alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3201.102 Engine crankcase oils. ( a ) *Definition.* Lubricating products formulated to provide lubrication and wear protection for four-cycle gasoline or diesel engines.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 25 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than June 11, 2014, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased engine crankcase oils. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased engine crankcase oils.
( d ) *Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content product.* Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product: Re-refined lubricating oils. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide information on the USDA Web site of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the product, information on whether or not the product contains any recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance standards against which the product has been tested. This information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated re-refined lubricating oil products and which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
Note to paragraph ( d
):
Engine crankcase oils within this designated product category can compete with similar re-refined lubricating oil products with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated re-refined lubricating oil products containing recovered materials as products for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.17.
[78 FR 34872, June 11, 2013]
FORM OF STOCK OPTION GRANT (1999)



 Exhibit 10.6 
  
 NON-QUALIFIED 
 Stock Option 
  
 Granted Under Millipore Corporation

 1999 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors 
  
 Stock Option granted by Millipore Corporation a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) to __________________ (the
“Optionee”), pursuant to Millipore’s 1999 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Plan”). 
  

	1.	Grant of Option 

  
 This certificate evidences the grant by the Company on __________________to the Optionee of an option to purchase, in whole or in part, on the terms
herein provided, a total of ________ shares of Common Stock of the Company (the “Shares”) at $________ per Share. The Final Exercise Date of this option (as that term is used in the Plan) is [date 10 years following date of grant stated
above]. 
  
 This option is exercisable in the following
installments prior to the Final Exercise Date: 
  

	2.	Exercise of Option 

  
 Each election to exercise this option shall be in writing, signed by the Optionee or by the Optionee’s executor or administrator or the person or
persons to whom this option is transferred by will or the applicable laws of descent and distribution (the “Legal Representative”), and received by the Company at its principal office, accompanied by this certificate and payment in full as
provided in the Plan. The purchase price may be paid by delivery of cash, certified check, bank draft, money order, or other payment medium approved by the Company. In the event that this option is exercised by the Optionee’s Legal
Representative, the Company shall be under no obligation to deliver Shares hereunder unless and until the Company is satisfied as to the authority of the person or persons exercising this option. 








	3.	Non-Transferability of Option 

  
 This option is not transferable by the Optionee other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and is exercisable during the Optionee’s
lifetime only by the Optionee. 
  

	4.	Provision of the Plan 

  
 This option is subject to the provisions of the Plan. 
  

	5.	Special Provisions 

  
 This option is automatically subject to the “Special Exercise Period” provided under the Plan (without further consent of the Company) if the
optionee’s services as a director terminate due to retirement at age 72 or such other age as the Board of Directors may determine from time to time. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this option to be exercised under its corporate seal by its duly authorized officer. This option shall take effect as a sealed
instrument. 
  
 Please acknowledge receipt of this certificate by signing and
returning the enclosed copy to my attention. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	 MILLIPORE CORPORATION

	
	  


	 Jeffrey Rudin

	 Vice President

	
	  


	 Date



  
 Receipt and acceptance of the
foregoing is hereby acknowledged: 
  

	
	  


	
	  


	Date
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.35    
    


DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION  



	•
	Non-employee
directors receive annual directors fees of $43,000 paid quarterly, in advance.



	•
	Audit
committee members receive Titan stock valued at $7,000 per quarter, other committee members receive stock valued at $5,000 per quarter.



	•
	Committee
chairpersons also receive chairperson's fees of $1,500 paid quarterly, in advance, in additional compensation.



	•
	Non-employee
directors receive an option grant to purchase 5,000 shares of Titan stock at fair market value on date of grant upon first election or appointment
to the Board.



	•
	Non-employee
directors receive an annual option grant to purchase 5,000 shares of Titan stock at fair market value on the date of grant, awarded in February each
year.



	•
	Non-employee
directors will receive the following fees for attendance at any meeting of the Board of Directors of Titan in excess of two meetings per quarter:
(a) a fee of $500 per telephonic meeting; and (b) a fee of $1,000 per in person meeting.



	•
	Ad
Hoc Committee members will receive the following fees for meeting attendance: (a) a fee of $500 per telephonic meeting; and (b) a fee of $1,000 per in
person meeting.



