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

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2014

– 0561 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NE

- 12

- 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) in to and then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

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

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

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Lab or

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

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

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection and parts r emoval 1.2 $ 102.00 $ 102.00 

### 58 $ 5,916.00 

### Replacement parts $ 0.00 $ 5,850 $ 5,850.00 

### 58 $ 339,300.00 $ 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: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 345,216 

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

### 0

**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 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? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
July 27, 2015

Mrs. Rebecca Frost

2 Elliott Farm Road

Califon, NJ 07830

Dear Mrs. Frost:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 2, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2708), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7499-7500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Workforce Investment Act; Native American Employment and Training 
Council

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor.

ACTION: ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and Section 166 (h)(4) of the 
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) [29 U.S.C. 2911(h)(4)], notice is hereby 
given of the next meeting of the Native American Employment and 
Training Council (Council), as constituted under WIA.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m., (Pacific Standard Time) on 
Wednesday, February 25, 2015, and continue until 5:00 p.m. that day. 
The meeting will reconvene at 9:00 a.m., on Thursday, February 26, 
2015, and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. that day. The period from 3:30 p.m. to 
5:00 p.m. on February 25, 2015, will be reserved for participation and 
comment by members of the public.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Rincon Tribal Hall on the 
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Reservation, 1 West Tribal Road, Valley 
Center, California 92082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public.

[[Page 7500]]

Members of the public not present may submit a written statement on or 
before February 18, 2015, to be included in the record of the meeting. 
Statements are to be submitted to Athena R. Brown, Designated Federal 
Officer (DFO), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Room S-4209, Washington, DC 20210. Persons who need special 
accommodations should contact Craig Lewis at (202) 693-3384, at least 
two business days before the meeting. The formal agenda will focus on 
the following topics: (1) U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 
Training Administration Update and follow up on the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA) recommendations; (2) 
Performance Outcomes and Reporting; (3) Recommendations on WIOA 
regulations; (4) Training and Technical Assistance; (5) Council and 
Workgroup Updates and Recommendations; (6) New Business and Next Steps; 
and (7) Public Comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Athena R. Brown, DFO, Division of 
Indian and Native American Programs, Employment and Training 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4209, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number (202) 693-3737 
(VOICE) (this is not a toll-free number).

Portia Wu,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-02707 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4501-FR-P
HomeNRC LibraryPublic Document Room

# PDR Document Holdings and Organization

On this page:
        - About the Docket Files
        - Docket 50 Files (Reactors and Fuel Processing Plants)
        - Docket 50 Categories
        - Non-Docket Files

## About the Docket Files

The PDR staff maintains a collection of more than 2 million documents in hard copy and/or microfiche. The majority of these documents relate to the licensing and inspection of nuclear facilities and to the use, transport, and disposal of nuclear materials. Although many files have been retired to off-site storage, a large portion of the collection is available only on microfiche. Microfiche was discontinued in November 1999 when ADAMS was introduced. Paper copies were discontinued in January 2000.

This information is organized into the following docket files:

## Docket 50 Files (Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Processing Plants)

Each nuclear power reactor has its own docket number under which all documents pertaining to that facility are filed.

Each docket file is divided into categories. These categories pertain either to different aspects of the licensing process or to different document types. For more information about these categories, any user may request a free copy NUREG/BR-0052, Rev. 2, "Public Document Room File Classification System," by contacting the PDR staff. The file classification system is primarily a location guide to the paper file collection. It can be used as a general guide to types of NRC documents, but does not provide information on the location of microfiche or electronic copies.

## Docket 50 Categories

## Non-Docket Files

The PDR also maintains files of non-docketed materials that are categorized as--

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Contact the PDR Staff
          - Services and Resources
          - Reference Materials
          - Document Holdings and Organization
          - Copy Service and Fees
          - Document Reproduction Information

#### 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 Tuesday, June 9, 2020
----

RECRUITMENT FOR THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY (LONDON)

(2005/C 76 A/01)

The Agency is responsible for coordinating the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use in the European Union (see European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of 31 March 2004, Official Journal of the European Union No L 136 of 30 April 2004). The EMEA was established in January 1995. It has many close contacts with the European Commission, 25 EU Member States, EEA-EFTA countries and many other groups in government and the private sector.

Further information on the EMEA and its activities is readily accessible through the Internet; our web address is http://www.emea.eu.int

Selected candidates will be included on a reserve list and, depending on the budgetary situation, may be offered a five-year renewable contract in accordance with the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (Official Journal of the European Communities No L  56 of 4 March 1968) (1).

The place of employment shall be London.

Candidates must be nationals of a Member State of the European Communities, or of Iceland, Norway or Liechtenstein, on condition that they have full rights as a citizen.

The complete conditions, the job descriptions and the necessary application form should be downloaded from the EMEA website http://www.emea.eu.int. The application form must be duly signed and dated and, together with all documentary evidence, must be returned no later than 11 May 2005 (date of postmark) to the following address:EMEA — Head of Personnel, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HB, United Kingdom (Tel: 44-207 418 84 00; fax: 44-207 418 84 16).

