alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RECEIVED ON: ~ 

STATE OF IDAHO 

DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

~ 

MAY 2 8 2014 

EPA Region 10 

Office of the Regional Administrator 

1410 North Hilton • Boise, Idaho 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor 

Curt Fransen, Director 

May 22,2014 

Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Re: State Implementation Plan Rule Revisions 

Dear Mr. McLerran: 

Enclosed for your review and approval are an original and electronic copy of revisions to 

the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Rules for the Control of Air Pollution 

in Idaho, IDAPA 58.01.01. DEQ is seeking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

approval of the following revision as an update to the contents of the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), 40 CFR, Part 52, Subpart N: 

• Docket No. 58-0101-1301-2013 Federal Rule IBR 

This revision to the state rules was promulgated pursuant to the Environmental Protection 

and Health Act, Idaho Code, Section 39-101 through 39-130. Review and approval by a 

DEQ Deputy Attorney General was obtained at appropriate times throughout the 

rulemaking process. Rule adoption was made in accordance with the requirements of the 

federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and applicable federal regulations. 

As we described in our letter to EPA dated October 18, 2013, DEQ does not intend to 

apply federal regulations that have been vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Specifically, as a result of the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, Idaho 

confirms that it will not apply either the PM2.5 significant impact levels (SILs) provision 

at 40 CFR 52.21 (k)(2) or the PM2.5 significant monitoring concentration (SMC) 

provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). The PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions were 

adopted by reference at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03.c. 

The following table clarifies which portions of the Docket listed above are being 

submitted to update Idaho's SIP. 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
New Docket No. 58-0101-1301- 2013 Federal Rule IBR 

Rule Section Modified SIP Update Requested Current EPA status 

107.02.b Yes Approved 01/16/2003 

107.03.a-e Yes Most recent IBR approval 03/03/2014 

107.03.f-n No Not included in SIP 

107.03.p No Not included in SIP 

107.03.q Yes Most recent IBR aj:)l:>roval 03L03L2014 

861-862 No Not included in SIP 

If you, or your staff, have questions concerning any of these rules, please contact Tiffany 

Floyd, Air Quality Division Administrator, at 208-373-0440 or 

tiffany.floyd@deq.idaho.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Curt Fransen 

Director 

c: Tiffany Floyd, Air Quality Administrator 

Enclosure (1)
### §12528. Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund

(a) Establishment.—There is established on the books of the Treasury a fund to be known as the "Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund", which shall be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Fund shall be used for the accumulation of funds in order to finance the liabilities of the insurance program on an actuarially sound basis.

(b) Assets of Fund.—There shall be deposited into the Fund the following:

(1) Premiums paid under section 12527 of this title.

(2) Any amount appropriated to the Fund.

(3) Any return on investment of the assets of the Fund.

(c) Availability.—Amounts in the Fund shall be available for paying insurance benefits under the insurance program.

(d) Investment of Assets of Fund.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the Fund as is not in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense required to meet current liabilities. Such investments shall be in public debt securities with maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, and bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities. The income on such investments shall be credited to the Fund.

(e) Annual Accounting.—At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Actuaries and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall determine the following:

(1) The projected amount of the premiums to be collected, investment earnings to be received, and any transfers or appropriations to be made for the Fund for that fiscal year.

(2) The amount for that fiscal year of any cumulative unfunded liability (including any negative amount or any gain to the Fund) resulting from payments of benefits.

(3) The amount for that fiscal year (including any negative amount) of any cumulative actuarial gain or loss to the Fund.

(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title V, §512(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 302.)
### SUBCHAPTER IV—FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION

Sec.
20251. 1
Failure of selection for promotion.

20251. 1
Special selection boards; correction of errors.
20252a.
Special selection review boards: reference.
20253.
Retirement: retirement for years of service.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVII, §1716(c), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 634, 649, which directed amendment of chapter "205" of this title by adding this subchapter at the end, was executed by adding this subchapter at the end of this chapter, which is chapter 2005, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### Amendments

**2023**—Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVII, §1716(c), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 634, 649, 650, 653, added two items 20251 and items 20252a and 20253. Amendment was made pursuant to operation of section 102 of this title.

1  So in original. Two sections 20251 have been enacted.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 167 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 13, 1999.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1555) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence 
Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each title shall 
be considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are 
waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro 
forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be 
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall 
be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum 
time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 
minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0292 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-CE-011-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
### §10304. Marine Corps Reserve Policy Board

A Marine Corps Reserve Policy Board shall be convened at least once annually at the seat of government to consider, recommend, and report to the Secretary of the Navy on reserve policy matters. At least half of the members of the Board must be officers of the Marine Corps Reserve.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1661(b)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2981.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 5252(c) of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1661(a)(3)(A).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
#### § 141.28 Gambling prohibited.

