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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7663]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration 12492 and 12493]

Ohio Disaster OH-00026

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Ohio dated 03/18/2011.
    Incident: Severe storms and flooding.
    Incident Period: 02/27/2011 through 03/14/2011.
    Effective Date: 03/23/2011.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/17/2011.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/19/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Administrator's disaster 
declaration in the State of Ohio, dated 03/18/2011, is hereby amended 
to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 02/27/
2011 and continuing through 03/14/2011.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: March 23, 2011.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-7663 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION VII
 

901 NORTH 5TH STREET 

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 

September 23, 2011 

Deborah M Orduna 

3115 R Street 

Omaha, Nebraska 68107 

RE: SAID: 47752 

3115 R Street 

Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment 

Dear Owner/Resident: 

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of 

this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior 

surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist 

that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels. 

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3115 R Street. The EPA has developed paint 

stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a 

structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if 

all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil 

under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint 

observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was 

measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument. 

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead 

concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were 

to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. 

For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the 

ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch 

of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP 

provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses 

these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint 

stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, 

particularly where children under the age of seven reside. 

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your 

house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. 
 

 

 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at 

(402) 731-3045. 

Sincerely, 

Pauletta R. France-Isetts 

Project Coordinator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Enclosures 

Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045. 
Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessmen 

-* 

H -M P -01 -12345 

- BVlD Numbei 

Structure/Feature 

(Window stdmg, porch, etc ) (Wood concrete, etc ) 
-- -- - - - 

Omaha Lead Site NorthArrow 

wnep Name: DEBORAH M OKDUNA LBP Assessment 

Additional Notes
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, David Strate, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report (the Report) on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;  4.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:November 14, 2007By:/s/David StrateDavid Strate, Secretary Treasurer
§ 82.400 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
( b ) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
( c ) A filing or amended filing on or after the date on which an administrative action for the imposition of a civil penalty is commenced does not prevent the imposition of such civil penalty for a failure occurring before that date. An administrative action is commenced with respect to a failure when an investigating official determines in writing to commence an investigation of an allegation of such failure.
( d ) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, by reason of a violation by any person, the agency shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the effect on the ability of such person to continue in business, any prior violations by such person, the degree of culpability of such person, the ability of the person to pay the penalty, and such other matters as may be appropriate.
( e ) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $10,000 and $100,000, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
( f ) An imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not prevent the United States from seeking any other remedy that may apply to the same conduct that is the basis for the imposition of such civil penalty.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

## APR 

# o1 

## 2010

REPLY TO THE ATIENTION OF:
Paul Eger Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Mr. Eger: R-19J 

# RECEIVED APR 11.1 

## 2010 MPCA COMMISSIONERS OFFICE

This letter is in response to your December 30, 2009, submission ofthe Minnesota Regional Haze Plan. Yourequested approval ofthe plan as a revision to your State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have preformed a completeness review onyour submission considering the requirements ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5824) completeness review procedures, as amended August 26, 1991 (26 FR42216). The requirements ofsection 11O(k) ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990 were also taken into account. We have determined that this SIP submission satisfies the completeness criteria and have began to review your request. A finding ofcompleteness merely indicates that the submission meets the criteriathat any plan must satisfy for EPA to take rulemaking action on it. A completeness finding is not a finding on the merits ofthe plan orwhether it meets EPA's SIP approval requirements. My staff is reviewing your submission and will determine ifyourplan satisfies the requirements ofour Regional Haze Rule. Ifyouhave any questions orneed additional information, please contact Cheryl L. Newton, Director ofthe Air and Radiation Division, at 312-353-2212. Sincerely,

# 2!.~~ Acting Regional Administrator

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
### Taconic stratigraphic names: Definitions and synonymies

By: E-an Zen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1174

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Donald Randall Carter, Appellant

No. 06-13-00213-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10-

0080X). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss

and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Donald Randall Carter, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 17, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 182

 165

 158

 153

 153

 155

 158

 155

 158

 160

 166

 174

 195

 215

 209

 225

 279

 252

 247

 263

 327

 381

 411

 379

 456

 384

 307

 233

 241

 222

 227

 155

 150

 146

 146

 148

 149

 148

 150

 152

 155

 159

 163

 168

 177

 180

 182

 182

 186

 189

 191

 192

 192

 195

 201

 214

 207

 203

 198

 195

 198

 196

 170

 157

 150

 148

 150

 151

 150

 152

 154

 158

 163

 169

 177

 185

 186

 189

 196

 196

 204

 207

 209

 216

 224

 231

 260

 253

 241

 212

 209

 207

 207

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 19, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 758

 915

 1,065

 1,213

 1,363

 1,514

 1,664

 1,816

 1,970

 2,128

 2,291

 2,258

 2,236

 2,234

 2,250

 2,282

 2,328

 2,376

 2,430

 2,486

 2,545

 2,609

 2,679

 2,752

 2,849

 2,933

 2,997

 3,024

 3,047

 3,065

 3,076

 54

 65

 76

 87

 97

 108

 119

 130

 141

 152

 164

 161

 160

 160

 161

 163

 166

 170

 174

 178

 182

 186

 191

 197

 204

 210

 214

 216

 218

 219

 220

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
(No. 74-CC-298

#### IBM Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Office of the Comptroller, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 11, 1974.*