	•
	All
meeting fees for meeting attendance are paid quarterly in arrears on the first business day of the next quarter for meetings held in the preceding quarter. Directors may
elect to receive all or a portion of the annual retainer, committee chairperson fees and any meeting fees in awards of unrestricted common stock of Titan under Titan's 2000 and 2002 Employee and
Director Stock Option and Incentive Plan. For meeting fees, the number of shares subject to each stock award is determined by dividing the total fees payable for which a stock election has been made
by a price per share equal to the average of the daily average of the high and low price as quoted on the New York Stock Exchange of Titan common stock on each trading day during the fiscal quarter
for which the fees are payable. For annual retainer, committee and committee chairperson fees, the number of shares subject to each stock award is determined by dividing the total fees payable for
which a stock election has been made by a price per share equal to the average of the high and low price as quoted on the New York Stock Exchange of Titan common stock on the first trading day during
the fiscal quarter for which the fees are payable. 
















QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.35
97-1626.

#### Chamberlain v. AK Steel Corp.

Butler App. No. CA97-04-074. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 389, 696 N.E.2d 569. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MATTHEW DONOVAN, in his official

capacity as Acting Secretary of the United

States Air Force,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 5:19-cvVERIFIED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAdllFF, CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS (hereinafter "PHILLIPS"), by and through

the undersigned counsel, files this Verified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against

Defendant, MATTHEW DONOVAN (hereinafter "DONOVAN"), in his official capacity

as Acting Secretary of the United States Air Force, and states:

JURISDICTION

1. The venue of this action is properly placed in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this

district. At all times relevant, PHILLIPS was employed by DONOVAN. PHILLIPS also

invokes this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 on grounds that this action arises

Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 5 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 6 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 7 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 8 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 9 of 10
Case 5:19-cv-00376-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 10/04/19 Page 10 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 2 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 3 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 4 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 5 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 6 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 7 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 8 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 9 of 10
Case 4:02-cv-00156-WS Document 1 Filed 05/02/02 Page 10 of 10
Exhibit 10.2
  MULTIPLE ADVANCE TERM LOAN SUPPLEMENT
 THIS SUPPLEMENT FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF AMERICA, FLCA ABE FAIRMONT,
LLC, Fairmont, Nebraska
 SECTION 1. The Term Loan Commitment.
 SECTION
2. Purpose.
 SECTION 3. Term.
 SECTION 4. Interest.
 (A) One-Month
LIBOR Index Rate. (
 (B) Quoted
Rate.
 (C) LIBOR.




---



##### 



Multiple Advance Term Loan Supplement RI0340T01E
    
    -2-
 
   SECTION 5. Promissory Note.




---



##### 



Multiple Advance Term Loan Supplement RI0340T01E
    
    -3-
 
  plus minus
 SECTION 6. Prepayment.
 SECTION 7. Security.
 SECTION 8. Amendment Fee.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 FARM CREDIT SERVICES
OF AMERICA, FLCA
    
    ABE FAIRMONT, LLCBy ADVANCED BIOENERGY, LLC,its sole memberBy:
    

/s/ Kathryn Frahm
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Richard PetersonTitle:
    
    VP Credit
    
    Title:
    
    CEO/CFO
NT 4-28-11
PUBLIC LAW 108–306—SEPT. 24, 2004 118 STAT. 1131

Public Law 108–306

108th Congress

An Act

To provide an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business

Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 through September 30,

2004, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS

UNDER SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND SMALL BUSINESS

INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

The authorization for any program, authority, or provision,

including any pilot program, that was extended through June 4,

2004, by section 1 of Public Law 108–217 is further extended

through September 30, 2004, under the same terms and conditions.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

Section 2 of Public Law 108–205 is amended by striking

‘‘October 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘March 15, 2004’’. The amendment

made by the preceding sentence shall take effect as if included

in the enactment of the section to which it relates.

SEC. 3. COMPENSATION OF AGENTS.

Section 5 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634) is

amended—

(1) in subsection (g)(4), by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(C) The Administration may contract with an agent

to carry out, on behalf of the Administration, the assessment and collection of the annual fee established under

section 7(a)(23). The agent may receive, as compensation

for services, any interest earned on the fee while in the

control of the agent before the time at which the agent

is contractually required to remit the fee to the Administration.’’; and

(2) in subsection (h)—

(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);

and

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

‘‘(2) The agent described in paragraph (1)(B) may be compensated through any of the fees assessed under this section

and any interest earned on any funds collected by the agent

while such funds are in the control of the agent and before

the time at which the agent is contractually required to transfer

Ante, p. 553.

