alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
‘0S11.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

X\IfL REGION IX

L PRO 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105.3901

APR 0

r. aron . ynn REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Hunton and Williams, LLP

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Flynn:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received the petition you submitted on February

4, 2013 on behalf of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), seeking

reconsideration and a stay of effectiveness of certain elements of EPA’s final rule entitled “Approval,

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and

Federal Implementation Plans” as it applies to the Coronado Generating Station (Coronado). 77 FR

72512 (December 5, 2012).

As indicated in your petition, EPA proposed to set emissions limits for nitrogen oxides (NO) of 0.050

lb/MMBtu and 0.080 lb/MMBtu (based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average) fbr Coronado

Units 1 and 2 respectively. 77 FR 42834, 42869 (July 20, 2012). th response to comments received

during the public comment period, our final rule set a single plant-wide limit across the two Coronado

units of 0.065 lb/MMBtu. In addition, the final rule established a compliance determination method that

ensures inclusion ofthirty boiler-operating days of emissions data for both units, even if both units are

not operating. With respect to Coronado, we explained that, “during periods when only one unit

operates, this method allows the one operating unit to average out short-term emission spikes by using

the most recent thirty boiler-operating-day value from the non-operating unit.” 77 FR 72527. SRP’s

petition seeks reconsideration of this element of our final rule pursuant to Clean Air Action section

3 07(d)(7)(B).

In response to your petition, EPA is granting reconsideration of the compliance methodology for NO at

Coronado. Accordingly, EPA plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on an

alternative compliance methodology for NOx at Coronado. In addition, because we initially proposed

different NOx emission limits for Coronado Units 1 and 2, we also intend to seek comment on the

emission limits for each of those two units. At this time, EPA is not acting on any other portion of SRP’s

petition, including SRP’s request for stay of the final rule.

If you have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contact Charlotte Withey at

(415) 972-3915 or Lea Anderson at (202) 564-5571. We thank you for your continued interest in this

rule and look forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process.

cc: See next page

Printed on Recycled Paper
cc: Eric Massey, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Joseph P. Mikitish, Arizona Attorney General’s Office

Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice

Arizona Congressional Delegation

Kelly Barr, Kara Montalvo and Karilee Ramaley, SRP
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > War and Postwar Wages, Prices, and Hours, 1914-23 and 1939-44

              																	Bowden, Witt, 1886-1979					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*War and Postwar Wages, Prices, and Hours, 1914-23 and 1939-44 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 852*,												Washington: 								For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1946,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4318,			accessed on August 15, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Average Hourly Earnings in the Airframe Industry, 1943

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Average Hourly Earnings in the Airframe Industry, 1943 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 790*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4265,			accessed on September 20, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 2400.11 Duration of classification. ( a ) Information shall be classified as long as required by national security considerations. When it can be determined, a specific date or event for declassification shall be set by the original classification authority at the time the information is originally classified.
( b ) Automatic declassification determinations under predecessor Executive Orders shall remain valid unless the classification is extended by an authorized official of the originating agency. These extensions may be by individual documents or categories of information. The originating agency shall be responsible for notifying holders of the information of such extensions.
( c ) Information classified under predecessor Executive Orders and marked for declassification review shall remain classified until reviewed for declassification under the provisions of Executive Order 12356.
( d ) Information classified under predecessor Executive Orders that does not bear a specific date or event for declassification shall remain classified until reviewed for declassification. The authority to extend the classification of information subject to automatic declassification under predecessor Orders is limited to those officials who have classification authority over the information and are designated in writing to have original classification authority at the level of the information to remain classified. Any decision to extend this classification on other than a document-by-document basis shall be reported to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 09, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 09, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0160. JAMES CHARLES HARRIS et al. v. MARILYN MARTIN. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 19EV005153
#### § 37.1120 When and how may I request an award-specific audit?

Guidance on when and how you should request additional audits for expenditure-based TIAs is identical to the guidance for grants officers in 32 CFR 34.16(d). If you require an award-specific examination or audit of a for-profit participant's records related to a TIA, you must use the auditor specified in the award terms and conditions, which should be the same auditor who performs periodic audits of the participant. The DCAA and the OIG, DoD, are possible sources of advice on audit-related issues, such as appropriate audit objectives and scope.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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

I, Alan F. Krock hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of PMC on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                      |  |     |  |                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Alan F. Krock           
|                      |  |     |  | Alan F. Krock               
|                      |  |     |  | Vice President              
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and 
|                      |  |     |  | Principal Accounting Officer
### §921a. Integration of detection equipment and technologies

#### (a) Responsibility of Secretary

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have responsibility for ensuring that domestic chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear detection equipment and technologies are integrated, as appropriate, with other border security systems and detection technologies.

