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

Docket No. F AA-2008-0681 Directorate Identifier: 2008-NE-40-AD 

ljyoumake chc.mg.es to the values inlh<! Lahle b<•lml'. you must £'//sure the! totals upclotc! ucco diug~v. If 

they do 1101. did (or Tab) imo om/then out(!/ !lie changed t·e/1. 

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

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspect the FCU 3-

way union for 

compliance and 0.5 $14 179 

replace if noncompliant. 

The known number o f products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fl eet: ~10 114 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) s 

On-Condition Costs: gD 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

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

testing, and close- replacement) up) 
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): The replacement 

parts are under warranty. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a .. significant regulatory action'·? G 

YES* 0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 

YES* 0 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. G 

YESO 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? G 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Animal Trails and Walkways, Critical Area Planting, Fence, Fish Passage, Forest Trails and Landings, Heavy Use Area Protection, Prescribed Grazing, Stream Habitat Improvement and Management, Watering Facility.

**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.
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:10 AM

To: Wayland, Robertj

Subject: RE: Legal TSD

Thanks Bob!

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:10 AM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Subject: Legal TSD

Cortney –

Per Peter, Howard’s done with this TSD and it has been cleared by OAR. As soon as Howard sends me the “clean” version, I’ll get this over to you this morning.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Office: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt

*************************************
comma Internal

CORONA

411111111P

_TOP-SECRET--

Lat...ago 11,0011n114 *Wawa

Imo amaLcl.vg sun IS MKS NI 11••n•

)6V/ NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

VIM

WAS.. IN GTON. O.C.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

October 2, 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. McLUCAS

SUBJECT: Breakfast Meeting, Friday, October 2

\ 01/b._....

's ere/ ""••• A 1‹.C.• _ad&

UaaVi4496-

V

Mel Laird was absent and Jammie Philpott substituted

for Don Bennett. The Service chiefs were present.

I took extensive, somewhat illegible notes which are

attached. The salient points of interest to the NRO were:

Dave Packard suggested we brief Secretary Rogers

and two of his undersecretaries. For example, could the

cease-fire have been timed better than midnight August 7?

Hal Bowen agreed to pull the briefing together. (Later I

told Hal I would do the briefing--although you may wish to--

and .Noel said he would brief on NSA.)

Dave said they were holding information on Cuba

down because the President hadn't decided what to do and we

might be able to get. the Russians to back down.

a plea for the modifiAmber aircraft. He

Noel Gayler

ackard said

the NRO should do the

3. Rockly Triantafellu put in

cation radar and the Cobra

e• w o wa

it was all a motley crew and perhaps

job. I smiled.

ian felt our collection a ainst

still fa r .

71111111

pport an early launch of Fritz Harlfinger

pointed out our shortcomings in .

He said the collection

mechanism through USIB is cumbe I told him that we
might be able to help on SIGINT if he came directly to us,

but that PHOTINT collection was scheduled on the most

economical basis--the factory-to-pad concept. At the same

time, I pointed out that the cumbersome USIB procedure was

desirable because we did not want to be in the position of

adjudicating Service intelligence priorities.

Attachments

Oct. 2 Agenda

Notes

_TOP-SECRETCAW, INN dIVIONilitsc salt

sss 011111CM C BM Is MS opt *NU

'mum's. Internal

1:00‘ eau'
EXHIBIT 31.4

I, Richard W. Lucas, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of KSW, 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.


Date: November 20, 2003

                                                   /s/ Richard W. Lucas
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Richard W. Lucas
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
# C_2005092EN.01003201.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/32

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3612 — Henkel/Sovereign)

(2005/C 92/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 December 2004, 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 English 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 32004M3612. 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 32004M3612. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005106EN.01003202.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/32

---

Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Aytan's Manufacturing Company (UK) Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-67/05)

(2005/C 106/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 February 2005 by Aytan's Manufacturing Company (UK) Limited, established in London (United Kingdom) represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister and M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.

Criminal Clothing Limited, established in Poole (United Kingdom) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 December 2004 in case R 309/2004-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 December 2004 in case R 309/2004-1;

| — | Order that the Office and other parties shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Office and other parties shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | Criminal Clothing Limited |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Word mark CRIMINAL for goods in classes 3, 9 and 25 (articles of clothing etc.) — application No 1676 220 |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The applicant |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | National mark CRIMINAL DAMAGE for goods in class 25 (articles of clothing etc.) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition rejected |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |
| Pleas in law: | Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Criminal Clothing Limited

Community trade mark concerned:

Word mark CRIMINAL for goods in classes 3, 9 and 25 (articles of clothing etc.) — application No 1676 220

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

National mark CRIMINAL DAMAGE for goods in class 25 (articles of clothing etc.)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2005115EN.01001801.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/18

---

Action brought on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-164/05)

(2005/C 115/33)

Language of the case: French

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Maidani and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 1 January 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 31.07.2001, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

EnCyc, Inc., a Michigan subsidiary

CSN Computer Consulting GmbH, a German subsidiary

Market Solutions Limited, a United Kingdom subsidiary

Onyx CSN Computer Holding GmbH, a German subsidiary

Onyx Software Canada Inc., an Ontario subsidiary

Onyx Software UK, Ltd., a Great Britain subsidiary

Onyx Software Asia Pte Ltd., a Singapore subsidiary

Onyx Software Australia Pty, Ltd., a New South Wales subsidiary

Onyx International Sales Corporation, a Barbados subsidiary

Versametrix, Inc., a Washington subsidiary

Xyno Software France SRL, a French Subsidiary
# C_2005131EN.01000601.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/6

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3820 — Avnet/Memec)

(2005/C 131/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 20 May 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Avnet, Inc. (‘Avnet’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Memec Group Holdings Limited (‘Memec’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 20 May 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Avnet, Inc. (‘Avnet’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Memec Group Holdings Limited (‘Memec’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for the undertaking Avnet: distribution of electronic components and computer products and systems, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for the undertaking Avnet: distribution of electronic components and computer products and systems,

| — | for the undertaking Memec: distribution of electronic components. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the undertaking Memec: distribution of electronic components.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3820 — Avnet/Memec, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3820 — Avnet/Memec, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2005006EN.01001603.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-482/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/14/EC - The Community's railways - Allocation of infrastructure capacity, the levying of charges for the use of infrastructure and safety certification - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 6/30)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-482/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) and Ireland (Agents: D. O'Hagan and D. Moloney, BL) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.

1

---
# C_2004300EN.01002102.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/21

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C-275/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures for the award of public supply and public works contracts - Incomplete transposition)

(2004/C 300/43)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-275/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiros and K. Wiedner) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and C. Gagliardi Graça ) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 25 June 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R.Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to repeal the Decree-Law No 48051 of 21 November 1967, making the award of damages to persons harmed by a breach of Community law relating to public contracts, or the national laws implementing it, conditional on proof of fault or fraud, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to repeal the Decree-Law No 48051 of 21 November 1967, making the award of damages to persons harmed by a breach of Community law relating to public contracts, or the national laws implementing it, conditional on proof of fault or fraud, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---