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

Docket No. FAA-2013-0362 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-030-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)

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

Inspection 118 $10,030 $0 $10,030 106 $1,063,180

$ 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) $

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:
Russell D. White, Ph.D., DABT 

Manager, Health Sciences 

Research and Scientific Affairs Department 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005-4070 

USA 

Telephone 202-682-8344 

Fax 202-682-8270 

Email whiter@api.org 

www.api.org 

July 27, 2010 

Karl Simon 

Division Director 

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 6406J 

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulations: Submission of Peer Reviewer 

Comments and Responses for Draft Study No. 05-4287 On Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate 

Dear Mr. Karl Simon: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is 

submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) Alternative Tier 

2 requirements of the testing regulation: 

• Comments from Dr. Thomas Goldsworthy 

• Comments from Dr. Richard Schlesinger 

• RG response to comments 

• Draft Study Report No. 05-4287 (Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: Embryo-Fetal Toxicity Study 

in Rats by Inhalation Exposure)

When the final report is complete, it will be submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act 

Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A-90-07). 

Please contact Paula Podhasky (202-682-8344) or myself if there are questions about this submission. 

Regards, 

Encl (1): CD containing the files; 

a) Comments from Dr. Thomas Goldsworthy 

b) Comments from Dr. Richard Schlesinger 

c) RG response to comments 

d) Study No. 05-4287 (Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: Embryo-Fetal Toxicity Study in Rats by 

Inhalation Exposure)

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
#### JOHN GIROLAMETTI, JR. *v.*RIZZO CORPORATION

(AC 34547)

Lavine, Alvord and Bear, Js.

*78Argued May 23

officially released July 9, 2013

*Michael J. Bamaby,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Daniel J. Krisch,*with whom, on the brief, was *Alfred A. DiVincentis,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, John Girolametti, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his application to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of the defendant, Rizzo Corporation, on the ground that it was not filed within thirty days of the notification of the arbitration award as required by General Statutes § 52-420 (b).1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his application because the statutory time limitation for filing his application was extended by the defendant’s having filed a motion with the arbitrator to modify the award, and his application properly was filed within thirty days of the issuance of the modified award. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court issued a memorandum of decision that concisely and thoughtfully states the facts and the applicable law. *79See *Girolametti*v. *Rizzo Corp.,*52 Conn. Supp. 592, 77 A.3d 217 (2012). After examining the record and the briefs and considering the arguments of the parties on appeal, we are persuaded that the court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs application. We, therefore, adopt the court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law. See id. No useful purpose would be served by repeating that discussion here. See, e.g., *Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO*v. *State Ethics Commission,*304 Conn. 672, 673, 41 A.3d 656 (2012); *Tuite*v. *Hospital of Central Connecticut,*141 Conn. App. 573, 575, 61 A.3d 1187 (2013).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 General Statutes § 52-420 (b) provides: “No motion to vacate, modify or correct an award may be made after thirty days from the notice of the award to the party to the arbitration who makes the motion.”
No. 11-10490.

#### Diehl *v.*Pennsylvania.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service


Judgment Fund

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Financial Management Service (FMS) is announcing the 
transfer of the Judgment Fund function from the General Accounting 
Office to the FMS and the address to request certifications for 
payments from Judgment Fund accounts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
the Judgment Fund Branch, room 6D33, 3700 East-West Hwy., Hyattsville, 
MD 20782; (202) 874-6664.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 211 of Pub. L. 104-53, 
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1996 (109 Stat. 535), 
certain claims-related functions of the Comptroller General, including 
the Judgment Fund, were transferred to the Executive Branch. Effective 
June 30, 1996, the Secretary of the Treasury has been delegated 
responsibility for performing the Judgment Fund function.
    Consequently, all requests for certifications for payments from the 
Judgment Fund accounts should be sent to the Judgment Fund Branch, room 
6D33, 3700 East-West Hwy., Hyattsville, MD 20782. Sending such a 
request to the General Accounting Office may result in delay of 
payment, or lack of payment. Additional procedures for obtaining 
certifications for payments from Judgment Fund accounts may be found in 
I TFM 6-3100, obtainable from the address above.

