alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 14

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 14 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

#### § 14.120 Establishment of the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee (TEPRSSC).

The Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee (TEPRSSC), consisting of 15 members, is established in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360kk(f)(1)(A)) to provide consultation before the Commissioner prescribes any performance standard for an electronic product.

[44 FR 22351, Apr. 13, 1979, as amended at 78 FR 17087, Mar. 20, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 13
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 13 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 13.15 Separation of functions; ex parte communications; administrative support. ( a ) The proceeding of a Board are subject to the provisions of § 10.55 relating to separation of functions and ex parte communications. Representatives of the participants in any proceeding before a Board, including any members of the office of the Chief Counsel of FDA assigned to advise the center responsible for the matter, may have no contact with the members of the Board, except as participants in the proceeding, and may not participate in the deliberations of the Board.
( b ) Administrative support for a Board is to be provided only by the office of the Commissioner and the office of the Chief Counsel for FDA.
[44 FR 22348, Apr. 13, 1979, as amended at 54 FR 9035, Mar. 3, 1989]
**Exhibit 10.45**

**AMENDMENT TO**

**MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, INC.**

**STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT**

**ForDirectors**

**                    , 20    **

**2001 Equity Incentive Plan**

THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT is effective                    , 20    , between MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (the “Company”) and                                 (the “Participant”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Participant entered into an Agreement dated                     (the “Agreement”), whereby the Company granted to the Participant**            ** Stock Unit Awards pursuant to the MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. 2001 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant now wish to amend the Agreement as provided herein; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 

ARTICLE I. The ***Distribution of Common Stock***Paragraph of the Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

***Dis*****tribution of Common Stock.**Subject to the provisions below, as soon as practical after the Participant experiences a separation from service forpurposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, the Company shall transfer shares of Common Stock to the Participant equal in number to the Stock Unit Awards credited to the Participant’s Stock Unit Account that are vested at thetime of such separation from service. Such transfer shall be made within 30 days following such separation from service. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, any distribution to a Participant who is also a “specified employee”, asdefined under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, shall be delayed, and not distributed until the date that is six months and one day following a separation from service for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

ARTICLE II. **Miscellaneous.**

***No Other Changes.*** Other than with respect to the Section of the Agreement specifically referenced above, this Amendment does not modify, change or delete any other addendum, term, provision, representation, warranty orcovenant (the “Provisions”) relating to or contained in the Agreement, and all such Provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 
**MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.****By:** 
 
**Title:**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             165,924
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      868,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                       113,500
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   921,050
<PP&E>                                             362,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                     245,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,037,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              154,477
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            33,276
<OTHER-SE>                                         849,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,037,665
<SALES>                                          1,779,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,779,033
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,069,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,678,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (940,479)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (940,479)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1,124,525)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,065,004)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.91)



</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50695 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. K E N YAD IO N N E SN E E D , al so kn ow n as K en ya D i on n e C oker, D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 8
- CR- 2 3
- ALL
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orney ap poi n t ed t o represent K en ya D i on n e S n eed h as m oved f or l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 38 6 U
. S. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. S n eed h as f i l e d ar e s po ns e , a r gui ng, i n pa r t , t hats he received inef

fect ive assi st an ce of

cou n sela n d requ est i n g perm i ssi on t o proceed p r o s e . T h e r e c o r di s i n s u f f i c i e n t l yd e v e l o p e dt o a l l o w c o n s i d e r a t i o n a tt h i s t i me o f S n e e d ’ s cla im s o f in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l; su c h c l a im s g e n e r a lly

“ c anno tb e r e s o lve d o n di r e c t ap pe al w he n [t he y hav e ] no tb e e n r ai s e d b e f o r e t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50695

2 di st ri ctcourtsi n ce no opp ort u n i t y exi st ed t o devel op the recor d on t h e m eri t s of th e a l l eg a ti on s. ” Un itedS ta tes v. Ca n tw ell , 470 F. 3d 1087, 1091 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion om itted ). O u rin d e p e n d e n tr e v ie w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’s b r ie f, a n d S n e e d ’s response dis cl oses n o non f rivol ou s i ssue f

or app eal
. A ccor di n gl y, the m ot i on f or l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , cou n selis ex cused f rom furt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R
. 4 2. 2. S n eed’ s r equ est to p r o c e e d p r o s e o n a p p e a l is D E N IE D
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ag n er , 158 F. 3d 9 0 1 , 9 0 2 -0 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ).
§ 133.116 Low sodium cheddar cheese. Low sodium cheddar cheese is the food prepared from the same ingredients and in the same manner prescribed in § 133.113 for cheddar cheese and complies with all the provisions of § 133.113, including the requirements for label statement of ingredients, except that: ( a ) It contains not more than 96 milligrams of sodium per pound of finished food.
( b ) The name of the food is “low sodium cheddar cheese”. The letters in the words “low sodium” shall be of the same size and style of type as the letters in the words “cheddar cheese”, wherever such words appear on the label.
( c ) If a salt substitute is used, the label shall bear the statement “______ added as a salt substitute”, the blank being filled in with the common name or names of the ingredient or ingredients used as a salt substitute.
[48 FR 2743, Jan. 21, 1983, as amended at 85 FR 72907, Nov. 16, 2020]
## 

Exhibit 6

Report of Independent Accountants

To
the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Southwall Technologies Inc.

