alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT** 

**OFFICE OF AIR RESOURCES** 

### AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATION NO. 1

**VISIBLE EMISSIONS**

Effective 2 August 1967 Last Amended 19 July 2007

AUTHORI TY: Thes e regulations are authorized pursuant to R.I . Gen. Laws § 42 - 17.1 - 2(s) and 23 - 23 , as amended, and have been promulgated pursuant to the procedures set forth in the R.I . Administrative Procedures Act, R.I . Gen. Laws Chapter 42 - 35.Page 1 of 3

**RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT O F ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT** 

**OFFICE OF**  **AIR RESOURCES AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATION NO. 1** 

**VISIBLE EMISSIONS 1.1**  **Definitions** Unless otherwise expressly defined in this section, the terms used in this regulation shall be defined by

reference to the Rhode I sland Air Pollution Control General Definitions Regulation. **1.2 Limitations**  No person shall emit into the atmosphere from any source any

air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is greater than or equal to 20 percent opacity **1.3 Test Procedure and Observer Qualifications**  1.3.1 All tests must be performed as per the Code of Federal Regulations, Title

40, Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9. 1.3.2 All observers must qualify as per the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9. **1.4 Exemptions**  Where the presence of uncombined water is the only reason for failure to meet the requirements of Section 1.2, such failure shall not be a violation of this regulation.Page 2 of 3

**1.5 General Provisions**  1.5.1 Purpose The purpose o f this regulation is to limit the opacity of visible emissions from sources of air contaminants. 1.5.2 Authority These regulations are authorized pursuant to R.I . Gen. Laws § 42 - 17.1 - 2(s) and 23 - 23 , as amended, and have been promulgated pursuant to the proced ures set forth in the R.I . Administrative Procedures Act, R.I . Gen. Laws Chapter 42 - 35 1.5.3 Application The terms and provisions of this regulation shall be liberally c onstrued to permit the Department to effectuate the purposes of state law, goals and polic ies. 1.5.4 Severability If any provision of this regulation or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remainder of the regulation shall not be affected thereby .Page 3 of 3 1.5.5 Effective Date The foregoing regulation, " Visible Emission s”, as amended, after due notice, is hereby

adopted and filed with the Secretary of State this

_ __29th

_ __ day of _June_____, 20 07 ___ to become effective twenty (20) days thereafter, in accordance with the provisions of Chapters 23 - 23, 42 - 35, 42 - 17.1, 42 - 17.6, of the General Laws of Rhode I sland of 1956, as amended.
W. Michael Sullivan, PhD., Director Department of Environmental Management

**Notice Given on: February 21, 2007**  **Public Hearing held :**  **March 23, 2007 Filing Date:**  **June 29, 2007 ]**  **Effective Date: July 19, 2007**
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 522b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1-GRB-D (J1).                    

*Date:*                         January 20, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 6AS37F, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ann A. Hagan, PHD, Chief, Review Branch, National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, PHS, DHHS, Rm. 6AS37, Bldg. 45, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-8886.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1-GRB-C (J4).                    

*Date:*                         January 25, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Natcher Bldg., 45 Center Drive, Room 6AS-37, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dan E. Matsumoto, PHD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 6AS37B,  National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, (301) 594-8894.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 11, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-1139 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02197

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

02197\02197_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

02197\02197_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 02197\02197_Checklist_102610_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 02197\02197_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02197\02197_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02197\02197_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

02197\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Spencer 02197 EPA Part A Section 5 A5-2 Spencer Plant Prope.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02197\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\Spencer 02197 EPA Part A Section 5 A5-3 Spencer Water Balan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”),I, David J. Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| March 15,  2006 |                                 |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                 |                                 |
|                 | /s/ David J.  Moore                  |   |
|                 | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|                 | (Principal Executive Officer)        |

 

 

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

 

----
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39494

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Alexander W. TURTON

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 20 March 2019 

________________________

Military Judge: Ryan A. Hendricks.

Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 18 months, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. 

Sentence adjudged 27 March 2018 by GCM convened at Eglin Air Force

Base, Florida.

For Appellant: Major Christopher C. Newton, USAF; Major Mark J. 

Schwartz, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen 

Payne, Esquire.

Before HUYGEN, POSCH, and KEY, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c)

(2016). 
United States v. Turton, No. ACM 39494

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.*

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court

 

* Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, his counsel noted that the 

record of trial was docketed with this court 46 days after the convening authority took 

action, exceeding the 30-day threshold for a presumptively unreasonable post-trial delay. See United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129, 142 (C.A.A.F. 2006). However, Appellant 

concedes that “the harm required for relief may not exist,” and we perceive no prejudice 

to Appellant from the delay. Having considered the relevant factors identified in 

Moreno, 63 M.J. at 135, and finding no adverse impact on the public’s perception of the 

fairness or integrity of the military justice system, we find no violation of Appellant’s 

due process rights. See United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Pursuant to our authority under Article 66, UCMJ, we have also considered whether relief 

for post-trial delay in the absence of a due process violation is appropriate and find it 

is not. See United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 225 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. 

