alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Susan Miller [ mailto:SMiller@bia.org ] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:43 PM To: Nizich, Sharon Cc: Schimmel, Terry (Bricks - Phenix City); Garth Tayler Subject: DLA/uncontrolled kilns Sharon Here is a quick rundown of the “top performing” DLA and uncontrolled - and what we believe are the reasons for eliminating these tests from your analyses Kiln # 695 - Lee Brick - plant is gone 696 - Lee Brick - minimal sample volume not achieved (see previous email) 549 - Gleason - significant combustion system modifications (see previous email from Terry Schimmel) 673/674 - Hanson - sample volume unknown and “assumed” to be one in data table. Actual lower volume would mean concen tration calculated below true value. 647 - Glen Gery - new test report provided demonstrating DLA performance over time 662 - Hanson Monroe - Initial MACT compliance test - suspect all new limestone (verifying)/slow push rate 583 - Columbus Brick - Initial MACT c ompliance test - suspect all new limestone (verifying) - sample volume “assumed” to be one - actual lower volume would mean concentration calculated below true value 680 - Henry Brick - Initial MACT compliance test - suspect all new limestone 665 - Hanson - plant d emolished (see previous email) 663 - Hanson - plant demolished (see previous email) 649 - Glen Gery - more recent test report provided demonstrating PM performance over time. 646 - Glen Gery - more recent test report provided demonstrating PM performance over ti me. 571 - Bowerston - true area source (see previous email) 770 - Triangle Brick - Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD - all new limestone 725 - Pine Hall - Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD - all new limestone 691 - Redland Lawr enceville - Initial compliance test - all new limestone installed prior to test 769 - Triangle Brick - Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD - all new limestone 625 - General Shale - Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD - all new lim estone If you need more information on any of these - or any other kilns, please do hesitate to contact me. We can continue to work through the list if you believe this would help you, but we believe we have included all that could potentially be included in a MACT floor determination. We do not agree that the exclusion of these sources impacts your proper decision to base the floor for the proposed standard on 12 percent of the number of sources in the category and not on 12% with stack data. EPA teste d only DIFF sources in the Section 114 testing program in 2010 and 2011 and acknowledged that these sources were the best performing sources. These tests are the only tests since the tests to develop the AP - 42 to test for metals and mercury. susan Susan J MillerVice President, Environment, Health & Safety Brick Industry Association 311 South Academy Street Cary, North Carolina 27511 919 380 - 2191 smiller@bia.org When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn something new.

- Dalai Lama
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 Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2010 (the Report), I, Alan L. Wells, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: April 26, 2010 |  | /s/ Alan L. Wells                              
|                     |  | Alan L. Wells                                  
|                     |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                     |  | Principal Executive Officer                    
|                     |  | Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.
No. 40566.

#### Protests 886387-G, etc., of Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel bookends and letter openers were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445) and *Dow*v. *United Stales*(id. 282, T. D. 46816) cited. Wooden stands similar to those the subject of *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) were held dutiable at 333⁄8 percent under paragraph 412 as claimed.
6FFlCE OF THE AmORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Cullen B. Vame 

County Attorney 

Jaokson County 

ltdna, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

@&‘/ 4606 R.C.S.) provides 

the return muat be made 

performed, but I have 

d any statute or dealsion 

which the rites of 

after the laauArticles 4604 and 46040, Vermonta Annotated Civil 

Statutes, respectively provide: 

“Persons who desire to marry shall prooure from the County Clerk a lloense direoted 

. 
Honorable Cullen B. Vance, Page 2 

to all persons authorized by lav to celebrate 

the rites of n@trimOnY, which shall be auSSlclent authority to celebrate suoh marriage,” 

“Before the County Clerk shall issue any 

marriage lloenme the man shall produoe a oectlfioate from a reputable lioemed phyalolah 

to show that he 18 free Sron all venereal 

dlsea8es. * (Bnphasls ours) 

AU a general rule, 

time v1th.h vhloh an aOt met 

when a statute preearibes no 

be 

be done within a reasonable time. 

done, then the act rhould 

We have still a Further basis. In our opinion 

No, o-5755, dated December 23, 1943, we said1 

* 

, . * . 

“It vi11 be noted that the foregoing etatute prescriber no time that the oertlfloate 

from a reputable liceneed physiolan shall remain valid for the Purpose of 18suing a mnrriege 

license. Oenerally speaking, when a statute 

prescribes no t-e v1W.n vhiOh an sot must be 

done, then the sot should be done within a reasonable time. 

"what Is a reasonable time within whlah m 

act must be done OFddinsrily means 80 muoh time 

as is neaeasary, under the olraumstanoea, and 

what the duties reQulr% in the ptwtioular ease. 

Se! Worda and PhrsLles, PerIn, Ed., Vol. 6, page 

Stated another way, reasonable time is 

eueh'promptitude as the situation of the parties 

and the oiraumatanoes OS the aaae will 8110~. 

It never means an indulgenae In unneoeesary delay or in delay oocasioned by vain and fruitless 

effort to do the aOt required. 

Q 

See 

Lewie, 218 pa. 141, 11 LR.A. 

French Y. 

94 , N.8.) 