We
have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Southwall Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries as of October 1, 2000, and the related consolidated statement
of operations for the three-month and nine month period ended October 1, 2000 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine month period ended October 1, 2000. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We
conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists
principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.

Based
on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

These
consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements,
the company has experienced recurring losses from operations, has significant current and long-term debt containing certain covenants with which the Company has not been in compliance requiring the
Company to obtain waivers and to reclassify as a current liability the debt for which waivers have not been obtained, and significant capital commitments for debt service, manufacturing facilities and
equipment that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

We
previously audited in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31,1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, of stockholders' equity, and of cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated March 3, 2000 except as to Notes
4,9,11, and 12, which are as of September 28, 2000 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and included an explanatory paragraph describing an uncertainty
about Southwall Technologies Inc. ability to continue as a going concern. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet information as of
December 31,1999 is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
San Jose, California
November 13, 2000

---

## QuickLinks
Served: July 10, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 10th of July, 2013

Essential Air Service at

PADUCAH, KENTUCKY

HANCOCK/HOUGHTON, MICHIGAN

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN

PELLSTON, MICHIGAN

SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN

WATERTOWN, NEW YORK

EAU CLARIE, WISCONSIN

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0299

DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0302

DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0301

DOCKET DOT-OST-2011-0133

DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0303

DOCKET DOT-OST-1997-2842

DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0306

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT PADUCAH, KENTUCKY; 

HANCOCK/HOUGHTON, MUSKEGON, PELLSTON, AND SAULT STE. MARIE, 

MICHIGAN; WATERTOWN, NEW YORK; AND EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN 

By Order 2013-5-13, May 21, 2013, the Department requested proposals for Essential Air Service

at the above captioned communities, with proposals due no later than June 26, 2013. On June 26, 

American Airlines requested a two-week extension to July 10, and we granted that extension. On 

July 10, American requested an additional short-term extension. 

We will grant their request. Proposals at the seven communities listed above are now due 

on July 15, 2013.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
(LOGO)Deloitte &
       Touche LLP
                    Suite 1800                         Telephone: (801) 328-4706
                    50 South Main Street               Facsimile: (801) 355-7515
                    Salt Lake City, Utah 84144-0458



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT



To the Board of Directors
 CrossLand Mortgage Corp.

We have examined   management's  assertion about CrossLand Mortgage Corp.'s (the
Company)  (a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of First  Security  Bank of Utah,  N.A.)
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers  Association of America UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKERS  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December  31, 1995 included in the
accompanying  management  assertion.  Management  is  responsible  for CrossLand
Mortgage  Corp.'s  compliance  with  those  minimum  servicing  standards.   Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion  on  management's  assertion  about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was made  in  accordance   with  standards  established by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a   test   basis,  evidence  about  CrossLand  Mortgage  Corp.'s
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
examination  provides  a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide  a legal determination on CrossLand Mortgage Corp.'s compliance with
the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that CrossLand  Mortgage  Corp.  complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1995, is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 22, 1996



Deloitte Touche
Tohmstsu
International
"Topromote the airfield and industrialpark with fiscally responsible management andprovide a diverse economic base/or theGreater KingmanArea"

May 10,2014

Ms. Susan L. Kurland Assistant Secretary for Aviation and Internal Affairs US Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Tentative Order Regarding Termination ofEAS Eligibility Order 20I4-4.26
r..- DearMs. Kurland (>:)

- 

### , - CF-I~--~;:

.. I I~ :c-')- U 0""-:- _':-1 Please consider the following information when making your determination ofKingman,iA'Hii:-) eligibility.

