alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY – 0212783.005

FROM: Karen Schaffner, RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: February 15 and 24, 2011

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: Tom Felleisen, Lead Chemical Engineer, Bulk Liquids and Gases, U.S. Coast Guard

Other Participants:

Steve Shedd, EPA

Karen Schaffner, RTI

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (202) 372-1424

SUMMARY OF CONTACT

The purpose of the conference call was to discuss severa l public comments received on the October 21, 2010 proposal rule for Risk and Technology R eview (RTR) for marine tank vessel loading operations NESHAP. Specifically, on e public comment noted that the cited section in the Coast Guard regulations in 46 CF R 153.282 was specific to ships only.

In discussions with Mr. Felleisen, he noted that severa l sections in the Coast Guard regulations have requirements for submerged fill. He not ed that 46 CFR part 32 is specific to ships and barges loading flammable and combustibl e commodities, part 151 is specific to barges loading hazardous commodities (other th an flammable or combustible), and part 153 is specific to ships loading hazardous commoditie s (other than flammable or combustible). Under part 32, loading of combustible commod ities must meet the requirements of part 153.282 for submerged fill for both ships an d barges, and loading of flammable commodities does not have a submerged fill requ irement. He noted that part 151 for barges has a general, or vague, requirement for submerge d fill that requires filling lines that lead to a “point at or near the bottom” (46 CF R 151.20-20(d)), and that part 153 for ships has a more specific requirement for submerged fi ll that requires the filling line “must be no higher above the bottom of the cargo tank or sump than 10 cm (approx. 4 in.) or the radius of the filling line, whichever is greater” (46 CFR 153.282). He also noted that part 32 for ships and barges has a requirement for subm erged fill for combustible commodities that cites the requirements in section 153. 282 (46 CFR 32.50-15(a)(2)(v)), and for flammable commodities there is no submerged fill requirement at all. Despite the differences in requirements across varying sections of the Coast Guard regulations, Mr. Felleison indicated that as a practical matter, all l oading operations for both ships and barges meet the loading requirements in 46 CFR 153.282, becaus e tank vessel construction means that both ships and barges are built s uch that they would meet these requirements. As an example, even barge loading of gasol ine, which would be subject as2

a flammable commodity under part 32, would be loaded using su bmerged fill that would meet the requirement in section 153.282. Therefore, Mr. Fe lleisen indicated that the best approach may be to cite the section 153.282 for all ship and ba rge loading, since as a matter of practice, these requirements are being met by all vessels. He also noted that no additional retrofit cost would be required as these vess els would not need additional fill pipe equipment for retrofit.
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 11

                    POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31

  (Figures and amounts expressed in millions, except per share and per option
                                    amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        2001           2000
                                                                     -----------    -----------
<S>    <C>                                                           <C>            <C>
A      Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP                         $      62.4    $      71.6
B      Items adjusting net income                                    $      (5.0)   $      (0.2)
C      Net income, US GAAP                                           $      57.4    $      71.4
D      Weighted average number of shares outstanding                  51,860,000     53,420,000
E      Net additional shares issuable for fully diluted earnings         373,000        237,000
       per share calculation
       CANADIAN GAAP
       Basic earnings per share (A/D)                                $      1.20    $      1.34
       Fully diluted earnings per share ((A/(D+E))                   $      1.19    $      1.33
       UNITED STATES GAAP
       Basic earnings per share (C/D)                                $      1.11    $      1.34
       Fully diluted earnings per share ((C/(D+E))                   $      1.10    $      1.33
</TABLE>

                                        23
#### § 20.2031-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the section headings and undesignated center headings that appear in the regulations in this part under section 2031.

20.2031-1 Definition of gross estate; valuation of property.

20.2031-2 Valuation of stocks and bonds.

20.2031-3 Valuation of interests in businesses.

20.2031-4 Valuation of notes.

20.2031-5 Valuation of cash on hand or on deposit.

20.2031-6 Valuation of household and personal effects.

20.2031-7 Valuation of annuities, interests for life or a term of years, and remainder or reversionary interests.

