alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:35 PM

To: Robert Strieter; Charles D. Johnson; davidwagger@isri.org

Cc: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com Subject: Secondary Aluminum ICR - Submittal of Test Data

I have received some questions concerning what information would be needed from the test reports since they can be quite voluminous. The data that we need is listed below. We would like to receive that information in electronic format, if available. (Ema il to secondaryicr@epa.gov) If the reports are available electronically, then we do not expect them to sort out sections of the report. The whole report is acceptable. It may be possible that we will contact a facility to ask questions about analytical

d ata, raw field data, calibration sheets and data quality control, if we need it.

1) Test date 2) Start, Duration and End time for each test 3) Process Summary 4) Narrative and Project Summary from the laboratory 5) Emitting equipment involved 6) Control devices involved 7) Emission standard 8) Individual run results and overall average

-- production based numbers 9) Throughput 10) Is it part of a SAPU? 11) Test methods

12 Flux rate and flux ID(s), if applicable 13) Lime injection rate, if applicable 14) Afterburner temperature, if applicable

We do not want Analytical Data, Raw Field Data, Calibration sheets and Quality Control Data.

Secondly, I got a call asking about a p ossible extension of the 75 days for completing the ICR. It is highly unlikely that we will grant any extensions due to our time constraints. We were originally allowing 60 days and I am sure that we are going to have many questions for industry as we QA the data and we need a lot of time to do that judging by the time it took us to QA the Primary Aluminum data and we have 10 times as many Secondary Aluminum plants. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711 Mail Drop D243

- 02 Ph: (919) 541

- 1390 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207 Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov
EXHIBIT 32.B








CERTIFICATION 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 for the period ending June 30, 2009, of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the “Company”)
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Sult, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
     /s/
John R. SultJohn R. SultSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)El Paso Natural Gas CompanyAugust 7, 2009
          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso Natural Gas Company and will be retained by El Paso Natural Gas Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<MULTIPLIER>          1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                          26,124
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   31,769
<ALLOWANCES>                    360
<INVENTORY>                     7,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                69,904
<PP&E>                          59,965
<DEPRECIATION>                  46,825
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  100,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           31,519
<BONDS>                         40,666
<COMMON>                        8,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     68
<OTHER-SE>                      12,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    100,377
<SALES>                         23,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                23,712
<CGS>                           17,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   21,928
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                5
<LOSS-PROVISION>                12
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,561
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,271
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .17
        

</TABLE>
#### Frederick M. Sladky et al., Respondents, v Mormile & Sons, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 19, 1978, which (1) denied their motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a timely complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) and (2) granted plaintiffs’ cross motion (a) to be relieved of their default in the timely service of a complaint and (b) for leave to serve a complaint. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on condition that plaintiffs’ attorneys personally pay the sum of $250 to defendants within 20 days after service upon plaintiffs of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof; in the event such condition is not complied with, order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and cross motion denied. The attorneys’ neglect in allegedly placing the summons with notice, and the notice of appearance and demand for a complaint, in the file of a companion action and in not locating those papers or serving a complaint herein until the defendants’ motion papers were served, should not deprive their clients of their day in court. In cases where a default was occasioned by "law office failure”, it has been our policy to visit the penalty for the neglect upon the responsible attorney personally, rather than upon his client (see *Jette v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Centre,*61 AD2d 808; *Moran v Rynar;*39 AD2d 718). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §1736g–1. Assistance in furtherance of narcotics control objectives of United States

#### (a) Substantial injury

Local currencies that are made available for use under this chapter may not be used to finance the production for export of agricultural commodities (or products thereof) that would compete in the world market with similar agricultural commodities (or products thereof) produced in the United States, if such competition would cause substantial injury to the United States producers, as determined by the President.

#### (b) Exception for narcotics control

Notwithstanding subsection (a), the President may provide assistance under this chapter, including assistance through the use of local currencies generated by the sale of commodities under such chapter, for economic development activities undertaken in an eligible country that is a major illicit drug producing country (as defined in section 2291(i)(2) 1 of title 22), for the purpose of reducing the dependence of the economy of such country on the production of crops from which narcotic and psychotropic drugs are derived.

