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

Docket No. FAA-2012-0493 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-180-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

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

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

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated 

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS 
FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             796
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      227
<ALLOWANCES>                                       176
<INVENTORY>                                         40
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   963
<PP&E>                                           1,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              769
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,636
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,918)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,487
<SALES>                                            227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   227
<CGS>                                               54
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       54
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,083)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004201EN.01001603.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/16

---

Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Asklepios Kliniken GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-167/04)

(2004/C 201/36)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2004 by Asklepios Kliniken GmbH, Königstein-Falkenstein (Germany), represented by K. Füßer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to take any decision pursuant to Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 in response to the applicant's letter of complaint of 20 January 2003, the Commission is in breach of its obligations under Article 88 EC and Article 10(1) and Article 13(1) of Regluation (EC) No 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take any decision pursuant to Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 in response to the applicant's letter of complaint of 20 January 2003, the Commission is in breach of its obligations under Article 88 EC and Article 10(1) and Article 13(1) of Regluation (EC) No 659/1999.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a company which specialises in hospital management. It is incorporated under private law and is owned exclusively by private interests. Since January 2003, it has been endeavouring to obtain a decision from the Commission under Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regluation (EC) No 659/1999 in relation to alleged aid in favour of publicly-owned hospitals in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant maintains that privately-owned hospitals must generally finance themselves from sums paid under health-care arrangements entered into with the appropriate health-insurance schemes and their central associations and, where applicable, from direct contributions for hospital construction under funding arrangements in place in the relevant Land. By contrast, publicly-owned hospitals also benefit from the fact that their regular operating losses are consistently covered by the relevant public authorities. In the applicant's opinion, those payments constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC which not only is subject to a notification requirement under Article 88(3) EC but is also incompatible with the common market.

The applicant also maintains that the complaint is well founded as the Commission has failed to act notwithstanding a duty to act upon receipt of the complaint.

---
# C_2004252EN.01000101.xml

| 12.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 October 2004

(2004/C 252/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2392 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,44 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6903 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0515 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5496 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,46 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,226 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,576 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,383 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,55 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6668 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3057 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 41 065 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,91 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,025 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 851 900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6881 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5539 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6518 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8171 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0827 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 420,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1196 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2392

JPY

Japanese yen

135,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,44

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6903

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0515

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5496

ISK

Iceland króna

87,46

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,226

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,576

CZK

Czech koruna

31,383

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,55

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6668

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3057

ROL

Romanian leu

41 065

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,91

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,025

TRL

Turkish lira

1 851 900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6881

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5539

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6518

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8171

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0827

KRW

South Korean won

1 420,25

ZAR

South African rand

8,1196

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Ex-99.3 a)
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE


         Reference is hereby made to Structured Asset Mortgage Investment, Inc.,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2000-1, Bear Stearns ARM Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-1, Bear Stearns ARM Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-3, Bear Stearns ARM Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-4, Bear Stearns ARM Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-6, Bear Stearns ARM Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-10, Bear Stearns ARM Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-7 and E*Trade ARM Trust Series
2001-1 (together, the "Securitizations"). Washington Mutual Bank, FA (the
"Servicer") services mortgage loans in connection with the Securitizations (the
"Mortgage Loans") pursuant to the terms of various servicing agreements (i)
between EMC Mortgage Corporation or an affiliate thereof ("EMC") and the
Servicer or a predecessor of the Servicer (collectively, the "EMC Servicing
Agreements") and (ii) between E*Trade Bank (or its predecessor in interest) and
the Servicer or a predecessor of the Servicer (collectively, the "E*TRADE
Servicing Agreements", together with the EMC Servicing Agreements, the
"Servicing Agreements").

I, Gabriel V. Barroso , an authorized officer of the Servicer, certify for the
benefit of any master servicer of any of the Mortgage Loans (each, a "Master
Servicer") and any entity which is the depositor of the Mortgage Loans (each, a
"Depositor") with respect to the calendar year immediately preceding the date of
this Officer's Certificate (the "Relevant Year"), as follows:


         1.       A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant
                  Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreements has
                  been made under my supervision, and

         2.       To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
                  Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
                  Servicing Agreements throughout the Relevant Year.



DATED as of March 18, 2003


                                                /s/ Gabriel V. Barroso
                                                    -----------------------
                                                Name:  Gabriel V. Barroso
                                                Title: First Vice President
#### Koch, Appellant, vs. The Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Mayer, Vandercook & Wilde,*attorneys, and *Walter F. Mayer*and *Marshall A. Rice*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Shaw, Muskat & Paulsen,*attorneys, and *F. FI. Prosser*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                            TOMORROW'S MORNING, INC.
                        (A Development Stage Enterprise)

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>    
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED   SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                       DECEMBER 31, 1996    DECEMBER 31, 1996
                                                       ------------------   -----------------
<S>                                                    <C>                  <C>
 
Net Loss............................................          $ (336,908)   $ (647,192)
 
Basis for computation of primary earnings per
common and common equivalent share:
 
   Weighted average number of shares
   outstanding during period........................           1,026,494     1,026,494
 
   Weighted average (incremental) common
   share equivalent after considering the effects
   of options and warrants issued during the
   periods ended December 31, 1996 and after
   assumed repurchase of treasury shares as
   required by Securities Exchange Commission
   Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83.................             172,695       172,695
                                                       -----------------    ----------
 
     Total weighted average number of shares........           1,199,189     1,199,689
                                                       =================    ==========
 
      Loss per share................................          $     (.28)   $     (.54)
                                                       =================    ==========
 
</TABLE>     



                                   EXHIBIT 11

                                      21
# Phaucet - Version 8.2.2

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Phaucet - Version 8.2.2 

PHAUCET is a tool to design and evaluate furrow irrigation systems.

### Download Software

              - PHAUCET.msi
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  0001013788
<NAME>  SHOWBOAT MARINA CASINO PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      983
<ALLOWANCES>                                        52
<INVENTORY>                                        337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,319
<PP&E>                                         167,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,876
<BONDS>                                        140,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,941
<SALES>                                        114,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,550
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                59,208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    52
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2005044EN.01000702.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3707 — AXA/Camaieu)

(2005/C 44/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3707. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3707. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsResearch Information Letters

# Research Information Letters – 2009

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 19, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984
          - 1983
          - 1982
          - 1981
          - 1980
          - 1979
          - 1978
          - 1977
          - 1976
          - 1974
          - Contact Us About Research Information Letters

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 19, 2020
#### Weber, Respondent, vs. Koerner, alias, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Edwin 0. Koerner*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Jos. F. Studnicka*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment and order affirmed.
# C_2004239EN.01002702.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/27

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-236/99 (1)

1

(2004/C 239/59)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-236/99, Direcks Service Station Bocholtz B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.

1

---
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0084 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-089-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Nutrient Management.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.