alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluation of Low Power Hall Thruster PropulsionHall thruster systems based on the SPT-50 and the TAL D-38 were evaluated and mission studies were performed. The 0.3 kilowatt SPT-50 operated with a specific impulse of 1160 seconds and an efficiency of 0.32. The 0.8 kilowatt D-38 provided a specific impulse above 1700 seconds at an efficiency of 0.5. The D-38 system was shown to offer a 56 kilogram propulsion system mass savings over a 101 kilogram hydrazine monopropellant system designed to perform North-South station keeping maneuvers on board a 430 kilogram geostationary satellite. The SPIT-50 system offered a greater than 50% propulsion system mass reduction in comparison to the chemical system on board a 200 kilogram low Earth orbit spacecraft performing two orbit raises and drag makeup over two years. The performance characteristics of the SPF-50 were experimentally evaluated at a number of operating conditions. The ion current density distribution of this engine was measured. The performance and system mass benefits of advanced systems based on both engines were considered.Document ID19970001691Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsManzella, David*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Oleson, Steve*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Sankovic, John*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Haag, Tom*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Semenkin, Alexander*(Central Research Inst. of Machine Building Kaliningrad,  Russia)*Kim, Vladimir*(Moscow Inst. of Aviation Technology USSR)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107326AIAA Paper 96-2736E-10432NAS 1.15:107326Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion ConferenceLocation: Lake Buena Vista, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 1, 1996End Date: July 3, 1996Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Society for Electrical Engineers,American Society of Mechanical EngineersAccession Number97N11469Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-27186PROJECT: RTOP 242-70-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001691.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Page 10f2 

Fwd: RE: OPTION 2-Upset Provisions-Redline of Option 2 & SOBP 

Thomas Roan 

to: 

Jonah Staller 

12/12/200601:58 PM 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded. 

Jonah, below is an EPA website that Dennis Arfmann refers to in regard to industry's concerns that 

their record of malfunctions would be used against them. I haven't studied this yet. Dennis 

basically asserts that a company suffering the misfortune of several malfunctions would, under the 

proposed rule, be stigmatized unfairly because these malfunctions are violations. If all violations, 

regardless of cause, result in some kind of EPA blacklisting that would impugn the image of a 

company, that point might be important to the Commission. 

T 

»> "Arfmann, Dennis" <DArfmann@HHLAW.com> 12/12/2006 11:49:02 AM »> 

Here it is: 

Dennis Arfmann, Partner 

HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 

1470 Walnut Street, Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302 

~irect +1.720.406.5374 I tel +1.720.406.5300 I fax +1.720.406.5301 

lJarfmann(ci)hhlaw.com I htto://www.hhlaw.com 

From: Thomas Roan [mailto:tom.roan~state.co~s]

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:58 AM 

To: Arfmann, Dennis 

Subject: Re: OPTION 2-Upset Provisions-Redline of Option 2 & SOBP 

Thanks Dennis. I'll discuss with the division. Would you please send me the link to 

the webpage that you mentioned concerning EPA designations of significant 

violators? 

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jstaller\Local Settings\Temp\notesOBDDB2\-web2043.htm 8/31/2010 
Page 2 of2 

Thomas A. Roan 

Assistant Attorney General 

Natural Resources/Environmental Quality Unit 

Office of the Attorney General 

1525 Sherman Street, 5th Floor 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

ph (303) 866-5280 

f (303) 866-3558 

Denver, CO 80203 

Phone: 303-866-5280 

Fax: 303-866-3558 

»> "Arfmann, Dennis" <DArfmann@HHLAW.com> 12/12/20066:58:58 AM »> 

Kirsten and Tom: 

Here are the changes we discussed last Friday to Option 2. Please review, and call 

with any questions. If you concur, please send these on to Doug Lempke and ask 

him to email them to the AQCC in advance of the hearing---they are getting rather 

grumpy about getting any changes during the hearing. With these changes, we 

hope the Division can be more forthright in its support of Option 2. thanks 

Dennis Arfmann, Partner 

HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 

1470 Walnut Street, Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302 

direct +1.720.406.5374 I tel +1.720.406.5300 I fax +1.720.406.5301 

klarfmann@hblaw.com I htto://www.hhlaw.com 

This electronic message transmission contains information from this law firm '
 