Gay, 74 M.J. 736, 744 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015), aff’d, 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
§ 151.45 Performance of construction work: General requirements. ( a ) All construction work under a project must be performed under contract, except in a case where the Administrator determines that the project, or a part of it, can be more effectively and economically accomplished on a force account basis by the sponsor or by another public agency acting for or as agent of the sponsor.
( b ) Each contract under a project must meet the requirements of local law.
( c ) No sponsor may issue any change order under any of its construction contracts or enter into a supplemental agreement unless three copies of that order or agreement have been sent to and approved by the Area Manager. §§ 151.47 and 151.49 apply to supplemental agreements as well as to original contracts.
( d ) This section and §§ 151.47 through 151.49 do not apply to contracts with the owners of airport hazards, (as described in § 151.39(b)), buildings, pipe lines, power lines, or other structures or facilities, for installing, extending, changing, removing, or relocating that structure or facility. However, the sponsor must obtain the approval of the Area Manager before entering into such a contract.
( e ) No sponsor may allow a contractor or subcontractor to begin work under a project until— ( 1 ) The sponsor has furnished three conformed copies of the contract to the Area Manager; and
( 2 ) The Area Manager agrees to the issuance of a notice to proceed with the work to the contractor. However, the Area Manager does not agree to the issuance of such a notice unless he is satisfied that adequate replacement housing is available and has been offered to affected persons, as required for project eligibility by § 151.39(a)(5).
( f ) Except when the Area Manager determines that the sponsor has previously demonstrated satisfactory engineering and construction supervision and inspection, no sponsor may allow a contractor or subcontractor to begin work, nor may the sponsor begin force account work, until the sponsor has notified the Area Manager in writing that engineering and construction supervision and inspection have been arranged to insure that construction will conform to FAA approved plans and specifications, and that the sponsor has caused a review to be made of the qualifications of personnel who will be performing such supervision and inspection and is satisfied that they are qualified to do so.
[Doc. No. 1329, 27 FR 12351, Dec. 13, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 151-31, 34 FR 4885, Mar. 6, 1969; Amdt. 151-39, 35 FR 5537, Apr. 3, 1970]
§ 415.105 Pre-application consultation. ( a ) An applicant must participate in a pre-application consultation meeting, as required by § 413.5 of this chapter, prior to an applicant's preparation of the initial flight safety analysis required by § 415.115.
( b ) At a pre-application consultation meeting, an applicant must provide as complete a description of the planned launch or series of launches as available at the time. An applicant must provide the FAA the following information: ( 1 ) *Launch vehicle.* Description of: ( i ) Launch vehicle;
( ii ) Any flight termination system; and
( iii ) All hazards associated with the launch vehicle and any payload, including the type and amounts of all propellants, explosives, toxic materials and any radionuclides.
( 2 ) *Proposed mission.* ( i ) For an applicant applying for a launch specific license under § 415.3(a), the apogee, perigee, and inclination of any orbital objects and each impact location of any stage or other component.
( ii ) For an applicant applying for a launch operator license under § 415.3(b), the planned range of trajectories and flight azimuths, and the range of apogees, perigees, and inclinations of any orbital objects and each impact location of any stage or other component.
( 3 ) *Potential launch site.* ( i ) Name and location of the proposed launch site, including latitude and longitude of the proposed launch point;
( ii ) Identity of any launch site operator of that site; and
( iii ) Identification of any facilities at the launch site that will be used for launch processing and flight.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of House of Brussels
  Chocolates Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10- QSB for the period ending July 31,
  2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the "Report"), I, L. Evan Baergen,CA, Chief Financial Officer
  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
  and belief:

|3. | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                    
|4. | The information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        result of operations of the Company.

Date: September 11, 2003

| | /s/ Evan Baergen       
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | (Signature)            
| |                        
| | Chief Financial Officer
| |                        
| | (Title)                

---
§ 31.33 Materials. ( a ) The suitability and durability of all materials must be established on the basis of experience or tests. Materials must conform to approved specifications that will ensure that they have the strength and other properties assumed in the design data.
( b ) Material strength properties must be based on enough tests of material conforming to specifications so as to establish design values on a statistical basis.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MARCUS JOHNSON,

Petitioner

v.

YEADON BOROUGH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 86 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of August, 2018

, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the “Petition for Review (Mandamus)” is DENIED.
#### § 435.5 Policy and safety approvals.

To obtain a reentry license, an applicant must obtain policy and safety approvals from the FAA. Requirements for obtaining these approvals are contained in subparts B and C of this part. Only a reentry license applicant may apply for the approvals, and may apply for either approval separately and in advance of submitting a complete license application, using the application procedures contained in part 413 of this subchapter.
#### Florence KELLEY *v.*Robert L. KELLEY

5-6060

486 S.W. 2d 5

Opinion delivered October 30, 1972

*Davis and Reed,*for appellant.

*No brief for appellee.*

Lyle Brown, Justice.

This litigation stems from a disagreement between the husband and the wife as to the extent of child support owed by the husband. The chancellor held that the husband was not in arrears and *379the wife appeals.