20.2031-8 Valuation of certain life insurance and annuity contracts; valuation of shares in an open-end investment company.

20.2031-9 Valuation of other property.

### Actuarial Tables Applicable Before June 1, 2023

20.2031-7A Valuation of annuities, interests for life or a term of years, and remainder or reversionary interests for estates of decedents for which the valuation date of the gross estate is before June 1, 2023.

[T.D. 9974, 88 FR 37439, June 7, 2023]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1880]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3299-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of New York (FEMA-3299-EM), dated December 18, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of 
December 18, 2008.

    Albany, Columbia, Delaware, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, 
Schenectady, Schoharie, and Washington Counties for debris removal 
and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including 
direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program 
(already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B], 
limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 
program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-1880 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
EPA R eg . N o

. 83529

- 11
Page 1 of 1 

201 1 Off-road Emissions Estimates for the San Joaquin Valley's I -hour Ozone Plan 

Lindberg, Jeff@ARB 

to: 

Frances Wicher 

0911 012009 1 1 :42 AM 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to. 

Hi Frances, 

Overall, the emission estimates were developed in the public process, including through public 

workshops and through the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) process that informed the 

technical underpinnings of the 2004 Extreme 1 -hour Ozone Attainment Plan. When the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and ARB were developing the Plan, we held a 

series of workshops, the first of which included a discussion of emissions estimations. 

(agenda attached) The 201 1 emissions estimates that are the basis for the 201 1 off-road 

contingency measure reductions were calculated using the same tools as the years that were 

used throughout the rest of the plan, including all appropriate baseline adjustments. For that 

inventory, the off-road mobile source emissions were calculated with a number of tools, 

reflecting the various components of the inventory (i.e. off-road equipment, ships, trains, 

aircraft, etc.) So to simply say that off-road equipment were calculated using the OFFROAD 

model would not show the entire picture, even while the off-road equipment emissions were 

provided by the then-new OFFROAD model. 

Probably the best description that would cover the entire gamut of off-road mobile sources 

would be to reference footnote #I to Table 3-1, which reads: 

"Emissions data for all source categories came from the ARB emissions inventory 

spreadsheet prepared by the California Air Resources Board for the 

San Joaquin Valley, v2.11-RF932PEI as accessed from the Central California Ozone 

Study website January 2004. This inventory reflects control measures in place as of 

September 2002. Adjustments as noted below." 

Hope that helps, 

Jeff 

-- 

Jeff Lindberg 

Air Pollution Specialist 

California Air Resources Board 

file://C:V>ocuments and Settings\fwicherUocal Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\-web8 1 3 1 .h.. . 61 1 1 120 1 0 

---- ----.* -.., . -- , .
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4135 — Lactalis/Galbani)

(2006/C 286/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 April 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
#### Renard SAVAGE-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, Warden, Sussex State II Prison, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6159.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Renard Savage-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*615PER CURIAM.

Renard Savage-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Savage-Bey’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v.*Director, *Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 29, 2001. Savage-Bey’s notice of appeal was filed on January 17, 2002. Because Savage-Bey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 In his informal brief, Savage-Bey states that he also seeks to appeal the district court’s January 15, 2002, order denying his motion for reconsideration and his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal. Although Savage-Bey’s informal brief could be construed as a notice of appeal, *Smith v. Barry,*502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992), the brief was filed beyond the applicable thirty-day appeal period. Fed. R.App. 4(a)(1). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the order and express no opinion as to its validity.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                            
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                  9,410
<SECURITIES>                            1,093
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                             3,120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       15,957
<PP&E>                                 59,604
<DEPRECIATION>                         32,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         51,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  14,506
<BONDS>                                83,734
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                             6,538
<COMMON>                               80,742
<OTHER-SE>                           (136,542)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           51,835
<SALES>                                   845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,127
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          34,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      4,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (33,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (33,170)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          (33,170)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (1.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1.642(h)-4 Allocation.