IBM Corporation, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Edward L. S. Arkema, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 560

 536

 525

 521

 521

 560

 548

 511

 595

 729

 670

 563

 567

 554

 695

 657

 757

 787

 744

 722

 814

 857

 839

 886

 816

 826

 819

 849

 818

 823

 495

 481

 464

 476

 476

 455

 477

 467

 510

 503

 457

 455

 437

 436

 451

 421

 450

 414

 419

 373

 362

 385

 399

 408

 361

 362

 391

 415

 407

 382

 514

 513

 508

 494

 507

 492

 515

 494

 543

 578

 532

 499

 489

 476

 507

 506

 572

 571

 522

 501

 514

 500

 506

 557

 510

 523

 527

 545

 526

 528

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:December 9, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 334

 333

 330

 321

 329

 320

 334

 321

 352

 373

 345

 324

 318

 310

 329

 329

 369

 369

 339

 326

 334

 325

 329

 360

 331

 339

 342

 353

 341

 342

TOTAL 15,569

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 145

 135

 140

 148

 147

 155

 153

 152

 157

 153

 156

 160

 160

 160

 162

 164

 164

 163

 158

 178

 182

 176

 175

 175

 171

 176

 180

 187

 187

 187

 195

 105

 110

 109

 120

 123

 130

 120

 128

 129

 123

 121

 122

 121

 123

 128

 139

 145

 147

 149

 153

 161

 163

 164

 159

 159

 160

 165

 163

 166

 173

 176

 119

 123

 121

 130

 134

 143

 142

 143

 145

 141

 134

 136

 137

 140

 145

 154

 154

 154

 154

 163

 172

 168

 170

 166

 166

 166

 169

 169

 171

 178

 181

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 11, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 1,900

 1,882

 1,875

 1,884

 1,891

 1,901

 1,900

 1,899

 1,888

 1,884

 1,875

 1,866

 1,872

 1,888

 1,914

 1,945

 1,978

 2,002

 2,022

 2,042

 2,072

 2,097

 2,122

 2,147

 2,179

 2,209

 2,241

 2,270

 2,296

 2,320

 2,347

 136

 134

 134

 135

 135

 136

 136

 136

 135

 135

 134

 133

 134

 135

 137

 139

 141

 143

 144

 146

 148

 150

 152

 153

 156

 158

 160

 162

 164

 166

 168

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 335

 388

 358

 368

 372

 347

 364

 317

 327

 340

 361

 401

 381

 362

 411

 375

 410

 418

 438

 420

 372

 409

 420

 478

 547

 501

 498

 470

 479

 492

 481

 261

 269

 268

 270

 277

 264

 257

 257

 269

 258

 265

 262

 276

 259

 270

 258

 264

 287

 294

 304

 308

 314

 327

 331

 336

 338

 366

 372

 379

 408

 417

 276

 290

 292

 292

 297

 294

 289

 280

 288

 287

 292

 299

 307

 295

 317

 303

 319

 328

 343

 343

 335

 349

 366

 378

 397

 397

 404

 402

 422

 439

 447

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 6, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 187

 195

 196

 196

 200

 198

 195

 189

 194

 193

 196

 201

 206

 198

 212

 203

 213

 219

 228

 228

 223

 232

 242

 250

 261

 261

 266

 264

 277

 287

 292

TOTAL 10,367

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean 14 DAY ACCUM MEAN 14 DAY AVG MEAN

1 1,224 239 431 4,776 341

2 578 229 301 4,799 343

3 879 216 281 4,838 346

4 1,063 203 285 4,885 349

5 721 201 266 4,912 351

6 705 192 263 4,924 352

7 394 189 234 4,774 341

8 369 179 233 4,623 330

9 517 181 245 4,481 320

10 444 194 240 4,301 307

11 400 199 229 4,113 294

12 336 191 215 3,959 283

13 278 163 200 3,821 273

14 241 167 191 3,614 258

15 216 169 186 3,369 241

16 228 169 188 3,256 233

17 234 167 189 3,164 226

18 0 0 0 2,879 206

19 0 0 0 2,613 187

20 0 0 0 2,350 168

21 0 0 0 2,116 151

22 0 0 0 1,883 135

23 0 0 0 1,638 117

24 0 0 0 1,398 100

25 0 0 0 1,169 84

26 0 0 0 954 68

27 0 0 0 754 54

28 0 0 0 563 40

29 0 0 0 377 27

30 0 0 0 189 14

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Emmaton Bottom On The Sacramento River

Period: September 2023 Run Date: 10/6/2023
#### Loubon Realty Corporation, Respondent, v. Regina Moskowitz, Defendant, and Abraham Yarmark et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
§ 650.34 What conditions must be met by fellows? In order to continue to receive payments under a fellowship, a fellow shall— ( a ) Maintain satisfactory progress in the program for which the fellowship was awarded as determined by the institution of higher education;
( b ) Devote essentially full time to study or research in the field in which the fellowship was awarded, as determined by the institution of higher education;
( c ) Not engage in gainful employment during the period of the fellowship except on a part-time basis, for the institution of higher education at which the fellowship was awarded, in teaching, research, or similar activities approved by the Secretary; and
( d ) Begin study under the fellowship in the academic year specified in the fellowship award.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1134-1134d)