alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Reeves, David

To: "Pettis, Mike"

Cc: Hancy, Cindy Wang
Subject: RE: Owens Corning FG1 Data set follow-up

Date: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:58:06 PM



### Hi Mike. We went back and reviewed the FG1 value from the 2002 test and found that we made a

summing error on two of the runs and we agree with your value. We then went back and reviewed

our UPL analysis and determined that the end result would not change – however, with new data

and information from comments, the proposal calculations may or may not be relevant to the final

analysis.

Regards -

Dave Reeves

RTI International dwreeves@rti.org (919) 316-3739

From: Pettis, Mike [mailto:mike.pettis@owenscorning.com]

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:22 PM

To: Reeves, David Subject: RE: Owens Corning FG1 Data set follow-up

I am on the phone so could not take your call. If you give me a number I will call you when you I get off.



# Michael Pettis

740-328-2468 740-877-7087 (cell)



## Make the World a Better Place

_____________________________________________ From: Pettis, Mike

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:49 PM

To: 'dwreeves@rti.org'

Cc: 'Angus Crane'; 'Chris Pool' Subject: Owens Corning FG1 Data set follow-up

Dave, Thanks for your time today.

As discussed on the call the Newark and Kansas City data sets reconcile but we were unable to do the FG1

particulate data reconciliation at the time of the call. Data from Nov 2002 was presented to us as being .0048,

.011, .011 (lbs/ton) for the three individual tests. When we look at the data set we get 0.0066 + 0.0113 lb/ton

for the first test, 0.0061 + 0.0173 lb/ton for the second usable test, and 0.0080 + 0.0187 lb/ton for the third

usable test. Resulting in test results being 0.0179, 0.0234, and 0.0267 lb/ton for the three tests resulting in an

average of 0.0227 lb/ton which is significantly different that the .0089 which was related to us in the call and was

used to calculate the MACT floor. I was unable to reconcile your results for that data. I would like to point outthat the second test of the series of both stacks was not utilized due to a failed leak check on one stack.

Without discarding the other stack test result at the same time the production data handling gets to be an

issue. Even so your results are about half of what we calculate from the same data set.



# Michael Pettis

740-328-2468 740-877-7087 (cell)



## Make the World a Better Place

The information contained in this communication and its attachment(s) is intended only for

the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify postmaster@owenscorning.com and delete the communication without retaining any copies. Thank you.

Translations available: http://www.owenscorning.com/emailfooter.html
### §5603. Symbol of office of Sergeant at Arms

The symbol of his office shall be the mace, which shall be borne by him while enforcing order on the floor.

(Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1256, §2, 26 Stat. 645.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 79 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
REGULAR MAIL 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Richard]. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

May 8, 2012 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

~lefCrEO~[E~ 

MAY 14 2012 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Re: Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc., d/b/a Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, 

L.L.C. 

Docket No. 16-12-04. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing please find an original and three copies of Complainants' Reply in 

Support of Complaint and Notice of Partial Dismissal in the captioned matter. One copy is 

unbound, as requested by the FAA. 

enc. 

cc: p('· Glen I. Kllnura, Esq. 

Frank Hinshaw
§ 752.203 Procedures. ( a ) *Statutory entitlements.* An employee under this subpart whose suspension is proposed under this subpart is entitled to the procedures provided in 5 U.S.C. 7503(b).
( b ) *Notice of proposed action.* The notice must state the specific reason(s) for the proposed action, and inform the employee of his or her right to review the material which is relied on to support the reasons for action given in the notice. The notice must further include detailed information with respect to any right to appeal the action pursuant to section 1097(b)(2)(A) of Public Law 115-91, the forums in which the employee may file an appeal, and any limitations on the rights of the employee that would apply because of the forum in which the employee decides to file.
( c ) *Employee's answer.* The employee must be given a reasonable time, but not less than 24 hours, to answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of the answer.
( d ) *Representation.* An employee covered by this subpart is entitled to be represented by an attorney or other representative. An agency may disallow as an employee's representative an individual whose activities as representative would cause a conflict of interest or position, or an employee of the agency whose release from his or her official position would give rise to unreasonable costs or whose priority work assignments preclude his or her release.
( e ) *Agency decision.* ( 1 ) In arriving at its decision, the agency will consider only the reasons specified in the notice of proposed action and any answer of the employee or his or her representative, or both, made to a designated official.
( 2 ) The agency must specify in writing the reason(s) for the decision and advise the employee of any grievance rights under paragraph (f) of this section. The agency must deliver the notice of decision to the employee on or before the effective date of the action.
( f ) *Grievances.* The employee may file a grievance through an agency administrative grievance system (if applicable) or, if the suspension falls within the coverage of an applicable negotiated grievance procedure, an employee in an exclusive bargaining unit may file a grievance only under that procedure. Sections 7114(a)(5) and 7121(b)(1)(C) of title 5, U.S. Code, and the terms of any collective bargaining agreement, govern representation for employees in an exclusive bargaining unit who grieve a suspension under this subpart through the negotiated grievance procedure.
( g ) *Agency records.* The agency must maintain copies of, and will furnish to the Merit Systems Protection Board and to the employee upon their request, the following documents: ( 1 ) Notice of the proposed action;
( 2 ) Employee's written reply, if any;
( 3 ) Summary of the employee's oral reply, if any;
( 4 ) Notice of decision; and
( 5 ) Any order effecting the suspension, together with any supporting material.
[74 FR 63532, Dec. 4, 2009, as amended at 85 FR 65985, Oct. 16, 2020; 87 FR 67782, Nov. 10, 2022]
|EXHIBIT 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                     
|   



|Date: June 27, 2007
|-------------------

/s/ Andrew C. FrenetteAndrew C. FrenetteChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Francis M. Yokem *v.*Andrew J. Lovell.