The carryovers and excess deductions to which section 642(h) applies are allocated among the beneficiaries succeeding to the property of an estate or trust (see § 1.642(h)-3) proportionately according to the share of each in the burden of the loss or deductions. A person who qualified as a beneficiary succeeding to the property of an estate or trust with respect to one amount and does not qualify with respect to another amount is a beneficiary succeeding to the property of the estate or trust as to the amount with respect to which he qualifies. The application of this section may be illustrated by the following example:

# Example.

A decedent's will leaves $100,000 to A, and the residue of his estate equally to B and C. His estate is sufficient to pay only $90,000 to A, and nothing to B and C. There is an excess of deductions over gross income for the last taxable year of the estate or trust of $5,000, and a capital loss carryover of $15,000, to both of which section 642(h) applies. A is a beneficiary succeeding to the property of the estate to the extent of $10,000, and since the total of the excess of deductions and the loss carryover is $20,000, A is entitled to the benefit of one half of each item, and the remaining half is divided equally between B and C.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof the Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S. C. Section 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period endingJune 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Marian P. Hamlett, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 13,  2004 |  /s/ Marian  P. Hamlett |   |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Marian P.  Hamlett,          |
|                  | Chief Financial  Officer     |

 

 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the“Exchange Act”).  Such certificationwill not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extentthat the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00835-CV

Alejandro RODRIGUEZ and Lisa Rodriguez,

Appellants

v.

VRM [VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT], Duly Authorized Agent for The Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04366

Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Appellee VRM recover the costs of this appeal from Appellants 

Alejandro Rodriguez and Lisa Rodriguez.

SIGNED January 31, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 226

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a model curriculum designed

to educate elementary and secondary school-aged children about the

Irish famine should be developed.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. GILMAN, Mr.

TORRICELLI, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. ZIMMER, Mr.

MARTINI, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, and

Mr. ANDREWS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a model curriculum designed to educate elementary and secondary

school-aged children about the Irish famine should be

developed.

Whereas, in 1845, the potato was the staple crop and basic

nourishment and sustenance of the people of Ireland;

Whereas a potato blight destroyed most of the potato crop in

Ireland between 1845 and 1850;

Whereas the famine brought about by the potato blight led

to mass starvation over the whole of Ireland and caused

the death of more than 1,000,000 of the men, women,

and children of Ireland;
2

•HCON 226 IH

Whereas those in the British government responsible for Irish

domestic policy were, for varying reasons, consciously indifferent toward the mass starvation of the Irish people,

and actively exported the Irish grain crop which could

have provided sufficient food for the starving Irish population;

Whereas, after visiting Ireland in 1845, the African-American

abolitionist Frederick Douglass wrote that the people of

Ireland ‘‘are in the same degradation as the American

slaves’’;

Whereas many people in Britain, most notably Quakers, were

sympathetic and generous toward the people of Ireland

during the famine and organized extensive relief efforts

for the starving masses;

Whereas the elongation of the potato blight and the lack of

aid led to the mass emigration of more than 1,000,000

of the Irish people to the United States during the years

of the famine;

Whereas these immigrants and their descendants have made

and continue to make profound and lasting contributions

to the culture and history of the United States; and

Whereas children in the United States should be educated

about the famine in Ireland and its effects: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Department of Education should develop a model curricu4 lum designed to educate elementary and secondary school5 aged children about the Irish famine and its effects, and
3

•HCON 226 IH

1 that this model curriculum should be readily available to

2 educational institutions and the public.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6231(c)-8 Prompt assessment. ( a ) *In general.* The treatment of items as partnership items with respect to a partner on whose behalf a request for a prompt assessment of tax under section 6501(d) is filed will interfere with the effective and efficient enforcement of the internal revenue laws. Accordingly, partnership items of such a partner arising in any partnership taxable year ending with or within any taxable year of the partner with respect to which a request for a prompt assessment of tax is filed shall be treated as nonpartnership items as of the date that the request is filed.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable to partnership taxable years beginning on or after October 4, 2001. For years beginning prior to October 4, 2001, see § 301.6231(c)-8T contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 1, 2001.
[T.D. 8965, 66 FR 50561, Oct. 4, 2001]