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

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

FROM: Thomas Holloway 

 RTI International 

DATE OF CONTACT: May 16, 2013 

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: 

Cabot Norit Activated Carbon 

P.O. Box 790 

Marshall, TX 75671 

PERSON CONTACTED: 

Jeff Thompson 

Regional Sales Manager-Southeast 

www.norit.com 

PURPOSE OF CONTACT: 

For information on: 

• The feasibility and cost of using activated carbon injection (ACI) to control mercury emissions 

from tunnel kilns used in the brick manufacturing industry, given the specific brick parameters 

and mercury emissions data that I had provided. 

• The feasibility and cost of using ACI to control dioxin/furan emissions from kilns used in the 

ceramic tile manufacturing industry, given the specific ceramic tile parameters and dioxin/furan 

emissions data that I had provided. 

SUMMARY OF CONTACT: 

I contacted Norit on April 22 through their website inquiring about the feasibility of using ACI to control 

mercury emissions from brick kilns and received an e-mail from Mr. Thompson on April 29 stating that 

he would review my inquiry. I followed up by e-mail to Mr. Thompson on May 16 with additional 

questions regarding the cost and performance of such a system for mercury control and the feasibility 

and cost of using ACI for dioxin/furan control. Mr. Thompson called me back later that day, noting that 

he had been out of the office on business travel. He said that about 95 percent of dioxin/furan is 

controlled using ACI. He noted that there are different types of carbons that can be used. He said he 

thought that ACI would work well with brick. He indicated that it would cost about $0.80 to 

$0.90/pound for carbon (in our costs, we had estimated $0.75/pound). He said that they sell silos of 

carbon for $500K to $600K. (This cost is about 2 to 3 times higher than our capital costs, but his cost 

wasn’t normalized; he may have been referring to processes with much higher flow rates than brick 

kilns). He noted that they have worked with companies like Alstom and Babcock. I had given him some 

specific info on brick parameters and mercury emissions, and he said that he would give my info to an 

engineer (David Herrera), and that they would get back to me this week with further information.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.955 Interviews prohibited in *inter partes* reexamination proceedings.

There will be no interviews in an *inter partes* reexamination proceeding which discuss the merits of the proceeding.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Missile Defense Agency (MDA), DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Missile Defense Agency. The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

The PRB provides fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance scores to the Director, MDA.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 2, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandy Rawdon, MDA SES Program Manager, Missile Defense Agency, Arlington, Virginia, (703) 693-1575.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following executives are appointed to the MDA PRB:

RDML Joseph A. Horn, USN

Mr. David Altwegg

Ms. Nancy Morgan

Mr. Richard Matlock

Ms. Mary Lacey.

Executives listed will serve a one-year term, effective September 2, 2009.

Dated: September 15, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. E9-22796 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 191 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 

gross income of Social Security benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. CANNON, and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Senior Citizens Tax 

5 Elimination Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SO7 CIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 86 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to social security benefits) 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 191 IH

1 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub2 section: 

3 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to 

4 any taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment 

5 of this subsection.’’. 

6 (b) SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS HELD HARM7 LESS.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appro9 priated (out of any money in the Treasury not other10 wise appropriated) for each fiscal year to each fund 

11 under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Re12 tirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the reduc13 tion in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal 

14 year by reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Rev15 enue Code of 1986. 

16 (2) NO TAX INCREASES.—It is the sense of the 

17 Congress that tax increases will not be used to pro18 vide the revenue necessary to carry out paragraph 

19 (1). 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
null

2015-04-22

474.70435

eng - Argued: 2015-04-22. Docket number: 13-3750
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMIE CAROLE DAVIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-45 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 4, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Wayne M. Durden, Judge. Jamie Carole Davis, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hatten v. State, 203 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2016); Robinson v. State, 37 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of National Home Health Care Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven
Fialkow, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that,
to the best of my 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.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: June 14, 2006 |                                           
|------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                    | /s/ Steven Fialkow                        
|                    | Steven Fialkow
Principal Executive Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 1350 has been provided to National Home Health Care Corp.
and will be retained by National Home Health Care Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Home1993 Treaties and Agreements...Peru (93-309) – SWAP Agreement

# 									Peru (93-309) – SWAP Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

March 9, 1993

Finance

Signed at Washington March 9, 1993; entered into force March 9, 1993.

With Memorandum of Understanding.
Download attachment						 [1 MB]

Tags

FinancePeruTreaties

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 260 ) IV-C-

6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:04AM

Sheet 260of 276.<*«"*>. p.i

_ 

## H/'C-ty UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y I !_S ^ ? 0ff,C e o fAi rQualit Vbannin g an d Standard s X^j?

Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 FIL E 00_E> Y 

# SEP3 0199 1 rprTfTO ^

Honorabl e Joh

nD . Glen

n

# .V.,1 OCT 9


# - 1 Unite d State s Senat e V Washington , D.C . 2051 0 - Dea r Senato r Glenn : - Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r lette r o f Septembe r 5 , 1991 , regarding th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA's ) interpretatio n o f th e definitio n o f "repowering. " Sectio n 402(12 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 199 0 define s repowering a s th e "replacemen t o f a n existing coal-fire d boiler " wit hon e o f severa l specifie d clea n coa l technologies
. Th e definitio n als o includes , a s qualifying technologies , othe r technologie s whic har e derivative s o f "on e o r mor e o f th e [specified ] technologies , an d an yothe r technologycapabl e o f controlling multipl e combustio n emission s simultaneousl ywit h improve d boile r o r generatio n efficienc yan d wit hsignificantl y greate r wast e reductio n relativ e t o th e performanc e o f technology i n widesprea d commercia l use. " A s yo u hav e correctl ypointe d out , thi s definition , a s written , coul d b e interprete d a s limiting technologie s whic hwoul d b e considere d repowerin g project s t o thos e tha t onl yinvolv e th e replacemen t o f th e boiler
. A s yo u mayknow , a s par t o f th e rulemaking process , EPAi s currentl ytakin g comment s o n it s proposa l t o amend regulation s implementing ne wsourc e requirement s governing modification s a t electri c utilit ygeneratin g units
. Th e propose d rul e incorporate s th e statutorydefinitio n o f repowering withou t change
. You r commen t i s being give n carefu l consideration , and EPAwil l b e addressin g thi s issu e i n th e fina l rulemaking
. I appreciat e thi s opportunit yt o b e o f servic e an d trus t tha t thi s informatio n wil l b e helpfu l t o you . Sincerely ,

/ Willia

m G . Rosenber g 'Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an

d Radiatio n
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2011 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2011

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 100 East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, as the ``George Howard, 
          Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GEORGE HOWARD, JR. FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 100 East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``George Howard, Jr. Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2011