*Filed at Springfield June 14, 1883.*

*Appeal—in forcible detainer.*An appeal does not lie from a judgment in an action of forcible detainer from the trial court to this court, there being no freehold involved.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pike county; the Hon. S. P. Shope, Judge, presiding.

Mr. J. S. Irwin, for the appellant.

Messrs. Matthews,- Wike & Higbee, for the appellee.

Per Curiam :

Appellee entered a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that a freehold was not involved. The action was forcible detainer, and the appeal taken from the circuit court directly to this court. The same question here involved arose in *Kepley*v. *Luke,*106 Ill. 395, and we there held that the appeal would not lie. That decision is conclusive of the question.

The appeal will be dismissed. Leave will be given appellant to withdraw record, abstracts and briefs, to be filed in the Appellate Court, if he desires.

*Appeal dismissed.*
§ 511.101 Definitions. In this part: ( a ) *Agency* and *employee* have the meanings given them by section 5102 of title 5, United States Code.
( b ) *Class* means all positions which are sufficiently similar as to ( 1 ) kind or subject-matter of work,
( 2 ) level of difficulty and responsibility, and
( 3 ) the qualification requirements of the work, to warrant similar treatment in personnel and pay administration.
( c ) *Classification* means the analysis and identification of a position and placing it in a class under the position-classification plan established by OPM under chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code.
( d ) *Grade* means all classes of positions which (although different with respect to kind or subject-matter of work) are sufficiently equivalent as to ( 1 ) level of difficulty and responsibility, and
( 2 ) level of qualification requirements of the work, to warrant their inclusion within one range of rates of basic pay.
( e ) *Position* means the work, consisting of the duties and responsibilities, assigned by competent authority for performance by an employee.
§ 7201.102 Prohibited outside employment. ( a ) No employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may engage in outside employment with a person who is currently and substantially affected by the employee's performance of his or her official duties because the person is a party or representative of a party to a particular matter involving specific parties.
( b ) No employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, other than a special Government employee, may receive compensation for representational services, or the rendering of advice or analysis, regarding any equal employment law or its application.
( c ) No employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, other than a special Government employee, may engage in outside employment involving a particular matter pending at EEOC or an equal employment opportunity matter in which EEOC or the Federal government is a party. An employee may, however, with prior approval, provide uncompensated behind-the-scenes assistance to immediate family members in matters pending at EEOC or equal employment opportunity matters in which EEOC or the Federal government is a party. An employee may also, with prior approval, represent without compensation another EEOC employee in an administrative equal employment opportunity complaint against EEOC.
[61 FR 7066, Feb. 26, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 52486, Sept. 4, 2003]
Board Coverage Decision

2010-44.9

Railway Transfer Company of the City of

Minneapolis

Employer Coverage Terminated*

No Decision Published

BA # 4612
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-05-014 April 6, 2005

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE AT HATCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff are scheduled to meet with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company officials April 13 to discuss the NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the Hatch

nuclear power plant, located near Baxley, Ga. The period covered is the calendar year 2004.

The 4 p.m. meeting at Southeastern Tech in Vidalia is open to public observation. Before the

meeting ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public questions on the plant’s safety

performance, as well as the agency’s role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the Hatch plant and all of the nation’s other

commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. “This meeting

gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, with local officials and with residents

near the plant. Our aim is to make this information available to the public and answer any questions

people may have about our oversight.”

 Overall, the Hatch plant operated safely during 2004. The NRC uses color-coded inspection

findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green”

and increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues

involved. The Hatch plant had nothing classified beyond “green” during 2004. Based on these results

and overall performance, Hatch will receive the baseline, or normal, level of inspections during 2005. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/hat_2004q4.pdf .

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by

inspection specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville,

Md. In addition to the baseline inspections in 2005, the NRC plans inspections of the underconstruction spent fuel storage installation.

Current information for the Hatch plant is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/HAT1/hat1_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/HAT2/hat2_chart.html .

