alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3-1

CHAPTER 3: SCREENING OF DESIGN OPTIONS

The Process Rule requires that the Department screen design options before beginning the

Engineering Analysis. To be considered as the basis for the rulemaking, design options must satisfy four

screening criteria:

C Must be technically feasible

C Must be practical to mass manufacture, install, and service

C Must not substantially reduce consumer utility

C Must not raise significant safety concerns

We assume that design options available in products currently offered to the mass market meet

those screening criteria. The most widespread of these efficiency-related enhancements are:

C Increased coil face area and depth

C Multiple speed fan motor or blower motor

C Variable (or multiple) speed or capacity compressor or dual compressor

C Thermostatic or electronic expansion valve

C Improved air flow and fan design

C Increased efficiency compressor (scroll, advanced reciprocating)

Several recent and ongoing developments may soon change the cost impact of some of these

enhancements and make themmore attractive tomanufacturers.Eachoftheseemerging technologies also

meets the screening criteria:

C Advanced variable speed motor control (e.g. DC controllers and AC inverters)

C Advanced modulating compressors (e.g. Bristol TS®, Copeland Modulated Scroll®)

C Microchannel heat exchangers

We considered the impacts of these emerging technologies separately from our ARI validation

effort.

Finally, the industry currently faces a federally mandated phase out of refrigerant HCFC-22 by

2010. Although researchers continue to investigate severalalternative refrigerants, only two seem likely to

achieve significant penetration: 410Aand 407C. For new products, 410A is favored. Its higher operating

pressure and thermodynamic properties enable some reductions in component size that partially offset

higher lubricant and refrigerant costs. 407C operates at similar pressures as HCFC-22 but at a lower

efficiency. Both refrigerants pass the screening criteria. Again, we did not consider either of these within

our ARI validation effort since ARI considered equipment limited to HCFC-22.

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 241ZZ
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 68846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9442]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress; Meeting

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting 
of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. The committee 
advises NARA on the full range of programs, policies, and plans for the 
Center for Legislative Archives in the Office of Records Services.

DATES: December 4, 2006 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Capitol Building, Room H-137, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard H. Hunt, Director; Center for 
Legislative Archives at (202) 357-5350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda.
    Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress Fourth Report.
    Update on the Center for Legislative Archives.
    Other current issues and new business.
    The meeting is open to the public. This notice is published less 
than 15 calendar days before the meeting because of scheduling 
difficulties.

    Dated: November 22, 2006.
Londell Buckson,
NARA Federal Register Certifying Official.
[FR Doc. 06-9442 Filed 11-22-06; 3:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn D. Bolduc, President, Chief Executive of the Company, hereby 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/Glenn D. BolducGlenn D. BolducPresident, Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 21, 2011







This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by we for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or our staff upon request.
Hillsborough,

No. 5833.

#### Thomas J. Claveau *v.*Robert L. Stark, *Secretary of State & a.*

Argued August 15, 1968.

Decided August 15, 1968.

*Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch*and *Matthias f. Reynolds {Mr. Reynolds*orally), for the plaintiff.

*George S. Pappagianis,*Attorney General and *Irma A. Matthews,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mrs. Matthews*orally), for the defendants.

Per curiam.

Petition for mandamus arising out of the refusal of the defendant Stark, as Secretary of State, to print the plaintiff’s name on the official ballot as a candidate for Governor in the Democratic primary to be held on September 10, 1968. Trial by the Court ( *Grant,*J.) who ruled for the plaintiff and reserved and transferred the defendants’ exceptions.

The Court made the following finding: “ The Court finds that Claveau had undertaken and had commenced the process of filing before 5:00 P.M. [on July 25, 1968] and was within a minute or less of completing the act when the filings were closed to completion at 5:00 P. M. ”

The single question raised in this appeal is whether a filing which has not been fully completed before the 5 o’clock deadline is valid and legal. The plaintiff’s motion to strike part III of the State’s brief is granted.

An essential act required by the statute is the filing of the de - claration of candidacy. Although the plaintiff had tendered the required filing fee prior to 5 o’clock, he had not completed the essential act of filing his declaration of candidacy prior to the *150deadline. We conclude, as a matter of law, that any filing with the Secretary of State must be fully completed before 5:00 P.M. on the last day of filing. RSA 56:11, 13, 13-a, 14, 25 (supp).