(July 10, 1954, ch. 469, title IV, §414, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1512, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3656.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1991, see section 1513 of Pub. L. 101–624, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 1691 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be section "2291(e)(2)".
§ 211.5 Responsibilities. ( a ) Pursuant to subsection (e)(4) of section 358, the Deputy Secretary of Defense is designated as the senior officer. Only the senior officer may convey to the Secretary of Transportation a determination that a project filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 would result in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.
( b ) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of section 358, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is designated as the senior official. Only the senior official may provide to the senior officer a recommendation that the senior officer determine a project filed with the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 would result in an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.
( c ) Pursuant to subsection (e)(1) of section 358, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), in coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) and the Principal Deputy Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, shall review a proper application for a project filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 and received from the Secretary of Transportation and provide a preliminary assessment of the level of risk of adverse impact on military operations and readiness that would arise from the project and the extent of mitigation that may be needed to address such risk.
( d ) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of section 358, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) is designated as the lead organization. Under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, there is, within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary, a DoD Siting Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse: ( 1 ) Shall have a governing board organized in accordance with DoD Instruction 5105.18, DoD Intergovernmental and Intragovernmental Committee Management Program.
( 2 ) Has an executive director who is a Federal Government employee, appointed by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment).
( 3 ) Performs such duties as assigned in this part and as the Deputy Under Secretary directs.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Hanley Industries, Inc. Under Contract No. W52P1J-10-D-3011 APPEARANCE FORTHEAPPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58628

Donald C. Holmes, Esq.

Greensboro, MD Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Allen D. Stewart, JA CPTAhsan M. Nasar, JA

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled by the parties. Pursuant to their July 2018 Settlement Agreement, execution ofthe contract modification rescinding the Termination for Default and issuing a No-Cost Termination for Convenience, and the government's subsequent motion to dismiss, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: August 14, 2018

TERRENCE S. HARTMAN Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58628, Appeal ofHanley Industries, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1611 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 1611

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 9, 2024.
    Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of 
Representatives for the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress be printed as a House 
document, and that three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound 
for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine hundred eighty copies 
shall be bound in leather with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by 
the Parliamentarian of the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
### §17a. Separability of 1936 amendment

If any provision of the act of June 15, 1936, ch. 545, 49 Stat. 1491, which amends this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the provisions of the section of this chapter which is amended by such provision of said act shall apply to such person or circumstances. No proceeding shall be abated by reason of any amendment to this chapter made by said act but shall be disposed of pursuant to said act.

(June 15, 1936, ch. 545, §12, 49 Stat. 1501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Commodity Exchange Act which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 13 of act June 15, 1936, set out as an Effective Date of 1936 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.
July 23, 2015

Mr. Ryan Wellvang

723 South Wisconsin Avenue

Rice Lake, WI 54868

Dear Mr. Wellvang:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 91.7(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405, 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) 

and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your May 18, 2015, exemption request into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−1754), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions, you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst Airmen and Airspace 

 Rules Division

Enclosure
3
UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 10-Q

[Mark One]

  [X]    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
                              EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                  For the quarterly period ended June 30, 1996

                                       OR

  [ ]    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
                              EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

              For the transition period from ___________ to ______

                         Commission file number 0-20329

                             EIS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                Delaware                            No. 06-1017599
                (State or other jurisdiction        (I.R.S. Employer
                of incorporation)                   Identification Number)

                            1351 Washington Boulevard
                               Stamford, CT 06902

                                  (203)351-4800
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

                                 YES  X    NO
                                     ---      ---

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of
common stock: Common Stock, par value $.01 per share, outstanding as of August
13, 1996: 10,959,158 shares.

                                  Page 1 of 16

<PAGE>

This Amended 10-Q filing is being filed with the Commission for the purpose of 
including our Article 5 Financial Data Schedule which was inadvertantly omitted
from our orignial 10-Q filing of August 14, 1996.

<PAGE>


                                   Signatures

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                      EIS INTERNATIONAL, INC.





