alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ellen LUNSFORD *v.*Henry JONES

CA 84-107

669 S.W.2d 16

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 16, 1984

*237
      *Fletcher Long,*for appellant.

M. *Randy Rice,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because of appellant’s failure to file her brief when due. Appellant’s response states that she did not receive a briefing schedule from the clerk’s office and she requests that a new briefing schedule be established and she be allowed to file her brief in accordance with that schedule.

We deny the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and grant appellant twenty (20) days in which to file her brief. We note, however, a recent tendency on the part of appellants to overlook Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 7 which provides that in all civil cases the appellant’s abstract and brief shall be filed within forty (40) days of lodging the record on appeal.

We also note an increasing tendency to overlook the provision of Rule 7 that requires the appellee’s brief to be filed within thirty (30) days after the appellant’s brief has been *filed*even if the appellant’s brief is filed early.

These time periods are fixed by the rule and do not depend upon notification by the clerk of the court. Therefore, it is important that the bar keep these provisions in mind.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

KNOWLEDGE WHITE, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:12-cv-1125 

 JUDGE SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

JOHN KASICH, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On June 3, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that this case be sua sponte dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The parties were specifically 

advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of 

their failure to do so. There has nevertheless been no objection to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

 The Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This case is 

hereby dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:12-cv-01125-GCS-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 07/01/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 12
  COMPUTATION
    OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
  Nine MonthsEndedSeptember 30,


December 31,


December 31,


December 31,


December 31,


December 31,2008


2007


2006


2005


2004


2003(In thousands)Earnings before income taxes

$
404,630


$
263,891


$
233,442


$
175,860


$
127,830


$
47,745Add:Interest on indebtedness


36,451



33,311



29,227



36,234



34,227



39,324Amortization of debt expense


810



796



704



939



1,098



1,741Portion of rents representative of the interest factor


8,063



8,578



7,735



7,392



7,089



7,807Deduct:Undistributed earnings from less-than-50-percent-owned entities


(65
)


427



(61
)


(631
)


(1,055
)


(1,777
)Earnings (as defined)

$
449,889


$
307,003


$
271,047


$
219,794


$
169,189


$
94,840Fixed charges:Interest on indebtedness

$
36,451


$
33,311


$
29,227


$
36,234


$
34,227


$
39,324Amortization of debt expense


810



796



704



939



1,098



1,741Portion of rents representative of the interest factor


8,063



8,578



7,735



7,392



7,089



7,807Total fixed charges

$
45,324


$
42,685


$
37,666


$
44,565


$
42,414


$
48,872Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


9.9
x


7.2
x


7.2
x


4.9
x


4.0
x


1.9
x
BATHYMETRIC MAP

ALASKA
BAIRD INLET

e5p000mE, |

|. 510000m.6,

6750000m.\y

NELSON

6760000m.NN

ET NP 38

= BAIRD IN

=

6660000m.).

/#?

~ 971 97)
4

~et

BAIRD INLET NP 3-8

'USKOKWIM BAY NO 3.
a3 ROSE,

T's] 0000-6 I

Base map information including bathymetry was compiled by the National
Ocean Service (NOS). Bathymetry was compiled from NOS hydrographic
surveys supplemented by hydrographic information from other sources (see
index). NOS hydrographic survey data complies with International Hydro-
graphic Organization (IHO) Publication 44 accuracy standards or those
used at the date of the surveys. This is a reproduction of a facsimile of the
bathymetric manuscript and does not necessarily represent the final publica-
tion. This information is not intended for navigational purposes.
Bathymetric Contour Intervals: 10 meters to maximum depth supplemented
by 2 meter intervals.
Datum: Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).
Universal Transverse Mercator Grid. Zone 3; 10,000 meter ticks (--) are
shown inside the neatline.
Protraction Diagram data shown in a subdued (screened) black was com-
piled by the Minerals Management Service (MMS).
THIS MAP iS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT for Federal leasing purposes; for
such purposes use the MMS Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction
Diagrams.

Heavy line(s} indicate limits of these protraction diagrams.

HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMATION

SURVEY
survey survey SURVEY LINE SPACING
NUMBER DATE ‘SCALE (NAUT. MILES)
H-3682 1913-15 1:100,000 10-60
H-3696 1914 4:20,000 (02-.31
4.3799 i915 1:20,000 03-40
H-3800 1915 1:20,000 08-34

£6660000m.N,

@g0000"-E,

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

1989
Produced at Washington, D.C.

for

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
Scale 1:250,000

NATIONAL OCEAN. SERVICE
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX

165°

‘Supplementary Data

20 Statute Miles

° “5 10 15
0 5 10 is 20 25
——— F

oO 5 10

15 Nautical Miles
7

Photographic copies of the above and prior surveys may be obtained, at the cost of reproduction, by
addressing the Director (N/CG243), National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

BAIRD INLET
NOS NP 3-8 (OCS)

INDEX TO ADJOINING SHEETS
168° 159°

62° a _ ———7 62
Sy
HOOPER ga
NPS

sagen] ange ger |

LS

CAPE MENDENHA WIM BAY eQODNEWS
| Noa ntAte | KUSKCGUaNS BAY wom
59° 59°

168° 159°
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 on Form 10-QSB of Regency
Affiliates, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Neil N. Hasson, Chief Financial 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:

      (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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as
      of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the
      Company for the periods presented.

Dated: December 17, 2007


/s/ Neil N. Hasson
-----------------------
Neil N. Hasson
Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3015

KEVIN F. CORADESCHI,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in NY0752040163-A-1.

Before DYK, Circuit Judge.

ORDER 

Kevin C. Coradeschi submits correspondence notifying the court how he believes

this case should proceed in light of the court's decision in Ramos v. Department of

Justice, 2008-3093. The court considers whether the Department of Homeland Security

should be directed to respond how it believes this case should proceed.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Department of Homeland Security is directed to respond within 14 days of

the date of filing of this order how it believes this petition for review should proceed.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 2 4 2009

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

IL ED US. COURTFOF APPEALS FO

R

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Hililary A. Stern, Esq.

Thomas G. Roth, Esq.

FEB 2 4 2009

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

s20
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 490 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 490

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
                        Lannak v, Biden, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2006