Accordingly the order of the Superior Court is vacated (see *Colby*v. *Broderick,*96 N. H. 316, 318) and the order in this court is

Defendants’ *exception sustained.*
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





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mizati Luxury Alloy Wheels, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date: April 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Hazel ChuName:
Hazel ChuTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Mizati Luxury Alloy Wheels, Inc. will be retained by Mizati Luxury Alloy Wheels, Inc. and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
RE: Regional haze RP analysis 

Alden West to: Vanessa Hinkle 10/26/2011 01 :55 PM 

From: "Alden West" <wesLalden@ecrweb.com> 

To: Vanessa Hinkle/R8/USEPAlUS@EPA 

Hi Vanessa, 

As you point out, most of the data used to develop this cost equation were 

for smaller engines. However, a few of them were over 500 hp, including one 

that was 3,000 hp. On page 16 there is a graph showing the linear equation 

used to model cost vs horsepower. It appears that the higher horsepower 

engines continue to follow the linear path. The data are also the most 

recent we could find. For these reasons, we made the assumption that this 

equation could be extrapolated further out to model 5,500 horsepower and 

would still be valid. The appendix is located at the end of the document 

(attached) . 

There are some data in the impacts assessment for the 2002 RICE NESHAP, 

attached, which regulates engines that are over 500 hp. Specifically, on 

page 3-10 there is a table showing the control costs (this document assumes 

control with NSCR) for engines in higher horsepower ranges. We did not use 

this data because we could not obtain the supporting documentation that went 

along with the table, and the information is more outdated than the 2010 

memorandum discussed above. 

However, the 2002 data indicate that the annualized cost of control for an 

engine in the 5,000 to 10,000 hp range would be over three times higher than 

the cost calculated using the equations from the 2010 memorandum (Annual 

control cost from 2002 RIA = $105,000; compared to annual control cost used 

in 4-factor (from 2010 memorandum) = $31,914). Although the annualized cost 

is higher, the cost effectiveness calculated from the 2002 data would still 

be low. I calculated the cost effectiveness as follows: annual cost of NSCR 

froln 2002 data is $105,000 divided by emissions reduced (from 4-factor 

analysis) of 669.3 tons, yields a cost effectiveness of $157/ton NOx 

reduced. Both sets of data provide a low cost effectiveness value for NSCR. 

Hope this helps, please let me know if you have any more questions. 

Alden 

-----Original Message----­

From: Hinkle.Vanessa@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Hinkle.Vanessa@epamail.epa.govJ 

Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:55 AM 

To: Alden West 

Cc: Fallon.Gail@epamail.epa.gov; 'Doug' 

Subject: RE: Regional haze RP analysis 

Hi Alden - As I understand it, this was used for the RICE NESHAPS rule 

making in 2010. That rule making was for engines that are < 500 hp. 

Would the equations be valid for engines as large as those at Devon (5500 

hpj? Were there engines of comparable size in the data set for NSCR? Can you 

send me Appendix A to the memo? Thanks. 

Vanessa Hinkle 

Environmental Scientist 

EPA Region 8
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1212 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BURUNDI 

Signed at Bujumbura December 12, 2007 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
BURUNDI 

Economic and Technical Cooperation 

Agreement signed at Bujumbura December 12, 2007; 

 Entered into force December 12, 2007.
----

| 1. | The Report duly complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Jason Walsh                                                  |   | Date:  September 11, 2012 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Jason Walsh                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |   |                                |   |
| Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |   |                                |   |

----
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00186-CV

GERRI E. SAVALA,

Appellant

v.

CHARTER DRYWALL DALLAS, CORP.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-C-3211

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of this Court notified the parties in a September 14, 2010 letter that this 

appeal would be dismissed after 14 days unless Appellant filed a motion to dismiss or 

otherwise filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. No motion or 

response has been received. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(c).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
Savala v. Charter Drywall Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and 

Justice Davis

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 20, 2010

[CV06]
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

 March 13, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM

TO: Patricia C. Orrock

 Chief Compliance Officer

 

FROM: Neven F. Stipanovic 

Acting Associate General Counsel

Policy Division

 Lorenzo Holloway 

 Assistant General Counsel

 Compliance Advice 

Margaret J. Forman

Attorney 

SUBJECT: Draft Final Audit Report on the New Jersey Republican State Committee 

(LRA 1070) 

 The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the Draft Final Audit Report (“DFAR”) 

on the New Jersey Republican State Committee. The DFAR contains two findings: 

(1) Misstatement of Financial Activity and (2) Reporting of Debts and Obligations. We concur 

with the findings. If you have any questions, please contact Margaret J. Forman, the attorney 

assigned to this audit.
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 28 

Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Ferguson as a citizen regent 

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2023 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. PETERS) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Rules and Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the reappointment of Roger W. Ferguson as 

a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43) the vacancy on 

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in 

6 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 

7 reason of the expiration of the term of Roger W. Ferguson 

8 of Florida on April 25, 2023, is filled by the reappoint9 ment of the incumbent. The reappointment is for a term 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 28 IS 

1 of six years, beginning on the later of April 25, 2023, or 

2 the date of enactment of this joint resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
From: Joshua Burman (MPCA) [Joshua.burman@state.mn.us]

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:10 PM To: Rich LaShier Subject: States Policies Respecting CBI Claims for Hazardous Waste Manifests; Additional