Ante, p. 591.

Sept. 24, 2004

[H.R. 5008]

118 STAT. 1132 PUBLIC LAW 108–306—SEPT. 24, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5008:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 13, considered and passed House.

Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

such funds to the Administration or to the holders of the

trust certificates, as appropriate.’’.

Approved September 24, 2004.
Exhibit 32



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of City Capital Corporation ((Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dated indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their 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.





|                      |     |                            
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Dated: April 17, 2007 | By: | /s/ Ehpren Taylor          
|                      |     | Ehpren Taylor              
|                      |     | Principal Executive Officer





|                      |     |                            
|--------------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Dated: April 17, 2007 | By: | /s/ Ehpren Taylor          
|                      |     | Ehpren Taylor              
|                      |     | Principal Financial Officer
1 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 9/26/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

M.M., individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS,

Executive Director of the Colorado

Department of Corrections, in his

official capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-1416

(D.C. No. 96-WM-2010)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

Before PORFILIO and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the documents filed in connection with this appeal, this

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist
-2- 2

the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant has filed with this court an emergency application for stay

pending appeal of the denial of her motion to proceed in pseudonym. Because

this is not a final, appealable order, we decline to rule on the application, 

Desktop Direct , Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corp. 993 F.2d 755, 760 (10th Cir.

1993), and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

DISMISSED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01026-MP

CHARLES L DAVIS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 3490, the government’s Motion to Continue the

resentencing of Charles L Davis. The motion is granted, and resentencing is hereby reset for

July 9, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2008

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01026-MP-AK Document 3491 Filed 06/24/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.1068 Tobacco products.

Manufactured tobacco, including cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco, and snuff.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
Case 1:02-cr-00022-MP   Document 507   Filed 01/31/08   Page 1 of 1
### NUM BER 13-0 9-00 581- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M INER VA EL IZA LD E, A pp ellan t,
v . STA T E OF T EX

AS A N D H ID A L GO C OU N TY, T EX AS, A p p el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L awN o . 4 of H ida lgoC ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Ro dr i guez, G ar za, and B enav i des M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am Appel lan t, Mi ner

v a El iz ald e, attempte d t o per fect an appeal from a jud g ment entered by

the Cou nty

C our t atLaw N o. 4 of Hi dal g o C ounty , Tex as, i n c a u se number CC D- 0019- D. Judg ment in thi s caus e w as si g ned on Jul y 21, 2009. A mot ion for n ew tr ial2

w as not fil ed. Pursuantto Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 26.1 , app ell ant’ s n oti ce of appeal was due on Aug ust20, 2009, but was not fil ed unt il Sept ember 8, 2009. A mo tion for extension o f time i s n e c e s s a rily

implied w hen an ap pellan t, actin g in g ood fait h, fil es a not ic e o f a p p e a l bey ond t he ti me al lowed by r ule 26.1 , butw it hin the fifteen-da y

g ra ce per iod prov ide d by R ule 26.3 for fili ng a moti on for extens ion of ti me. Se e Ver bur gt v . D or ner , 959 S.W .2d 6 15, 6 17- 18, 6 19 ( 1997)( cons tr uin g the p re deces sor to Rule 26 ). H owev er, app ellant mu st provide a reason able ex plan ation for the lat e f iling: it is not enoug h to si mply fil e a n oti ce of appeal

. Id. ; W oodar d v . H iggins , 140 S.W .3d 4 62, 462 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2004, no pet .) ; In r e B. G. , 104 S.W .3d 565 , 567 (Tex. App. –W aco 200 2, no pet. ). On O cto ber 19, 2009, the Cl er k of t his Cou rt noti fied appel lan t of thisdefect so that ste ps coul d be tak en to correctthe defect, if i t c oul d be done. Appel lan t was adv is ed th at, if the de fect w as no t corrected w ithin te n da y s f rom th e da te of rece ipt of

t his Court’s lette r, the a ppeal woul d be dis mis sed. To date, no re spons e has been recei v ed from a ppel lan t. Th e Court, h aving ex am ined and f ully conside red the docu me nts on f ile, app ellant ’s failu re to ti mely

per fect her appeal , and appel lan t’ s failu re to respon d to thi s C our t’ s n oti ce, is o f t h e o p in io n t h a tt h e a p p e a l s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d fo r wa n to f ju ri s d ic t io n . A c c o rd in gl y, the a ppeal i s h ereby

DISM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF JU RI SD IC TION

. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42. 3(a)(c).

