### WILHITE v. STATE.

No. 20949.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1940.

D. H. Massie, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of property finder the value of $50; the punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of one year and a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The information is sufficient to charge the offense and procedural matters appear to be in due order.

The judgment is affirmed.

*554PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
## Meeting **Log**

In cludes all face

- to

- face meetings and phone calls between EPA personnel and stakeholders following signature of the RFS Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Quality Assurance Program Proposed Rule (78 FR 12158, February 21, 2013)

. Date: 2/27/2013 Location: Ann Arbor , MI and Wash ington, D.C. via video and phone call

- in EPA attendees: John Weihrauch (DC), Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), Jeff Kodish (Denver) , Tony Miller (DC) Stakehol der attendees and affiliation: Michael Whitney , General Manager, Musket Corporation Ty son Redpath, Russell Group

Topics/issues/agenda: Musket Corporation initiated the meeting to discuss the proposed rule, specificall y the components of QAP A and the proposed exporter provisions.

Date: 03/04/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, M I via phone call EPA attendees: Michael Prince (Ann Arbor) Stakeholder attendees and affiliation: Ramon Benavides, Global Renewable Strategies Topics/issues/agenda: Discussed QAP requirements.Date: 03/05/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, M I and Washington, D.C. via phone call

- in EPA attendees: Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), Lindsay Fitzgerald (DC), Robert Anderson (DC) Stakeholder attendees and affiliation: Wade Watson, Weaver LLP Mike Stein, Weaver LLP Steve Schwarzbach , Weaver LLP

Topics/issues/agenda: Weaver initiated the meeting to discuss their proposed QAP along with general feedback regarding the proposed rule, specifically issues surrounding using a QAP on RI Ns generated from imported fuel.

Date: 03/07/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, M I via phone call EPA attendees: Michael Prince (Ann Arbor) Stakeholder attendees and affiliation: Wade Watson, Weaver LLP Topics/issues/agenda: Discussed requirements for importers and general QAP information

.
Date: 03/14/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, M I via phone call EPA attendees: Michael Prince (Ann Arbor) Stakeholder attendees and affiliation: Wade Watson, Weaver LLP Sandra Dunph y, Weaver LLP Topics/issues/agenda: Discussed requirements for QAPs

.Date: 03/14/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, M I via phone call

EPA attendees: Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), Suzanne Bessette (Ann Arbor), Michael Prince (Ann Arbor) , Robert Anderson (DC), John Weihrauch (DC), Lindsay Fitzgerald (DC) Stakeholder attendees and affiliation: Chris Bliley , Growth Energy Bob Whiteman, POET Geoff Cooper, RFA

Topics/issues/agenda: Discussed producer comments/sug gestions on QAP program.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements onForm S-8 (Nos. 33-39925, 33-93662, 333-15823, 333-71881, 333-88203 and 333-107899) of AtmelCorporation of our report dated June 8, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financialstatement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in theForm 10-K filed on June 8, 2007./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPSan Jose, California
Exhibit 10.1


                             AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE
                                     TO THE
                               CELGENE CORPORATION
                   1995 NON EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS' INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, the Celgene Corporation (the "Company") maintains the Celgene
Corporation 1995 Non Employee Directors' Incentive Plan, as amended and restated
as of June 22, 1999 (the "Plan") and as further amended;

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of
the Company (the "Board") may at any time, and from time to time, amend, in
whole or in part, any or all of the provisions of the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan, effective as of April 23,
2003.

         NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article 11 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby
amended, effective as of April 23, 2003, as follows:

         1.       Section 5(d) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as
                  follows:

                  "(d) each year after the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the
                  Corporation to be held on June 13, 2003 (each, an "Annual
                  Meeting") each Non Employee Director who has been elected at
                  such Annual Meeting and is continuing as a member of the Board
                  as of the completion of such Annual Meeting shall receive
                  Options to purchase an aggregate of 15,000 shares of Common
                  Stock (subject to adjustment as provided in Section 9) in
                  substantially equal quarterly grants beginning in September,
                  2003; provided, however, that a Non Employee Director who has
                  been elected at such Annual Meeting and is continuing as a
                  member of the Board as of the completion of such Annual
                  Meeting but has not been a member of the Board during the
                  entire period between such Annual Meeting and the prior Annual
                  Meeting shall receive Options to purchase an aggregate number
                  of shares equal to the product of (i) 15,000 and (ii) a
                  fraction, numerator of which is the number of days in the 12
                  month period immediately preceding such Annual Meeting during
                  which such Non Employee Director was a Non Employee Director
                  and the denominator is 365; and"
#### BELCHER v. STATE.

No. 21082.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1940.

John D. Reese, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in jail for five days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Gary W. Qualmann, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AirNet Systems, Inc.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a -15(e) and 15d -15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 13, 2003

 
|   | /s/ Gary W.  Qualmann                 |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Printed  Name:  Gary W. Qualmann |
|   | Title:                                | Chief  Financial Officer, Treasurer  and Secretary |
|   |                                  | (Principal  Financial Officer) |
|   |                                  |

 

1

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1467 

To extend certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence 

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 for 10 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2009 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. 

COBLE, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. 

KING of Iowa, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. HARPER, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. PENCE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. HUNTER, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Ms. FALLIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act 

and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 2004 for 10 years. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Secure Amer5 ica Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1467 IH

1 SEC. 2. 10-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF 

2 THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE INTEL3 LIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVEN4 TION ACT OF 2004. 

5 (a) USA PATRIOT ACT.—Section 102(b) of the 

6 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 

7 2005 (Public Law 109–177; 120 Stat. 195) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem9 ber 31, 2019’’. 

10 (b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PRE11 VENTION ACT OF 2004.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intel12 ligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 

13 (Public Law 108–458; 118 Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 

14 note) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ and 

15 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2019’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**NCD MEETING AGENDA:** The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times Eastern Daylight Time):

**Monday, July 25, 2022**

12:00 – 12:05 p.m. – Welcome and Call to Order

12:05 – 12:15 p.m. – Chairman’s Report

12:15 – 12:30 p.m. – Executive Committee Report

12:30 – 12:35 p.m. – Administration, Finance and Operations (AFO) Team Update 

12:35 – 1:15 p.m. – Policy Report, Employment Program Inventory Report Out

1:15 – 1:45 p.m. – Health Equity Framework Proposed Additions 

1:45 – 2:30 p.m. – Cummings panel, Q&A

2:30 – 3:00 p.m. – Public Comment (Cummings prompt) 

3:00 – 3:50 p.m. – Annual Ethics Training 

3:50 – 4:00 p.m. – Legislative Affairs and Outreach (LAO) Team Update 

3:55 – 4:00 p.m. – Old Business / New Business

4:00 p.m. – Adjourn

**PUBLIC COMMENT:** Your participation during the public comment period provides an opportunity for us to hear from you -- individuals, businesses, providers, educators, parents and advocates. Your comments are important in bringing to the Council’s attention issues and priorities of the disability community.

For the July 25 Council meeting, NCD will designate its half-hour of public comment exclusively for community feedback on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision *Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.* In April 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in *Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.,*****holding****that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act or the Affordable Care Act. NCD seeks public comment on the impact of this holding on people with disabilities who seek redress for discrimination under these Federal statutes. In particular, NCD invites comments on the following or related topics:

1. What was the importance of emotional distress damages under these statutes prior to the Cummings decision?

2. What remedy/remedies remain available, under these statutes, in a private action alleging disability discrimination after Cummings, and what role can state civil or human rights laws play in providing an equivalent remedy?