Followup from MN Dear Rich: Yes, the Minnesota data laws do include a ‘trade secret’ provision [Minn. Stat. 13.37, Subd. 1], however this provision is much more restrictive than the Federal (FOIA) equivalent, and was intended to include “...formula, pattern, compilation, program, devic e, method, technique or process...”, which does not encompass simple data collections, and also does not include the Federal provisions for ‘commercial or financial information’. Excerpt from Minnesota Department of Administration, Information Policy Analys is Division (Minnesota state agency responsible for implementation and enforcement of Minnesota’s public data laws): “...The Commissioner does, however, offer the following guidance. First, data considered proprietary by a non - government entity are not prote cted from public disclosure when those data become government data. As the Commissioner stated in Advisory Opinions 98

-017 and 98

- 026, she is not aware of any statutory provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public... ...Also important to keep in mind is that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, unlike the federal Freedom of Information Act, does not generally protect from public disclosure "commercial or financial information" when that information becomes government data. (See 5 U .S.C. 552 (b)(4).) (See Advisory Opinions 94

- 037, 95

-017, and 98

- 050.)...” [Advisory Opinion 98

- 054] Minnesota has also previously made rulings that to qualify as a protected ‘compilation’ under the intended Minnesota meaning of the term, the data in questi on must not just be a collection of data generated or used by the supplier in the normal course of its business, but must be a truly unique creation from which the supplier realizes direct economic gain: “...In order for a compilation to be a trade secret wi thin the meaning of section 13.37, the data must be a compilation that, in and of itself, is information that derives independent economic value from not being known to others. A compilation of information which is compiled by the affected organization in its normal course of carrying on its operations, such as a list of employees and their salaries, is not the type of compilation that should qualify for trade secret protection under section 13.37. To be consistent with other items listed in the first eleme nt of the trade secret definition, a compilation that qualifies for trade secret protection ought to be a unique kind of compilation, the preparation of which results in some kind in some kind of direct economic gain to the compiler....” [Advisory Opinion 02

- 041]. Minnesota does not recognize any difference between protection of individual manifest data and compiled manifest data. Thanks: **Joshua Burman HW/PCB Compliance**  **MPCA, Mankato Office**
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK BEAM and RENEE BEAM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

MATTHEW S. PETERSEN, FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 07cv1227 

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer 

Magistrate Judge Cole 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

COMPLIANCE WITH N.D. Ill. CIV. R. 

83.12(b) 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

COMPLIANCE WITH N.D. Ill. CIV. R. 83.12(b) 

AND NOTICE OF MOTION 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) moves this Court pursuant to 

N.D. Ill. Civ. R. 83.12(b) to compel plaintiffs to retain a qualified member of the trial bar 

and notice her or his appearance before the trial of this matter. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance will be 

presented to the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on Wednesday, August 25, 2010, at 10 

a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 198 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 2
Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

/s/_Benjamin A. Streeter III

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

Holly J. Baker 

Attorney 

August 13, 2010 FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

AND ITS CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 198 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2
Presidential Documents

75647 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 242 

Monday, December 18, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 13418 of December 14, 2006 

Amendment to Executive Order 13317, Volunteers for Prosperity 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, and to add combating malaria as 

one of the objectives of the global prosperity agenda, it is hereby ordered 

that section 1(a) of Executive Order 13317 of September 25, 2003, is amended 

by: 

(a) striking ‘‘, and stemming the spread of HIV/AIDS.’’ and inserting in 

lieu thereof ‘‘, stemming the spread of HIV/AIDS and controlling malaria.’’; 

and 

(b) striking ‘‘, and the Middle East Partnership Initiative.’’ and inserting 

in lieu thereof ‘‘, the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and the President’s 

Malaria Initiative.’’. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

December 14, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–9770 

Filed 12–15–06; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with MISCELLANEOUSGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Strafford,

No. 5635.

#### Barbara A. Callaghan *v.*Joseph Callaghan.

Argued September 7, 1967.

Decided October 6, 1967.

Calderwood’ *Silverman*& *Ouellette*and *David S. Sands {Mr. Sands*orally), for the libelant.

*Bums, Bryant, Hinchey & Nadeau*and *Paul R. Cox {Mr. Cox*orally), for the libelee.

Griffith, J.

The libelant urges that the denial of the divorce was contrary to the weight of the evidence and should be set aside. The Trial Court found that the libelee did not treat the libelant as seriously to injure her health or endanger her reason. The findings of the Trial Court are binding where there is evidence to support them. *Ballou*v. *Ballou,*95 N. H. 105; *Cote*v. *Cote,*94 N. H. 372, 373; *Johnson*v. *Johnson,*80 N. H. 15. “The Trial Judge could disbelieve the libelant’s testimony, believe the libelee’s, and enter the decree which he did.” *Ballou*v. *Ballou, supra; Franklyn*v. *Franklyn,*93 N. H. 90. The record supports the Trial Court’s denial of the divorce.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.