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 100 East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, as the ``George Howard, 
          Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
```
§ 228.1 Claimant or counterclaimant's failure to complete service. ( a ) *Failure to serve a respondent who is not a necessary party.* If a claimant fails to timely complete service on a respondent who is not a necessary party, pursuant to § 222.14 of this subchapter, the Copyright Claims Board (Board) shall dismiss that respondent from the proceeding without prejudice. The proceeding shall continue against any remaining respondents.
( b ) *Failure to serve a respondent who is a necessary party.* If a claimant fails to timely complete service on a respondent who is a necessary party, pursuant to § 222.14 of this subchapter, the Board shall dismiss the proceeding without prejudice.
( c ) *Complete failure to serve respondents.* For a claim to proceed, a claimant must complete service on at least one respondent. If a claimant does not timely file any proof of service, the Board shall dismiss the proceeding without prejudice.
§ 456.2 State plan requirements. ( a ) A State plan must provide that the requirements of this part are met.
( b ) These requirements may be met by the agency by: ( 1 ) Assuming direct responsibility for assuring that the requirements of this part are met; or
( 2 ) Deeming of medical and utilization review requirements if the agency contracts with a QIO to perform that review, which in the case of inpatient acute care review will also serve as the initial determination for QIO medical necessity and appropriateness review for patients who are dually entitled to benefits under Medicare and Medicaid.
( c ) In accordance with § 431.15 of this subchapter, FFP will be available for expenses incurred in meeting the requirements of this part.
[46 FR 48566, Oct. 1, 1981, as amended at 50 FR 15327, Apr. 17, 1985; 51 FR 43198, Dec. 1, 1986]
<PAGE>




                                                                   Exhibit 10.1

(DOW CORNING LOGO)

                                                                 Law Department
                                                       Legal Fax (989) 496-5849
                                                      Patent Fax (989) 496-6354
                                                  Litigation Fax (989) 496-8543

February 11, 2003                          DCC No. 30182

Genencor International, Inc.
925 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Attn: General Counsel

To Whom It May Concern:

There currently exists a Research Agreement between our companies dated October
4, 2001, relating to research in the areas of biosensors, bioenergy,
biomaterials, bioalkylation, biocatalysis, silicon-based materials,
bioseparations and formulations. The present agreement expires October 4, 2003.

Assuming that Genencor International, Inc. wishes to continue working with Dow
Corning, we propose to extend the term of the existing Agreement two (2)
additional months. The new expiration date will be December 31, 2003. All other
conditions of the original agreement shall remain the same.

If the above meets with your approval, please sign both originals of this letter
and return one fully executed original to:

                           Mr. Timothy J. Troy
                           Managing IP Counsel
                           Dow Corning Corporation
                           Intellectual Property Dept. - CO 1232
                           P.O. Box 994
                           Midland, Michigan 48686-0994

If you have any questions regarding this information please contact Mr. Troy at
(989) 496-5533. ACCEPTED:

Very Truly Yours,

GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC.                 DOW CORNING CORPORATION

By: /s/  Michael V. Arbige                   By: /s/ James W. White
    ----------------------------                 ------------------------------
                                                 James W. White
                                                 Executive Director, S&T

Date: 03/12/03                               Date: 02/19/03
      --------                                     --------



Dow Corning Corporation
Midland, Michigan 48686-0994
Phone: (989) 496-4000
www.dowcorning.com


                                       32
#### TUBBS V. NASHVILLE WOODEN WARE CO.

(Decided Feb. 8, 1912.)

Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. C. P. Almon.

Jackson & Del'oney, for appellant. Allen Roulhac, for appellee. •

Per curiam.

Dismissed for want of assignment of errors.
U.S. Deportment of Transportation F ed er al Aviation Administration



### JUN 

## 2

## 8 2013 Southwest Region Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Stephen R. Tumour Certification Manager Robinson Helicopter Company 290 1Airport Drive Torrance, CA 90505
Dear Mr. Tumour: 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0111

This is in response to your June 18,2013, letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2006-25287) requesting that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rescind Exemption No. 9589 issued to Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) on January 28, 2008. Exemption No. 9589 from§ 27.695 ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) was granted for the RHC model R66 helicopter. The exemption granted RHC reliefto the extent necessary to allow type certification ofthe R66 helicopter without considering thejamming ofa control valve in the powered flight control system as a possible single failure. As stated in your letter, the exemption is no longer necessary because ofthe FAA's granting ofan Equivalent Level ofSafety (ELOS) finding to§ 27.695(a)(l), Number AT14992LA-R-S-1, dated February 20, 2013, for the R66 helicopter. In order to eliminate the inconsistency and confusion caused by having an Exemption and an ELOS for the same regulation in the Certification Basis section ofType Certificate Data Sheet No. R00015LA, RHC is requesting that the Exemption be rescinded. As the reliefyou were granted in your origina l exemption is no longer required from 14 CFR § 27.695, we hereby rescind Exemption No. 9589

. We will include a copy ofthis letter in Docket No. F AA-2006

-25287

. Ifyou have any questions or need any further assistance in this matter, please contact the Rotorcraft Standards Staffat (817) 222-5110. Sincerely,

# (I~~AnL**~~<-** Kim Smith Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service

\
§ 495.336 Health information technology planning advance planning document requirements (HIT PAPD). Each State's HIT PAPD must contain the following: ( a ) A statement of need and objective which clearly state the purpose and objectives of the project to be accomplished and the necessity for the project.
( b ) A project management plan which addresses the following: ( 1 ) The planning project organization.
( 2 ) Planning activities and deliverables.
( 3 ) State and contractor resource needs.
( 4 ) Planning project procurement activities and schedule.
( c ) A specific budget for the planning of the project.
( d ) An estimated total project cost and a prospective State and Federal cost distribution, including planning and implementation.
( e ) A commitment to submit a HIT implementation advance planning document.
( f ) A commitment to conduct and complete activities which will result in the production of the State Medicaid HIT plan that includes conduct of the following activities: ( 1 ) A statewide HIT environmental baseline self-assessment.
( 2 ) An assessment of desired HIT future environment.
( 3 ) Development of benchmarks and transition strategies to move from the current environment to the desired future environment.
( g ) A commitment to submit the plan to CMS for approval.
§ 600.160 Protections for American Indian and Alaska Natives. ( a ) *Enrollment.* Indians must be extended the same special enrollment status in BHP standard health plans as applicable to enrollment in a QHP through the Exchange under 45 CFR 155.420(d)(8). Indians will be allowed to enroll in, or change enrollment in, standard health plans one time per month.
( b ) *Cost sharing.* No cost sharing may be imposed on Indians under the standard health plan.
( c ) *Payments to providers.* Equal to the protection extended to Indian health providers providing services to Indians enrolled in a QHP in the individual market through an Exchange at 45 CFR 156.430(g), BHP offerors may not reduce the payment for services to Indian health providers by the amount of any cost-sharing that would be due from the Indian but for the prohibition in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) *Requirement.* Standard health plans must pay primary to health programs operated by the Indian Health Service, Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations for services that are covered by a standard health plan.