L • • -D Kingman has been aparticipant inthe EAS program since its inception and the hub designation isalways debated. Is Kingman's hub Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) inPhoenix, due to the ability to enter the national transportation system and the state government location fordoing business, oris itMcCarran International Airport (LAS) inLas Vegas due to the closer proximity. LAS has always been adestination airport and inrecent years connections into the national system have been reduced during daytime hours including cutbacks in service by Southwest Airlines and US Airways. The connections inPHX are also difficult, but more as aresult ofthe physical design ofmultiple terminal structures and ground distances to cross with limited transfertimes. During 2013, Great Lakes Airlines was flying to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to maximize connections into the national system. We acknowledge the enplanements generated didnotmeet the goals established bythe EAS Program. We also recognize there was aFederal Aviation Administration rule change that took effect on August I. 2013pertaining to the minimum hours ofcommercial time required forpilots that caused cancellations and loss of travelers due to uncertainty offlights. OnJanuary 1,2014, Great Lakes Airlines initiated service to Kingman with one daily round trip flightto LAX and one daily round trip flight to Denver International Airport (DEN) which allows the airline to maximize their operations for equipment and maintenance with the qualified pilots stilIavailable. This two hub service is the best Kingman has experienced since the early 1980's and it should be allowed to be cultivated.



### Kingman Airport Authority, Inc.• 7000 Flightline Drive. Kingman, AZ 86401 • (928) 757.2134 • FAX(928) 757-9871Ms. Susan L. Kurland

Tentative Order Regarding Termination ofEAS Eligibility Order 2014-4-26 May 10,2014 Page 2

The EAS Program was born out ofairline deregulation, and intended to maintain the ability to access the national transportation system from rural communities. Technology has changed, transportation has changed and hub airports are busy during peak hours to accommodate competitive airline operations. Rural America still needs access to the national system, but we can't compete in the current market without assistance. We respectfully ask for your help. Sincerely,

David French Executive Director DFlbr

CC: KAA Board ofDirectors Kingman City Council Members Mohave County Board of Supervisors
RE: One more modeling question. and updates to Indiana's Lead Emissions

BATES, JON to

:

Andy Chang

Cc

:

"Wolff, Brian", "RITTER, KEN", "Sherman, Steven", "PEDERSEN, CHRISTINE"

From: "BATES, JON" <JBATES@idem.IN.gov>

To: Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Wolff, Brian" <BWOLFF@idem.IN.gov>, "RITTER, KEN" <KRITTER@idem.IN.gov>, 

"Sherman, Steven" <SSHERMAN@idem.IN.gov>, "PEDERSEN, CHRISTINE" <CPEDERSE@idem.IN.gov>

In response to the modeling questions, actual 2007 TRI emissions were used, and if “re-entrainment of 

dust” means vehicle traffic then no, this was not factored into the analysis. 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Jon Bates

IDEM

Office of Air Quality

(317) 233-4226

RE: Quick Question about Muncie Lead Modeling

Sherman, Steven to

:

Andy Chang

From: "Sherman, Steven" <SSHERMAN@idem.IN.gov>

To: Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

That’s right; 2007 TRI emissions with 1992 meteorology. 

From: Chang.Andy@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Chang.Andy@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 12:33 PM

To: Sherman, Steven

Subject: RE: Quick Question about Muncie Lead Modeling
Hi Steve,

Thanks for the response. To be clear: this entire map, including the maximum modeled impact and the 

colored contours was based on the highest monthly average in 1992? I remember a conversation with 

IDEM where you all indicated that 2007 TRI emissions were used for air dispersion modeling; can you 

clarify this for me?

Thanks again.

*************************************************************

Weian 'Andy' Chang

Environmental Engineer

US EPA Region 5

Air and Radiation Division

77 W. Jackson Blvd AR-18J

Chicago, IL 60604

312.886.0258 (direct)

312.697.2639 (fax
#### § 1250.28 Source and handling of ice.

Ice coming in contact with food or drink and not manufactured on the conveyance shall be obtained from sources approved by competent health authorities. All ice coming in contact with food or drink shall be stored and handled in such manner as to avoid contamination.
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.211 When is an order to withdraw a qualified exemption applicable to a farm revoked? An order to withdraw a qualified exemption applicable to a farm under § 112.5 is revoked if: ( a ) The owner, operator, or agent in charge of the farm appeals the order and requests an informal hearing, FDA grants the request for an informal hearing, and the presiding officer does not confirm the order within the 10 calendar days after the hearing, or issues a decision revoking the order within that time; or
( b ) The owner, operator, or agent in charge of the farm appeals the order and requests an informal hearing, FDA denies the request for an informal hearing, and FDA does not confirm the order within the 10 calendar days after the appeal is filed, or issues a decision revoking the order within that time; or
( c ) The owner, operator, or agent in charge of the farm appeals the order without requesting an informal hearing, and FDA does not confirm the order within the 10 calendar days after the appeal is filed, or issues a decision revoking the order within that time.
( d ) Confirmation of a withdrawal order by the presiding officer is considered a final Agency action for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 702.