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us ]
 

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jstaller\Local Settings\Temp\notesOBDDB2\~web2043.htm 8/31/2010
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 27 ) IV-E-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20089:15:27AM

Sheet 27 of 105P. 2



# A-83-2 7 IV-E-1 5

Dat e 

# Jw.yi p 7 CONTAC TREPOR T Originato r 

# Me rn CONTAC TBY : TELEPHON E MEETIN G D Othe r NAME , TITL E & ORGANIZATIO N / M < ^ c £/W £ Aj t - S — ADDRES S & TELEPHON E NUMBE R 

# ^°?~(W7-^3 / P.O . gc x ?& & PURPOS E O R SUBJEC

T(Giv e projec t number if appropriate

) SUMMAR Y 

## (Al. C/tfl^esr

5^/ D TW/4 r rWo/ V 5"vA/er/a

v (l&wea 7 

## > VOE) c/VP/vc.r / T ^ 7>esac<=^i?r r7S,oo o b^o( . Trf rPfo^cr iS /MO^ ( A J^LL V 

### 0.30-^3^ % SvJCW L C& Y vaac/rr j /^ D TTVC T

### /-eei ) f S 5.0 % SJCFa/l . T7-K * r°<loDJc r/ 5 " /vi^ rAl/r/^trrD , 5 o rr j

ACTIO N C D 

# i Distribution :
§ 416.200 Payment adjustment. ( a ) CMS establishes the amount of the payment adjustment for classes of new technology IOLs through proposed and final rulemaking in connection with ASC facility services.
( b ) CMS adjusts the payment for insertion of an IOL approved as belonging to a class of new technology IOLs for the 5-year period of time established for that class.
( c ) Upon expiration of the 5-year period of the payment adjustment, payment reverts to the standard rate for IOL insertion procedures performed in ASCs.
( d ) ASCs that furnish an IOL designated by CMS as belonging to a class of new technology IOLs must submit claims using billing codes specified by CMS to receive the new technology IOL payment adjustment.
#### Calvin HARDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1755.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 1979.

*823Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defender, and Brent A. Woolbright, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael A. Palecki, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s acceptance of appellant’s plea of nolo contendere to the felony offense of dealing in stolen property, proscribed by Section 812.019(1), Florida Statutes (1977). However, we remand for correction of the order placing appellant on probation.

Appellant was placed on unsupervised probation. Section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes (1977) provides that a defendant placed on probation for a felony shall be under the supervision of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. This statutory requirement is mandatory. *State*v. *Wilcox,*351 So.2d 89 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

The order of probation is therefore vacated and the cause remanded for the entry of a new order consistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
#### § 586.501 General and specific licensing procedures.

For provisions relating to licensing procedures, see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter. Licensing actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Chinese Military-Industrial Complex sanctions page on OFAC's website: *www.treasury.gov/ofac.*
ROBERT DICK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2962

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 22, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Judge.

Robert Dick, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Data Sources suggested to EPA after the June 13, 2011 meeting about 

implementation of the 2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Kenneth Dixon

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

Industries interested in forests products and other fuels met with Suzanne Rudzinski, ORCR 

Director; June 13, 2011 to discuss their issues and concerns with the final rule entitled, 

“Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste,” which was 

published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is referred to as the 

2011 NHSM Final Rule. 

Max Lee of Koogler & Associates, Inc. attended the June 13 meeting and subsequently initiated 

an email discussion with EPA seeking further clarification on both the definition of contaminants 

and areas where additional data could be useful. During the course of this email correspondence, 

between the dates of June 29 to August 4, several data source suggestions were provided to EPA. 