#### (b) Report

Not later than 6 months after August 3, 2007, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that contains a plan to develop a departmental technology assessment process to determine and certify the technology readiness levels of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear detection technologies before the full deployment of such technologies within the United States.

(Pub. L. 110–53, title XI, §1104, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 380.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, and not as part of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, also known as the SAFE Port Act, which comprises this chapter.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Quieting the boom : the shapedsonic boom demonstrator and the quest for quiet supersonic flight [electronicresource].**
 
pdf|epub|mobi
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.120:F 64/3

Item Number: 0830-C-46 (online)

CGP systemNumber:001056523
August 22, 2018
Exhibit 12
 Sybase, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (1)  (Dollars in thousands, except for ratios)
 2009
    
    2008
    
    2007
    
    2006
    
    2005Earnings:Income before income taxes
attributable to Sybase,
Inc.
    
    $
    252,017
    
    
    $
    189,689
    
    
    $
    173,527
    
    
    $
    145,870
    
    
    $
    124,186Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    48,807
    
    
    
    39,544
    
    
    
    38,394
    
    
    
    37,147
    
    
    
    32,761Total Earnings, as defined
    
    
    300,824
    
    
    
    229,233
    
    
    
    211,921
    
    
    
    183,017
    
    
    
    156,947Fixed ChargesInterest Expense
    
    
    38,063
    
    
    
    27,366
    
    
    
    26,449
    
    
    
    25,324
    
    
    
    20,951Amortization of debt expense
    
    
    2,332
    
    
    
    1,609
    
    
    
    1,608
    
    
    
    1,609
    
    
    
    1,364Estimated interest portion
on rental expense
    
    
    8,412
    
    
    
    10,569
    
    
    
    10,337
    
    
    
    10,214
    
    
    
    10,446Total Fixed Charges
    
    
    48,807
    
    
    
    39,544
    
    
    
    38,394
    
    
    
    37,147
    
    
    
    32,761Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    6.2
    
    
    
    5.8
    
    
    
    5.5
    
    
    
    4.9
    
    
    
    4.8
 
 (1)
    
    As adjusted to reflect the adoption of FASB amendments to existing guidance on
convertible debt, noncontrolling interests, earnings per share computations, and
other-than-temporary impairment determinations of investments. See Note One  Summary of
Significant Accounting Policies and Note Eight  Convertible Notes in the Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements, Part II, Item 8. - 125 -
Reply To Attn. Of: U.\lll**t:U~'lA l"E~** **t:N'JiHUI~j!:l'4,**A""rJHU, C\,;, lUI" i-'uc,lil\'; '( REGION 10 1200SixthAvenue Seattle, WA981 01 

### SEP 

### 1 9 ZOCl

WCM-127 

### v**'.~~.~.** Greg Sorlie, Program Manager Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program Washington State Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600

.Dear

# Mr_?Gr15fI wish to thank

# iol and your staff for all the preliminary work done on the development of this major. hazardous waste program revision and for working so**dilig~ntly** with us on resolving many concerns prior to the submittal of the authorization revision application.

In accordance with the established review procedures, EPA must first determine whether the State's revision application is complete and notify the State accordingly. If the application is found to be complete, EPA then has 90 days to process and publish

our determination. As of today, Region 10 has determined the authorization revision application received on August 2, 2001, to be complete.

I want you to know that the processing of this major authorization revision application is a high priority for this office and my staff.

If you have any questions regarding the status of this pending authorization**dete~ination** please call Nina Kocourek at (206) 553-6502 or me at (206) 553-1846.

# Sed1~ Richard**A~right,** Director Office of Waste 

### & Chemicals Management

cc: Patricia Hervieux, Ecology HQ Colleen G. Warren, Assistant Attorney General



# o PrintedonRecycledPaper
exv10w5



 





Exhibit 10.5




EXTENSION OF LOAN



This Extension of Loan (“Extension”) by and between The Fashion House Holdings, Inc, (the
“Company”) and Diaz Management, Inc, a New York corporation (the “Lender”) is
effective as of February 12, 2006.




RECITALS





	 	A.	 	The Company and the Lender entered in a loan agreement in the amount of $125,000 (the
“Bridge Loan”) which was due and payable on February 12, 2006.
	 