     Mr. Frist (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 
                        Lannak v, Biden, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Lannak v. Biden, et al., No. 06-CV-0180, pending in the 
        United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the plaintiff 
        has named as defendants Senators Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Thomas R. 
        Carper; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its 
        counsel to defend Members, officers, and employees of the Senate in 
        civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Senators Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Thomas R. Carper in the case of 
Lannak v. Biden, et al.
                                 <all>
```
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

KEITH L. JONES,

Petitioner,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. C2-12-177

NORM ROBINSON, WARDEN., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH P. DEAVERS

Respondent.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the OPINION AND ORDER filed October 4, 2012, JUDGMENT is

hereby entered DISMISSING this case.

Date: October 4, 2012 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00177-EAS-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/04/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
MEMORANDUM 

To: United States Department of Energy

From: Erica Logan, Information Technology Industry Council 

Date: 24 March 2014 

Re: Ex Parte Communication 

On Thursday March 20th, energy efficiency experts held a teleconference call with 

representatives of the US Department of Energy (DOE) to discuss DOE’s proposed 

determination for “computer systems”. The industry representatives requested clarification 

regarding DOE’s intent with respect to how “computer systems” are defined, and shared 

pertinent technical and business information. 

The following individuals attended either part or the entire teleconference call meeting: 

Jeremy Dommu, DOE 

Dan Cohen, DOE 

Celia Sher, DOE 

Erica Logan, ITI 

Chris Hankin, ITI 

Robert White, Dell 

Gary Verdun, Dell 

Mark Hollenbeck, HP 

Adrian Liga, Apple 

Jay Taylor, Schneider Electric 

Donna Sadowy, AMD 

David Maciel, Sony 

Jenni Chun, Samsung 

Deb Lord, Oracle 

Shahid Sheikh, Intel 

Sincerely, 

Erica Logan 

Information Technology Industry Council
# C_2009005EN.01000101.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 January 2009

(2009/C 5/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3684 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,40 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4523 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89480 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,7215 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4998 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4975 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,460 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 276,13 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7066 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0445 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2323 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1212 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9371 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6186 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6150 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,3160 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0252 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 843,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2321 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3538 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3212 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 035,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8448 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,520 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,5613 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,675 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1228 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7676 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,9360 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3684

JPY

Japanese yen

124,40

DKK

Danish krone

7,4523

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89480

SEK

Swedish krona

10,7215

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4998

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4975

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,460

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

276,13

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7066

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0445

RON

Romanian leu

4,2323

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1212

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9371

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6186

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6150

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,3160

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0252

KRW

South Korean won

1 843,92

ZAR

South African rand

13,2321

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3538

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3212

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 035,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8448

PHP

Philippine peso

64,520

RUB

Russian rouble

41,5613

THB

Thai baht

47,675

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1228

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7676

INR

Indian rupee

65,9360

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Case: 2:12-cv-00207-EAS-MRA Doc #: 22 Filed: 09/04/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T11:52:28-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Eldar Z. Veliev, 

Petitioner 

v. 

Warden Chillicothe Correctional 

Institution, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 2:12-cv-346 

JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON 

Magistrate Judge Kemp 

ORDER 

This case is before the Court to consider a Report and Recommendation issued 

by the Magistrate Judge on April 15, 2013. The time for filing objections has passed, 

and no objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. This action will be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as unexhausted unless, within 21 days, petitioner deletes his 

unexhausted claim from the petition and elects to proceed on his exhausted claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00346-MHW-TPK Doc #: 13 Filed: 05/16/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 12
  COMPUTATION
    OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
  Six MonthsEndedJune 30,


Years Ended December 31,2009


2008


2007


2006


2005


2004(In thousands)Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes

$
69,614


$
431,084


$
263,891


$
233,442


$
175,860


$
127,830Add:Interest on indebtedness


17,567



47,011



33,311



29,227



36,234



34,227Amortization of debt expense


469



1,070



796



704



939



1,098Portion of rents representative of the interest factor


5,189



10,823



8,578



7,735



7,392



7,089Deduct:Undistributed earnings from less-than-50-percent-owned entities


(5
)


(66
)


427



(61
)


(631
)


(1,055
)Earnings (as defined)

$
92,834


$
489,922


$
307,003


$
271,047


$
219,794


$
169,189Fixed charges:Interest on indebtedness

$
17,567


$
47,011


$
33,311


$
29,227


$
36,234


$
34,227Amortization of debt expense


469



1,070



796



704



939



1,098Portion of rents representative of the interest factor


5,189



10,823



8,578



7,735



7,392



7,089Total fixed charges

$
23,225


$
58,904


$
42,685


$
37,666


$
44,565


$
42,414Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


4.0
x


8.3
x


7.2
x


7.2
x


4.9
x


4.0x
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 1324 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 104 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2541-2542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-750]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Issuance of Permits

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals.

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

SUMMARY: The following permits were issued.

ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these 
applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of 
the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who 
submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Division

[[Page 2542]]

of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, 
Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, 
telephone 703/358-2104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates 
below, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife 
Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set 
forth therein.

                                                 Marine Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Receipt of application
         Permit No.                  Applicant         Federal Register notice        Permit issuance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
125911......................  Craig A. Stanley.......  71 FR 42409; July 26,    November 20, 2006.
                                                        2006.
130149......................  Kevin T. Klumper.......  71 FR 60564; October     December 5, 2006.
                                                        13, 2006.
130438......................  William I. Morgan, Jr..  71 FR 60564; October     December 8, 2006.
                                                        13, 2006.
132483......................  Hartwell N. Riser, Jr..  71 FR 60561; October     December 1, 2006.
                                                        13, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: December 15, 2006.
Michael S. Moore,
Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management 
Authority.
 [FR Doc. E7-750 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
```

[110th Congress Public Law 122]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ122.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1350]]

Public Law 110-122
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, as the ``Corporal Christopher 
  E. Esckelson Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Nov. 30, 2007 -  [H.R. 
                                2276]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER E. ESCKELSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building''.

    Approved November 30, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2276:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Oct. 1, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Custom er Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 - 2474 UNITED STA

TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY

REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029 October 29, 2010 Mr. David K. Paylor, Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1105 Rich mond, Virginia 23218 Dear Mr. Paylor : On September 29 , 2010, U.S. E nvironmental P rotection A gency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SI P) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality pertaining to the revised d efinition of “Volatile o rganic c ompound ” listed in Section 5
- 10
- 20 of 9VAC5, Chapter 10
. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively

and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice action. If membe rs of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Mr. Harold A. Frankford at (215) 814
- 2108
. He is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ Diana Esher , Director A ir Protection Division