• A previous Agency guidance developed by the Toxic Release Inventory program proved 

helpful in better characterizing contaminant levels in as-burned fuel oils, and contaminant 

data for as-burned coal organized by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

corroborated previous investigation of that data. Data characterizing natural gas and 

petroleum coke could be useful for persons making self-determinations for units designed to 

burn those traditional fuels. 

• Data sources pertaining to crude oil, experimentally produced petroleum products, gasoline, 

and as-mined coal were not considered pertinent because boilers do not typically burn these 

fuels without some kind of refining or processing. “Experimentally produced petroleum 

products” refers to one study that spiked distillate oil samples with high levels of a 

contaminant and then used the samples to demonstrate the efficacy of a detection method. 

EPA considered all information and used it as appropriate to update traditional fuel data and 

develop support documents for the proposed revisions to the NHSM rule. 
Attachments:

1. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) data (USEPA, 2000. EPCRA Section 313, Industry 

Guidance: Electricity Generating Facilities; February 2000; EPA 745-B-00-004)

2. Petroleum Coke Category Analysis and Hazard Characterization 

3. Comparison of Fuel Properties of Petroleum Cokes and Coals used in power Generation 

Note, Max Lee also suggested usage of the following copyrighted materials: 

 

Wang Duoyi1 et al., Discovery of the Metal Trace Elements in Natural Gas and Its 

Ecological Environment Significance, Earth Science Frontiers, 2008, 15(6): 124–132. 

J.-M. Commandre ́, S. Salvador “Lack of correlation between the properties of a 

petroleum coke and its behaviour during combustion” Fuel Processing Technology 86 

(2005) 795– 808 

El Naggar, A.Y. et al., “Monitoring of trace chloride ions at different stages of the gas 

production process.” Arabian Journal of Chemistry (2011), 

doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2011.03.004
# C_2006010EN.01002102.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2005 — GAEC Salat v Commission

(Case T-89/05) (1)

1

(Action for failure to act - Complaint concerning the protected designation of origin ‘Salers’ - Regulation (EC) No 828/2003 - Definition of position by the Commission - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2006/C 10/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: GAEC Salat (Farges, France) (represented by: F. Delpeuch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agent)

Defendant:

Application for

declaration of failure to act in that the Commission failed to adopt a decision on the applicant's complaint against the French Republic

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2005

1

---
#### § 597.204 Evasions; attempts; conspiracies.

Any transaction for the purpose of, or which has the effect of, evading or avoiding, or which facilitates the evasion or avoidance of, any of the prohibitions set forth in this part, is hereby prohibited. Any attempt to violate the prohibitions set forth in this part is hereby prohibited. Any conspiracy formed for the purpose of engaging in a transaction prohibited by this part is hereby prohibited.
Exhibit 10.23

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                        OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT
                               DATED MARCH 1, 2000
                                FOR DANIEL WARFEL

      THIS AMENDMENT executed on this 23rd day of December, 2003, by and between
OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, located in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania (the
"Bank"), and DANIEL WARFEL (the "Officer").

      On March 1, 2000, the Bank and the Officer executed the SALARY
CONTINUATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement").

      The undersigned hereby amends, in part, said Agreement for the purpose of
modifying the Normal Retirement Benefit. Therefore,

      Section 2.1.1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and
replaced by the new Section 2.1.1 as follows:

      2.1.1 Amount of Benefit. The annual benefit under this Section 2.1 is
seventy-five percent (75%) of the Officer's average Annual Compensation for the
previous five (5) full calendar years, reduced by the following amounts:

            (a) Social Security. 50 percent of the estimated annual primary
      Social Security benefit to be paid at age 65;

            (b) 401(k) Plan. 100 percent of the estimated 15-year annuity that
      could be purchased with the Bank's matching contribution to the 401(k)
      Plan. The annuity is to be calculated using an annual interest rate equal
      to the 10-Year Treasury Note rate plus 150 basis points, compounded
      monthly; and

            (c) ESOP Plan. 100 percent of the estimated 15-year annuity that
      could be purchased with the Officer's balance in the Employee Stock Option
      Plan. The annuity is to be calculated using an annual interest rate equal
      to the 10-Year Treasury Note rate plus 150 basis points, compounded
      monthly.

      IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Officer and the Bank have agreed to this
First Amendment.

OFFICER:                                   BANK:

                                           OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

/s/ Daniel L. Warfel                       By /s/Robert A. Szeyller
DANIEL WARFEL
                                           Its Chairman, Compensation Committee_
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2137]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,692]


Pacific Pulse, d/b/a Firewire Surfboards, a/k/a Fluid Drive, San 
Diego, CA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance and Negative Determination Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Negative Determination 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance on August 1, 2008, applicable to workers of Firewire 
Surfboards, San Diego, California. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46922).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of surfboards.
    New information shows that the correct name of the subject firm 
should read Pacific Pulse, d/b/a Firewire Surfboards, a/k/a Fluid 
Drive, San Diego, California. Workers wages at the subject firm are 
being reported under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax account for 
Pacific Pulse, d/b/a Firewire Surfboards, a/k/a Fluid Drive.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
correctly identify the name of the subject firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Pacific Pulse, d/b/a Firewire Surfboards, a/k/a Fluid Drive 
who were adversely affected by increased imports of surfboards.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,692 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Pacific Pulse, d/b/a Firewire Surfboards, a/k/a 
Fluid Drive, San Diego, California, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after July 3, 2007 through August 1, 
2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 
223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and; I further determine that all 
workers of Pacific Pulse, d/b/a Firewire Surfboards, a/k/a Fluid 
Drive, San Diego, California, are denied eligibility to apply for 
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of January 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-2137 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
§ 405.974 Reconsideration and review of a contractor's dismissal of a request for redetermination. ( a ) *Reconsideration of a contractor determination.* Except as provided in § 405.972, upon the basis of the evidence of record, the QIC must issue a reconsideration affirming or reversing, in whole or in part, the initial determination, including the redetermination, in question.
( b ) *Review of a contractor's dismissal of a redetermination request.* ( 1 ) A party to a contractor's dismissal of a request for redetermination has a right to have the dismissal reviewed by a QIC, if the party files a written request for review of the dismissal with the QIC within 60 calendar days after receipt of the contractor's notice of dismissal. ( i ) For purposes of this section, the date of receipt of the contractor's notice of dismissal is presumed to be 5 calendar days after the date of the notice of dismissal, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
( ii ) For purposes of meeting the 60 calendar day filing deadline, the request is considered as filed on the date it is received by the QIC indicated on the notice of dismissal.
( 2 ) If the QIC determines that the contractor's dismissal was in error, it vacates the dismissal and remands the case to the contractor for a redetermination.
( 3 ) A QIC's review of a contractor's dismissal of a redetermination request is binding and not subject to further review.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 37703, June 30, 2005; 74 FR 65334, Dec. 9, 2009; 82 FR 5108, Jan. 17, 2017]
# C_2006003EN.01000101.xml

| 6.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 January 2006

(2006/C 3/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2088 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,31 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4610 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68880 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3263 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5463 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 74,85 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9325 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9560 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5737 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,933 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,43 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7986 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6831 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,51 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,645 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6160 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6206 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3941 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3726 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7667 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9907 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 193,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4405 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7524 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3965 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 595,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,544 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,426 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6850 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,820 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2088

JPY

Japanese yen

140,31

DKK

Danish krone

7,4610

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68880

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3263

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5463

ISK

Iceland króna

74,85

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9325

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9560

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5737

CZK

Czech koruna

28,933

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,43

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7986

RON

Romanian leu

3,6831

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,51

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,645

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6160

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6206

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3941

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3726

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7667

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9907

KRW

South Korean won

1 193,51

ZAR

South African rand

7,4405

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7524

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3965

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 595,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,544

PHP

Philippine peso

63,426

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6850

THB

Thai baht

48,820

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---