    Dated: January 7, 1997.
Diane E. Clark,
Assistant Commissioner, Financial Information.
[FR Doc. 97-732 Filed 1-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MIGUEL A. PADILLA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 9 EM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2021, the Application for Leave to File a Reply 

is GRANTED, and the Petition for Permission to Appeal is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.1RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERI, Timothy W. Byrne, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United States Lime & Minerals, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.          Dated: March 13, 2006 /s/ Timothy W. Byrne         Timothy W. Byrne    President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 12-5087.

#### Bartlett *v.*Keller, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
================================================================================
                              PSEG POWER LLC
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 12

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Years Ended December 31,
                                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                                   2002     2001      2000      1999       1998
                                                  ------- -------- -------- ----------  --------
                                                                    (Millions)
<S>                                               <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Earnings as Defined in Regulation S-K (A):

Pre-Tax Income from Continuing Operations         $ 781     $ 644     $ 521     $ 807     $ 393
Fixed Charges                                       221       213       210       131       256
Capitalized Interest                                (97)      (63)      (12)       (2)       (7)
                                                  ----------------------------------------------
Earnings
                                                  $ 905     $ 794     $ 719     $ 936     $ 642
                                                  ==============================================

Fixed Charges as Defined in Regulation S-K (B)

Interest Expense                                  $ 219     $ 206     $ 210     $ 114     $ 223
Subsidiaries' Preferred Securities
    Dividend Requirements                          --        --        --          12        25
Preferred Stock Dividends                          --        --        --           3         5
Adjustment to Preferred Stock Dividends
     to state on a pre-income tax basis            --        --        --           2         3
Interest Factor in Rentals                            2         7      --        --        --
                                                  ----------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges
                                                  $ 221     $ 213     $ 210     $ 131     $ 256
                                                  ==============================================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                                   4.10      3.73      3.42      7.15      2.51
                                                  ==============================================
</TABLE>

(A) The term "earnings" shall be defined as pretax income from continuing
operations. Add to pretax income the amount of fixed charges adjusted to exclude
the amount of any interest capitalized during the period.

(B) Fixed Charges represent (a) interest, whether expensed or capitalized, (b)
amortization of debt discount, premium and expense and (c) an estimate of
interest implicit in rentals.
# C_2022326EN.01002401.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/24

---

Action brought on 6 July 2022 — MEDEX v EUIPO — Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (medex)

(Case T-419/22)

(2022/C 326/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MEDEX, živilska industrija, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Čuden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerrit Cornelis Johan Stein (Elp, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark medex in colours maroon, yellow and white — European Union trade mark No 10 307 494

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2022 in Case R 1361/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58, in particular Article 58(1)(a), and Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58, in particular Article 58(1)(a), and Article 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 31.2  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2008 on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp.;  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;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.           The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.           The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Nov. 19, 2009   /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             327
<SECURITIES>                                        28
<RECEIVABLES>                                      304
<ALLOWANCES>                                        21
<INVENTORY>                                        261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1115
<PP&E>                                            1819
<DEPRECIATION>                                     749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1009
<BONDS>                                            795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                           840
<OTHER-SE>                                         767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2510
<SALES>                                           4843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4843
<CGS>                                             2374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     4
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    397
<INCOME-TAX>                                       112
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                285
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.97
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 1135 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 22, 2020. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Ms. Barraga ́n 

(to rank immediately after Mr. Garcia of Illinois). 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Richmond (to 

rank immediately after Mr. Horsford). 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 12-5446.

#### Venta *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130313 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130313 COA: 262269 Genesee CC: 00-006404-FC ALFRED SPENCER COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the December 6, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 6, 2019

No. 04-19-00795-CV

David RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

H-E-B, Jointly and Severally William Tate, Jointly and Severally and as employee of H-E-B 

L.P., Stephen Martinez Jointly and Severally and as employee of H-E-B L.P., Meredith Reid as 

employee of H-E-B L.P, Jointly and Severally, Debra Ann Godoy as employee of H-E-B L.P. et 

al.,

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI16263

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 27, 2019, appellant David Rodriguez filed Appellant’s Motion to Extend 

Time to File Brief and Direct Court Reporter to File Court Reporter’s Record. After 

consideration, appellant’s motion is DENIED. Because this is an accelerated appeal, appellant’s 

brief will be due 20 days after the reporter’s record is filed.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of December, 2019.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court