Date:----------------------------   By:------------------------------------
                                       Joseph J. Porfeli
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer






Date:----------------------------   By:------------------------------------
                                       Herbert Balzuweit
                                       Executive Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer



                                  Page 16 of 16
§ 757.13 Responsibility for MCRA actions. ( a ) *JAG designees.* ( 1 ) Primary responsibility for investigating, asserting, and collecting Department of the Navy (DON) MCRA claims and properly forwarding MCRA claims to other Federal departments or agencies rests with the following personnel: ( i ) Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation Division) (Code 15); and the
( ii ) Commanding Officer, Naval Legal Service Command Europe and Southwest Asia (NLSC EURSWA), Naples, Italy, in its area of geographic responsibility.
( 2 ) JAG designee may assert and receive full payment on any MCRA claim. Code 15 may agree to compromise or waive claims for $100,000 or less. NLSC EURSWA may agree to compromise or waive claims for $40,000.00 or less. NLSC EURSWA claims in excess of $40,000.00 may be compromised or waived only with Code 15 approval. See Sec. 757.19 for further discussion of waiver and compromise.
( b ) *Navy Medical Treatment Facility (MTF).* ( 1 ) Naval MTFs are responsible for ensuring potential MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 claims are brought to the attention of the appropriate JAG designee.
( 2 ) The MTF reports all potential MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 cases by forwarding a copy of the daily injury log entries and admission records to the cognizant JAG designee within 7 days of treatment for which a third party may be liable. The JAG designee makes the determination of liability. Recovery for the costs of MTF care is based on Diagnostic Related Group rates or a Relative Value Unit. Rates are established by the Office of Management and Budget and/or the DoD, and published annually in the Federal Register.
( c ) *TRICARE Fiscal Intermediary.* The TRICARE fiscal intermediary is required to identify and promptly mail claims involving certain diagnostic codes to the cognizant JAG designee. Claims are asserted for the actual amount that TRICARE paid.
( d ) *Department of Justice (DoJ).* Only the DoJ may authorize compromise or waiver of an MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 claim in excess of $100,000.00 or settle an MCRA/10 U.S.C. 1095 claim in which the third party has filed a suit against the United States as a result of the incident which caused the injury and upon which the claim is based.
[72 FR 53428, Sept. 19, 2007]
§ 2002.44 CUI and disclosure statutes. ( a ) *General policy.* The fact that an agency designates certain information as CUI does not affect an agency's or employee's determinations pursuant to any law that requires the agency or the employee to disclose that information or permits them to do so as a matter of discretion. The agency or employee must make such determinations according to the criteria set out in the governing law, not on the basis of the information's status as CUI.
( b ) *CUI and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).* Agencies must not cite the FOIA as a CUI safeguarding or disseminating control authority for CUI. When an agency is determining whether to disclose information in response to a FOIA request, the agency must base its decision on the content of the information and applicability of any FOIA statutory exemptions, regardless of whether an agency designates or marks the information as CUI. There may be circumstances in which an agency may disclose CUI to an individual or entity, including through a FOIA response, but such disclosure does not always constitute public release as defined in this part. Although disclosed via a FOIA response, the agency may still need to control the CUI while the agency continues to hold the information, despite the disclosure, unless the agency otherwise decontrols it (or the agency includes in its policies that FOIA disclosure always results in public release and the CUI does not otherwise have another legal requirement for its continued control).
( c ) *CUI and the Whistleblower Protection Act.* This part does not change or affect existing legal protections for whistleblowers. The fact that an agency designates or marks certain information as CUI does not determine whether an individual may lawfully disclose that information under a law or other authority, and does not preempt or otherwise affect whistleblower legal protections provided by law, regulation, or executive order or directive.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leo Brace, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 11, 1976, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Latham, J. P., Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cohalan and Margett, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and order a new trial, with the following memorandum:

Prior to the trial the defendant was notified that the People intended to introduce an admission allegedly made by the defendant to the arresting officer. At a suppression hearing this admission, "F_ it, I did it”, was held admissible as a spontaneous declaration. Two months later, at the trial, a detective who indicated that he was present at the arrest, testified that the defendant stated, in the presence of the detective and the arresting officer, "All right, I threw him out the window.” The defendant was not given any notice prior to the trial that the People intended to introduce this statement. The defendant’s trial counsel failed to object to the introduction of this statement. In the interest of justice, we have reviewed the defendant’s argument with regard to that statement (see CPL 470.15, subd 6, par [a]). We hold that the failure to inform the defendant of the People’s intent to introduce the latter admission was a violation of the statutory mandate of CPL 710.30 (subd 1) and, under the facts of this case, warrants a reversal of the judgment of conviction and a new trial. We have considered the other arguments raised by the defendant, and find them to be without merit.
#### § 37.1275 DoD Component.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense, a Military Department, a Defense Agency, or a DoD Field Activity.