In 1971 the parties entered into an agreement styled “Custody, Visitation and Support Agreement”. It was agreed that the husband would have custody of the two minor children; that the children could visit their mother any week-end they so desired; and that the husband would pay $8.00 weekly “in consideration of the [wife’s] costs with respect to said children”. The husband interpreted the support clause to mean he should pay $8.00 per week when the children spent the week-end with their mother. The wife insisted that she was entitled to be paid $8.00 each week irrespective of the visits of the children. It was conceded that the husband had made the payments according to his interpretation of the contract. According to the wife’s view of the contract the husband would of course be in arrears.

At the close of appellant Florence Kelley’s testimony the chancellor sustained a demurrer to the evidence. In taking that action the chancellor agreed with the husband’s interpretation of the contract. It was held that the $8.00 a week was in consideration of the wife’s expenses when she did in fact have the children. “It does appear that $8.00 a week was to defray extra expense of appellant for keeping the children on those occasions when they desired to visit her.”

We think the chancellor’s view of the contract was reasonable. Additionally, the parties to this suit had previously presented the contract to the court and at their request it became a court order. Therefore the court had some control over its order concerning the obligations of the parties and the welfare of the children.

Appellant contends that the court erred in not allowing her an attorney’s fee. That matter was within the discretion of the court and we cannot say it was abused.

Subsequent to the hearing on which this appeal is based the court amended its order dismissing the contempt *380proceeding by requiring the father to provide the children with a change of clothing and $2.00 spending money when they visited their mother. On appeal the mother objects to the modification. We see no merit in the contention because the modification was strictly to the advantage of the children and the mother.

Affirmed.
FEATHERRIVERAIRQUALITYMANAGEMENTDISTRICTINRE:))RESOLUTIONNO.2005-15RESOLUTIONADOPTING)REGULATIONIIIRULE3.20-WOOD)PRODUCTSCOATINGOPERATIONS)___________________________)WHEREAS,CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCodesections40000,40001,40702,40716and40910authorizetheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistricttoadopttheseproposedrulesandregulations;andWHEREAS,thisResolution,andtheRegulationsetforthherein,wasadoptedafterproceedingsheldinaccordancewithprovisionsofchapters6and6.5ofpart3ofdivision26oftheCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode(commencingwithsection40700),arretadulynoticedpublichearingwasheldonAugust30,2005toconsideradoptionofRegulationIII,Rule3.20-WoodProductsCoatingOperations;andWHEREAS,DistrictstaffhaspreparedawrittenanalysisoftheproposedRegulationIII,Rule3.20,WoodProductsCoatingsOperations,pursuanttoHealthandSafetyCodesection40727.2,andhasmaintainedarecordoftherulemakingproceedingpursuanttoHealthandSafetyCodesection40728;andWHEREAS,thereisnoindicationatthistimethatRegulationIll,Rule3.20iswritteninsuchamannerthatthepersonsaffectedbyitcouldnoteasilyunderstandit;andWHEREAS,theproposedRegulationIII,Rule3.20isinharmonywith,andnotinconflictwithorcontradictoryto,existingstatutes,courtdecisions,orStateorfederalregulationsandanyduplicationwithexistingstateorfederalregulationsisnecessaryorpropertoexecutethepowersanddutiesoftheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistrict;andWHEREAS,theproposedadoptionofRegulationIII,Rule3.20isnotaprojectundertheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)pursuanttoCEQAGuidelinessections15378becausetheactionwillnotcauseadirectadversephysicalchangetotheenvironmentorcauseareasonableforeseeableadversephysicalchangeintheenviromnentandthatnofurtheractionisrequiredunderCEQA;andWHEREAS,theproposedadoptionofRegulationIII,Rule3.20willfulfilloneofthecommitmentsmadeinthe2003NorthernSacramentoValleyAirBasinAttainmentPlanforreductionofozoneprecursors;andWHEREAS,theDistrictBoardhasmadetherequiredfindingsofauthority,necessity,clarity,consistency,non-duplication,andreference;NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDbytheBoardofDirectorsoftheFEATHERRIVERAIRQUALITYMANAGEMENTDISTRICTthateffectiveDecember5,2005,theBoardadoptsRegulationIllRule3.20-WoodProductsCoatingOperationstoreadinitsentiretyassetforthinExhibitAtothisresolution,attachedheretoandmadepartofhereof.PASSEDANDADOPTEDbytheFeatherRiverAirQualityManagementDistrictatameetingonDecember5,2005,bythefollowingvote:

# AYES : 

# Directors Griego, Schrader, Silva,Epp, Pendergraph, Ramirez

and Harri s

NOES : 

# None ABSENT: 

# Directors Munger, Logue and Kitchen

ABSTAIN : 

# None

ATTEST : CLERK OF THE DISTRICT BOARD APPROVED FOR LEGAL FORM

'



# J . L : D.

. L 

# 1 Ad

.

1m ew1s, 1stnct ega VI S Or



# Exhibit A

District Regulation III Rule 3.20- Wood Products Coating Operations