	 	B.	 	The Company has requested an extension of the Promissory Note underlying the Bridge
Loan for an additional 60 day period. Lender is willing to grant this extension in exchange
for the issuance of an additional warrant for the purchase of 55,000 shares of the
Company’s common stock (the “Warrant”)




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Company hereby agrees as follows with Lender:





	 	1.	 	The due date for the Bridge Loan shall be extended for an additional 60 day period
following the Loan Closing Date. Specifically, Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement shall be
amended to read as follows






“2.4 Maturity Date. Unless the Loan is earlier accelerated pursuant
to the terms hereof, the Loan and all accrued Interest thereon shall
be due and payable in full on the earlier of (a) the date that is
120 days following the Loan Closing Date or (b) the final closing
date of the Private Placement. In the event that the Private
Placement is not consummated within 120 days after the Loan Closing
Date, the Lender may, at the Lender’s option, extend the Maturity
Date on such terms and conditions as determined by the Lender in its
sole discretion.”




	 	2.	 	All other terms of the Bridge Loan shall remain unchanged. Any capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Loan Agreement.
	 
	 	3.	 	The Company shall issue to the Lender a Warrant in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A. The Warrant shall be immediately convertible into 55,000 shares of
common stock of the Company and the exercise price of the Warrant shall be $0.80 per share.





 









 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company has executed this Extension as of the date first set forth above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	THE FASHION HOUSE HOLDINGS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	John Hanna	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	DIAZ MANAGEMENT, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Gualberto Diaz	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Vice President	 	 






2
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-406-CV

BASSAM MUHAMMED NAJEM	APPELLANT

	V.

TAHIR YASIN AL-SEBAHI	APPELLEE

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

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Bassam Muhammed Najem attempts to appeal from the trial court’s final judgment in favor of Appellee Tahir Yasin Al-Sebahi.  The trial court’s judgment was signed on February 27, 2009.  Najem’s notice of appeal was therefore due either March 30, 2009, for a direct appeal or August 27, 2009, for a restricted appeal, but it was not filed until November 12, 2009.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.1(c).

	On November 30, 2009, we notified Najem of our concern that this court may not have jurisdiction over the appeal and informed him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.  We have received no response.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  MEIER, LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  January 14, 2010
Amendment to Change of Control Agreement with Robert J. Griffin dated April
      3, 2006


    EXHIBIT
      10.4

    


    


    


    


    


    


    April
      3,
      2006

    


    Mr.
      Robert J. Griffin

    Vice
      President, Power Supply

    Planning
      & Risk Management

    Green
      Mountain Power Corporation

    163
      Acorn
      Lane

    Colchester,
      VT 05446

    


    Re:
      Amendment to Change of Control Agreement

    


    Dear
      Bob:

    


    Please
      sign in the space indicated below to confirm your agreement that (i) the Change
      of Control Agreement, dated February 10, 2004 (the “Agreement”), between you and
      Green Mountain Power Corporation (the “Company”) shall be amended to reflect
      your new position as Vice President, Power Supply Planning & Risk
      Management, and (ii) except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain
      unchanged and in full force and effect. 

    


    Very
      truly yours,

    


    


    By:/s/
      Nordahl L. Brue   

    Nordahl
      L. Brue, Chairman

    Board
      of
      Directors

    Green
      Mountain Power Corporation

    


    AGREED
      to this
      3rd

    day
      of
      April, 2006 

    


    


    /s/
      Robert J. Griffin    

    Robert
      J.
      Griffin

    Vice
      President, Power Supply

    Planning
      & Risk Management

    Green
      Mountain Power Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>          DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                        5,296,735 
<SECURITIES>                       0    
<RECEIVABLES>                      0    
<ALLOWANCES>                       0    
<INVENTORY>                        0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              5,296,735 
<PP&E>                             0    
<DEPRECIATION>                     0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                5,296,735 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0    
<BONDS>                            0    
<COMMON>                           0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0    
<PREFERRED>                        0    
<OTHER-SE>                    5,296,735 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  5,296,735 
<SALES>                       2,771,229 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              3,158,154 
<CGS>                              0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,088,275 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                740,893 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              922,028 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (593,042)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (591,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                9,103,674 
<EXTRAORDINARY>               7,960,843 
<CHANGES>                    (3,248,506)
<NET-INCOME>                 13,225,011 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     78.32 
<EPS-DILUTED>                     78.32 

        


</TABLE>