In future the Official Journal will no longer be sent by mail to the mailing list. If you wish to continue to receive notification of publications please register online at http://www.emea.eu.int/under ‘Online Mailing Service’

----

(1)  The Council has adopted new Staff Regulations which entered into force on 1 May 2004. These Regulations include a new career structure. Successful candidates would therefore be recruited on the basis of the new Staff Regulations, in accordance with the arrangements set out, in particular, in Article 12 of Section 2 of Annex XIII (see the IntraComm website: http://www.europa.eu.int).

----
#### Richard Yarborough *v.*Stephen Monday.

Two parties may adopt the same seal, and in that event, it is the deed of both, otherwise, it is the deed of one, and the simple contract of the other. But the question whether both parties adopted the seal, is one for the jury, not for the judge.

After the new trial granted in this cause, at December term 1830, *(ante*2 *vol. page*493,) it came on to be tried again at Person, on the last Spring Circuit, before Strange, Judge, when the action was in assumpsit, and upon the objection of the defendant, that the contract of apprenticeship was under seal, and that debt was the proper action, the testimony was, that the brother of the plaintiff wrote the contract, and at the bottom of it made a scrawl, and wrote the word *seal*within it; that immediately afterwards, by the directions of both the parties, he signed their names to the contract, putting the name of the plaintiff opposite to the scrawl, but he did not make another scrawl, nor add any thing purporting to be a seal, opposite to that of the defendant.

Upon this testimony, his Honor ruled the contract to be the deed of the defendant, and thereupon the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit, and appealed.

*Winston*and *W. Jl.*Graham, for the plaintiff.

No counsel appeared for the defendant.

Daniel, Judge.

The law permits two or more ob-ligors to adopt one seal, and it will be the deed of both of them. (*Ball*v. *Dunsterville,*4 *Term*313. 1 *Starkie*332. 2 *Thomas’ Coke*234.) If the plaintiff sealed the instrument and delivered it, then it became his deed, but if the defendant signed the same instrument and did not seal it himself, nor adopt the seal of the plaintiff, then the instrument as to him, would not be a deed, but a simple contract in writing, and assumpsit would be the proper action to be brought on it. Evidence was introduced as to that point, and it was a proper question for the jury, whether the defendant intended to adopt the seal, thus affixed, and did adopt it as his seal or not; if he did, then it was his deed; if he did not, then it was *421bis simple contract, and the action was properly brought. The judge decided both the law and the fact; he should have left it to the jury to determine whether the defendant intended to adopt the seal and did adopt it, for these were questions of fact. Whether the scrawl affixed was in this state a seal, certainly was a question of law to be determined by the Court; but whether the defendant placed it there, or adopted it as his seal, if placed there by the plaintiff, or any other person, were questions for the jury. We think the judgment should be reversed.

Per Curiam. — Jüdgmert reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,983,651
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,597,868
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,595,529
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  4,770,280
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     81,431,594
<ALLOWANCE>                                    661,189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,037,933
<DEPOSITS>                                  68,938,267
<SHORT-TERM>                                   420,636
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,520,002
<LONG-TERM>                                139,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,419
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,255,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              94,037,933
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,713,703
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               84,717
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                92,512
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,890,732
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             653,727
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             856,050
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,034,882
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   80,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                698,339
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                323,236
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     323,236
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   197,590
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.53
<LOANS-NON>                                    260,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               631,239
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   54,299
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,249
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              661,189
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           661,189
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
# C_2004300EN.01004402.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/44

---

Action brought on 13 September 2004 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-368/04)

(2004/C 300/87)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 September 2004 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions taken by the applicant's superior on 4 February 2004, 24 February 2004 and 27 February 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions taken by the applicant's superior on 4 February 2004, 24 February 2004 and 27 February 2004;

| — | annul the appointing authority's decision answering the complaint (R/159/04) of 1 June 2004, received on 14 June 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority's decision answering the complaint (R/159/04) of 1 June 2004, received on 14 June 2004;

| — | annul any decision which may be taken during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul any decision which may be taken during the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the compensation for 30 days of annual leave not used up or paid, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations of Officials, together with interest at 5.25 % from the date of this action; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the compensation for 30 days of annual leave not used up or paid, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations of Officials, together with interest at 5.25 % from the date of this action;

| — | order payment of damages for non-material damage and detriment to his career, assessed ex æquo et bono at € 12 500, subject to any increase or reduction during the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order payment of damages for non-material damage and detriment to his career, assessed ex æquo et bono at € 12 500, subject to any increase or reduction during the course of the proceedings;

ex æquo et bono

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant challenges the decision not to allow him to carry over his days of leave to 2004. In support of his application, he pleads infringement of Articles 24 and 57 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations laying down the detailed rules for the granting of leave and disregard of the principles of proper administration, equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations, and a manifest error of assessment.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Inflammation.                    

*Date:*                         March 4, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Alicja L. Markowska, Ph.D., DSC Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9666,                         *markowsa@nia.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: February 3, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-02438 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P