P E RC U R I A M Del iv ered and filed the 17th day of Dec ember , 200 9.
REASON FOR ISSUE: To revise the task interval for discard task 52−11−41−101* (was 1500 L COMPONENT).

ACTION: Replace task 52−11−41−101* with the task that follows:

Source Document Ref. No. Chapter 5 Task No. Task Title Task Interval

RBR−C700−301

Rev. AK−1

52−11−41−101 *

(one star)

Discard the Passenger Door Tensator Spring, Part No.

GS321−0580−1

PHASE−IN: For aircraft with passenger door tensator

springs with more than 550 Landings COMPONENT, as of

the date of TL/MC Temporary Revision 5−2−44 (Jun

04/2014), this task must be accomplished within 6 Months

from the date of TR 5−2−44 or

1500 Landings COMPONENT, whichever comes first.

650 L

COMPONENT 

Jun 04/2014

5

−10

−11 Page 1 of 1 PART 2 TR 5

−

2

−44

BD−700 TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKS

TEMPORARY REVISION NO. 5−2−44

INSERT IN SECTION 5−10−11

FACING PAGE 4

NOTE: Record the incorporation of this Temporary Revision on the yellow RECORD OF TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheet at the front of this

manual and LIST OF EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheet at the front of Part 2.

EFFECTIVITY: ALL
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Mr. Herbert J. Verville 

## NOV 1 7 2011 LhoistNorth America, Nelson Plant P.O. Box 370 Peach Springs, Arizona 86434

Dear Mr. Verville:

I am writing to inform you that EPA Region 9 is developing a partial Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the state ofArizona. The purpose ofthe Regional Haze FIP is to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona and surrounding states as required by Section 169A ofthe Clean AirAct (Act). Duringthe process ofdeveloping the Arizona Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to EPA onMarch 2, 2011, the ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) determined that the Nelson Lime Plant was exempt from BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements. We believe ADEQ's analysis leads to a different conclusion, and have made a preliminarydetermination that this facility is subject to BART requirements under section 169A(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act, and EPA's implementingregulations and BARTguidelines at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P and Appendix Y. Accordingly, we will perform a five-factor BART analysis to determine whether any additional emissions controls are warranted.

As we begin ourFIP analysis, we have requested that ADEQ provide us with all background materials, including BART analyses, that were performed bythem orthe affected facilities. We may also request thatyou provide us with additional information on theNelson Lime Plant as our analysis proceeds. In the meantime, we welcome the submission ofany additional, relevant information that you would like to provide to our office.

EPA has entered into a consent decree that requires the Agency to propose approval ofArizona's Regional Haze SIP and/orpropose a Regional Haze FIP that meets the requirements ofthe Act and EPA's regional haze regulations by May 15,2012. The consentdecree also requires the Agency to take final action on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and/or FIP byNovember 15,2012. EPA Region 9 will hold public hearings in Arizona and solicitpublic comments on a proposed Arizona Regional Haze FIP in the months preceding the November 15 deadline.

Ifyou would like to submit anyadditional information or analysis, we request that you send it by February 29,2012. Any modeling ofthe facility should use the regulatory versions ofCALPUFF (version 5.8, level 070623), CALMET (version 5.8, level 070623), and CALPOST (version 6.221). You may wish to prepare a modelingprotocol and consult with EPA Region 9 aboutthepreparation of modeling inputs in accord with EPAguidance. Submit any information to:

Thomas Webb US EPA (AIR-2) 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105You can also reach Thomas at webb.thornas@epa.gov orbyphone at 415-947-4139.

Thankyou for your attention to this matter. Ifyou have any questions, please contactThomas Webb or myself(mckaughan.colle n@epa.gov, 520-498-0118).

# ~.~~ Colleen McKaughan Associate Director, AirDivision

cc: Henry R. Darwin, ADEQ Eric Massey, ADEQ