3. What is the overall impact on civil rights protections for people with disabilities as a result of this decision?

Because of the virtual setting, there will be a hybrid option for submitting public comment. The Council is soliciting public comment by email or via video or audio over Zoom. Emailed public comment submissions will be reviewed during the meeting and delivered to members of the Council at its conclusion. You can also present public comment during the session by clicking the “Hand Raise” button in Zoom and waiting to be called on. If you plan to present over Zoom, please provide advance notice. To provide comments or notice to present public comment, please send an email to PublicComment@ncd.gov with the subject line “Public Comment” and your name, organization, state, and topic of comment included in the body of your email. Submission should be received no later than July 24, 5 p.m. EDT to ensure inclusion. 

PAGE  

2
#### Color Mate, Inc., Plaintiff, and Lawrence J. Abel, Appellant, v Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of a *535loan agreement, the plaintiff Lawrence J. Abel appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered July 6, 1989, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment, *inter alia,*dismissing the defendant’s second counterclaim and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for partial summary judgment against him on its second counterclaim on the issue of liability.

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

The defendant met its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to partial summary judgment against the appellant and the appellant offered no evidence in admissible form to show that there were factual issues requiring a trial *(see, Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.,*32 NY2d 285, 290; *Stanita Realty Corp. v Hughes Aircraft Co.,*116 AD2d 567). The personal guarantee executed by the appellant was unambiguous and unconditional and thus his liability as guarantor was not discharged by the defendant’s unilateral act of ceasing loan advances *(see,*63 NY Jur 2d, Guaranty and Suretyship, §§ 207, 356).

Furthermore, the appellant’s claim that the defendant’s unauthorized and improper transfer of collateral proceeds to a third party requires a discharge of his liability as a guarantor, is without merit *(see, Howe Sewing Mach. Co. v Farrington,*82 NY 121; *Schroeppell v Shaw,*3 NY 446). The proper remedy for an improper disposition of collateral proceeds is to. "lessen” the amount of liability, not to discharge it *(see,*UCC 9-507 [1]; *Paco Corp. v Vigliarola,*611 F Supp 923, 924, *affd*835 F2d 1429). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Mrs. Lucile WADE, Appellant, v. S. H. KRESS & COMPANY, R. L. Chapman and Kelly Sears, Appellees.

No. 4595.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Orcuit

Jan. 9, 1940.

W. M. Nicholson, of Lincolnton, N. C., for appellant.

-J. Laurence Jones and J. L. DeLaney, both of Charlotte, N. C., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Case docketed and appeal dismissed at cost of appellant, on motion of appellees. Order filed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1401

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove United States

tax barriers inhibiting competitiveness of United States owned business

operating in the European Community.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 18, 1993

Mr. GIBBONS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove

United States tax barriers inhibiting competitiveness of

United States owned business operating in the European

Community.

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

3 SECTION 1. SAME COUNTRY RULES.—Section 954 of

4 such Code (relating to foreign base company income) is

5 amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection

6 as follows:

7 ‘‘(h) SPECIAL RULE FOR EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

8 ACTIVITIES.—
2

HR 1401 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of sub2 sections (d) and (e), the countries comprising the

3 European Community shall constitute a single

4 country.

5 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of paragraph

6 (1), the term ‘‘European Community’’ shall include

7 countries:

8 ‘‘(A) which are members of the Council of

9 Ministers of the European Communities (Bel10 gium, Denmark, France, Greece, the Irish Re11 public, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands,

12 Portugal, Spain, the Federal Republic of Ger13 many, and the United Kingdom) and

14 ‘‘(B) which—

15 ‘‘(i) have a maximum statutory tax

16 rate greater than 90 percent of the maxi17 mum rate of tax specified in section 11(b),

18 and

19 ‘‘(ii) do not exempt from taxation pur20 suant to a tax holiday, preferential statu21 tory rate or similar special rule income of

22 a controlled foreign corporation described

23 in subsection (d) or (e) (determined with24 out regard to this subsection).’’
3

HR 1401 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made

2 by section 1 shall be effective for taxable years beginning

3 after December 31, 1993.

Æ