###
§ 2608.202 Factors OGE will consider. The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may grant an employee permission to testify on matters relating to official information, or produce official records and information, in response to a demand or request. Among the relevant factors that the General Counsel may consider in making this decision are whether: ( a ) The purposes of this part are met;
( b ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice;
( c ) OGE has an interest in the decision that may be rendered in the legal proceeding;
( d ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would assist or hinder OGE in performing its statutory duties or use OGE resources where responding to the demand or request will interfere with the ability of OGE employees to do their work;
( e ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be in the best interest of OGE or the United States;
( f ) The records or testimony can be obtained from other sources;
( g ) The demand or request is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand or request arose;
( h ) Disclosure would violate a statute, Executive order or regulation;
( i ) Disclosure would reveal confidential, sensitive, or privileged information, trade secrets or similar, confidential commercial or financial information, otherwise protected information, or information which would otherwise be inappropriate for release;
( j ) Disclosure would impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceedings, or compromise constitutional rights;
( k ) Disclosure would result in OGE appearing to favor one litigant over another;
( l ) Disclosure relates to documents that were produced by another agency;
( m ) A substantial Government interest is implicated;
( n ) The demand or request is within the authority of the party making it; and
( o ) The demand or request is sufficiently specific to be answered.
Exhibit 99.1



AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT



THIS AMENDMENT is made this 28th day of July, 2004, by and between FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, doing business in Florida as First Advantage Holding, Inc.
(the Borrower), a Delaware corporation and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (the Bank).



Recitals



The Borrower and the Bank executed a Security Agreement (as amended from time to time, the Security Agreement) dated July 31, 2003. The parties wish to amend the Security Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof.



NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the
parties agree as follows:



1. The term Note as
defined in the Recitals to the Security Agreement is hereby amended so that, from and after the date hereof, the term Note shall mean that certain Renewal Promissory Note dated July 28, 2004, executed by the Borrower in favor of the Bank
in the principal amount of $15,000,000.00 (as such Note may be amended, extended or renewed from time to time).



2. The Borrower certifies that as of the date hereof: (a) all of its representations and warranties in the Security Agreement are true and correct as if
made on the date hereof; and (b) no Default or Event of Default has occurred under the Security Agreement. The Security Agreement, as modified herein, shall continue in full force and effect from and after the date hereof.



DATED the day and year first above written.



BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.By:

/s/ David I. Suellau IIIts:

Senior Vice President




FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, doing business in Florida as FIRST ADVANTAGE HOLDING, INC.By:

/s/ John LamsonIts:

Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 64735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Red Lessons Learned 
will meet in closed session on November 18, 2004, at SAIC, 4001 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. This Task Force will assess what useful 
information can our adversaries learn from U.S. military engagement 
and, particularly, what might they have learned from Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; identify the channels through 
which adversaries learn about U.S. capabilities; is there any evidence 
an adversary is adjusting to U.S. capabilities and what might the U.S. 
do to counter this; what are the indicators or observables that the 
Intelligence Community can focus on to determine if an adversary is 
engaging in this type of practice and do the indicators change in 
peacetime or wartime; do different technology insertion models exist; 
is there any evidence potential adversaries are targeting the seams in 
the U.S. command and control alignment and planning process; and the 
preceding areas of concern focus primarily on the military operations 
phases, are the potential adversaries observing, analyzing and adapting 
during the preparation and stabilization phase?
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: November 1, 2004.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-24786 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
### Design Line 13 - Loss A**djustment Calculations**
**KVA 1500**  **1500 1500**  **Voltage 12470-480Y**  **25000-480Y 34500-480Y**  **BIL (kv) 95/10**  **125/10 150/10**  **DL DL12**  **DL13 DL13**  **Core Const** M4 MITER M4 MITER H1/M3 MITERM4 MITERH1/M3 MITER H0-DR **Construction** Round (disk) Round (disk) Round (disk) **Efficiency**

**Level** EL2 **Current DOE Level** 99.12% 99.09% 99.09% 99.09% 99.09% **DOE Efficiency** 99.30% ? ? **Max DOE watts** 5287 **Impedance** 5.75% 5.75% 5.75% **NL (W)** 2709 3853 3211 4546 3788 3476 **FL (W) (50%, 75 C)** 2540 2329 2329 2272 2272 2272 **Total W** 5249 6182 5540 6818 6060 5748 **Watss Change to EL2** 17.77% 5.54% 29.89% 15.46% 9.51% **Calc Efficiency** 99.30% 99.18% 99.10% 99.20% **Conductor Weight** 1344 1226 1230 **Core Weight** 6308 8805 10489 **Conductor** AL AL AL **Primary A**  **/si** 600 598 586 **Secondary**

**A /si**  820 821 784 **Flux (KL)** 89.1 89.8 89.4 **Flux (KG)** 13.8139534913.92248062 13.86046512

0900006481131c19.xlsx 10/4/2012 **Coil Length (in)** 54 59 65 **Core Height** 57 62 68 **End Margin** 5.5 8 10 **Coil OD** 22.125 25.75 27.5 **Core Height (in)** 77 84 92 **High Low** 1.3125 2.12 2.8 **Primary Mean Turn**  62.2 71.6 76.9 

### Summary According to this data, designs greater than 95 BIL are already equivalent to the agreed upon efficiency of EL2 for DL12 based on a worse case scenario of 150 BIL. Equivalent current densities, flux densities, core construction and impedances force the losses up 30% from a similar 15 kv class 95 BIL design. Theuse of high

-B core steel (H0

-DR) allowed for a more efficient design to achieve an increase in losses of 10% as agreed to by the NEMA proposal.

0900006481131c19.xlsx 10/4/2012