No licensee may permit any person to gamble by dice, cards, or in any way whatever, including the use of any mechanical device, on the premises of any licensed business.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 14-0143 

Focus Ready Draft 12/30/2013

PV (kg/yr): 

ENGINEER: Au JA 

SUBMITTER: 

SE

 
CRSS : 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: 

Generated by the 09/30/2013 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

No Pollution Prevention i rma y the submitter. 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

 

 
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 14-0143
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Public Affairs

We are aware of the ballistic missile launch and are consulting closely with our allies and partners. While we have assessed that this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies, the missile launch highlights the destabilizing impact of the DPRK’s illicit weapons program. The U.S. commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remains ironclad. The ROK, Japan, and the U.S., trilaterally coordinated operations to ensure protection of their respective nations.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Readout of U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday Meeting with India’s Chief of the Naval Staff Adm. R. Hari Kumar

By Chief of Naval Operations Spokesperson Cmdr. Courtney Hillson

PACIFIC OCEAN -- Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday met with India’s Chief of the Naval Staff Adm. R. Hari Kumar aboard the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force helicopter destroyer JS Izumo (DDH-183) in the Pacific Ocean on Nov 6, as part of his trip to the Indo-Pacific region to attend the International Fleet Review and Western Pacific Naval Symposium.The two leaders discussed maritime security, sharing capabilities, and the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean.U.S. and Indian naval forces regularly operate together around the globe. This month the two navies will participate in MALABAR 22, an annual maritime exercise which includes a variety of high-end tactical training, including specific interactions that are designed to enhance interoperability between the Royal Australian Navy, Indian Navy, Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, and U.S. maritime forcesThe U.S. designated India as a Major Defense Partner in 2016. This past August, in a first-of-its-kind opportunity, USNS Charles Drew (T-AKE-10) arrived at Larsen & Toubro Ltd, commonly known as L&T shipyard, in Kattupalli, India, for scheduled voyage maintenance and repairs.Gilday last met with Kumar during a visit to India in October 2021.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60695

Summary Calendar

 

GLENN A. HERRINGTON,

Petitioner,

versus

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

 

On Petition for Review from a Final Order

of the Federal Aviation Administration

(97-SW-08)

 

August 28, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is a petition for review brought by Glenn Herrington

following an adverse ruling of the FAA Appeals Panel. The FAA

reassigned Herrington and downgraded him in pay based upon his

alleged falsification of time records, failure to attend a

mandatory meeting, and possession of a conflict of interest.

Herrington appealed, and the Appeals Panel found sufficient

evidence to sustain only the record falsification and attendance

charges, but it upheld the penalty imposed by the FAA. Herrington

now seeks review from this court.
2

In his original brief, Herrington does not explicitly

challenge the findings of the Appeals Panel, which we find amply

supported by the record anyway. Rather, Herrington raises a number

of procedural challenges. He first complains that he was denied

union representation at the Appeals Panel hearing, a right which is

provided to certain FAA employees under a federal collective

bargaining agreement. Although he was demoted to a position that

carries with it a right to union representation, at the time his

demotion was imposed, Herrington was a supervisory employee without

union-representation rights. Because Herrington was not a member

of the bargaining unit at the time the adverse employment action

was taken against him, he is not entitled to rely upon the

grievance procedures of the collective bargaining agreement. See

Devine v. Levin, 739 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Indeed, if

Herrington were covered by the collective bargaining agreement,

then he would not be entitled to an appeal with the FAA Appeals

Panel, which he himself sought.

Herrington also cites several errors in the manner in which

his Appeals Panel hearing was conducted. Our review of the record

reveals that Herrington failed to object to these purported errors

during the hearing and, in fact, expressly acquiesced in many of

them. Having failed to object, Herrington waived these purported

errors. See 49 U.S.C. § 46110. We are convinced that the Appeals

Panel hearing was conducted in a fair manner and produced a

reliable result.

PETITION DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knight Trading Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John B. Howard, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or, 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    JOHN B. HOWARDName: John B. HowardTitle:   Chief Financial OfficerDate:   August 5, 2004




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 115.612 May you be represented by an attorney during your hearing?

Yes, you may have an attorney or other person represent you during your hearing. However, you are responsible for any and all expenses associated with having an attorney or other person represent you.
149 So.2d 923

#### Fred L. SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

6 Div. 940.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 20, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1963.

*614Peter A. Hall and Orzell Billingsley, Jr., iBirmingham, for petitioner.

Wm. C. Walker, Birmingham, opposed.

MERRILL, Justice.

The petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals must be stricken because it is not on transcript paper. Supreme Court Rule 32; Ex parte Cranmore, 273 Ala. 4, 129 So.2d 688; Ex parte Davis, 269 Ala. 58, 110 So.2d 306; Accardo v. State, 268 Ala. 293, 105 So.2d 865; McDonald v. Amason, 267 Ala. 654, 104 So.2d 719; Ladd v. State, 266 Ala. 586, 98 So.2d 59.

Petition for writ of certiorari stricken.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and PIARWOOD, JJ., concur.
#### § 11.102 What is the purpose of this part?

It is the purpose of the regulations in this part to provide adequate machinery for the administration of justice for Indian tribes in those areas of Indian country where tribes retain jurisdiction over Indians that is exclusive of State jurisdiction but where tribal courts have not been established to exercise that jurisdiction.