“In answer to your Slret question, you are 

advised that it is our Opinion that the Oertlficate from a reputable and lloensed physioian remal.ns valid for the purpoee OS Issuing a marriage 
Honmmble Cullen B. Vanoe, Page 3 

llaenne under Artlole 46040, supra, for a ma- 

~sonable length of time after the physician has 

issued suoh oertlflcste. 

" (I 

. . . . 

A pub110 health polloy .Surther demands that the 

physloian~s oertlfloate remain valid for only a reasonable 

length of time.- This same pub110 polloy demands that the 

~s~~~ 1lo0~1e remain valid for only a reasonable length 

IS ve should hold otherwise, ve would, in erieat, 

negativi the purpose OS Artlale 46040, supra. 

It is the opinion of this department, therefore, 

tbat the marriage ceremony should be performed wlthln a 

reasonable length of time aiter the lsrunnoe o? the lloense 

to mm-y. ife further believe that a reasonable length of 

time la suSSi.olently derined in our foregoing quotation 

from our Opinion No. O-5755, rupra. 

~llt~ thir 88ti8iaOtOZ'ilj 8118Wer8 your inqui~, 

ve am 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNNY CNNNRALOFTNXAS 

By ~m~&df-&&“- 

'Assistant
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2290 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2290

      To authorize the Commissioner of the United States Section, 
 International Boundary and Water Commission, to reimburse States and 
units of local government for expenses incurred by the States and units 
  of local government in designing, constructing, and rehabilitating 
water projects under the jurisdiction of the International Boundary and 
                           Water Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2012

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To authorize the Commissioner of the United States Section, 
 International Boundary and Water Commission, to reimburse States and 
units of local government for expenses incurred by the States and units 
  of local government in designing, constructing, and rehabilitating 
water projects under the jurisdiction of the International Boundary and 
                           Water Commission.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``International Boundary and Water 
Commission Reimbursement Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN WATER PROJECTS.

    The Commissioner of the United States Section, International 
Boundary and Water Commission (referred to in this section as the 
``Commission''), may reimburse States and units of local government for 
expenses incurred by the States and units of local governments in 
designing, constructing, and rehabilitating water projects that--
            (1) are under the jurisdiction of the Commission; and
            (2) are designed, constructed, or rehabilitated before, on, 
        or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40333-40334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-815 and A-580-816]


Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Korea; Extension of Time Limits for Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Extension of time limits for antidumping duty administrative 
reviews of certain cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel 
flat products from Korea.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is extending 
the time limits for the preliminary results of the third antidumping 
duty administrative reviews of the antidumping orders on certain cold-
rolled and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. 
These reviews cover three manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise: Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Union Steel Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd., and Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. The period of review is 
August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alain Letort or John R. Kugelman, AD/
CVD Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 
(202) 482-4243 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department initiated these 
administrative reviews on September 16, 1996 (61 FR 48882). On February 
25, 1997, we published a notice in the Federal Register (62 FR 8424) 
extending the deadline for the preliminary review results to August 1, 
1997, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(``the Act''), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. 
Because it is not practicable to complete these reviews within the

[[Page 40334]]

extended deadline, the Department is extending the time limits for the 
preliminary results of the aforementioned reviews to September 2, 1997. 
See memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa, which is 
on file in Room B-099 at the Department's headquarters.
    This extension of time limits is in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Dated: July 18, 1997.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 97-19719 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 10.115

AMENDMENT TO THE  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment Agreement, made as of the 28th day of November, 2001 is between ATC Healthcare, Inc (formerly Staff Builders, Inc.) (the
"Company") and Stephen Savitsky (the "Employee").

WHEREAS,
the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1987, amended by Agreement dated October 31, 1991 and further amended by
Agreement dated December 7, 1992 (the "Agreement"); and further amended by Agreement dated October 20, 1999; and

WHEREAS,
the parties now desire to further amend the Agreement as provided herein;

NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

Except
as expressly amended herein, all other terms, conditions, agreements, representations and warranties contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written:

| |  | ATC HEALTHCARE, INC.
| |  | --------------------
| |  | By                  
| |  | EMPLOYEE            
| |  |                     

---

QuickLinks
No. 48924.

#### Protest 98725-K of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. (Detroit).

*299Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the items consist of salted codfish similar in all material respects to that passed upon in Abstract 48574. That record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 1)4 cents per pound under paragraph 719 (3) and T. D. 49752 was sustained.
June 10, 1952

No. 56764.

protest 138205-K.

#### Schenley Import Corp. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1405. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 50753.

#### Protest 676804-G of Jacobsen and Kupitsky (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of dogskins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Arnhold & Co., Inc.*(27 C. C. P. A. 135, C. A. D. 74), and that other items consist of goatskins the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Winograd Bros., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302). In accordance therewith the claim for freejentry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Distribution J4 celebrates the season with ugly sweater contest

By Dawn BonsellDLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
DLA Distribution J4 hosted an ugly sweater contest in honor of the holiday season. Featured donning their holiday creations are (left to right):  Eric “king of the elves” Rhodes, Nancy “where’s my drink and cigs” Bates, Laura “I fell in the supply room” Bailey, Emily “ bleeding unicorn horn” Crusey, Brain “hobo” Fahnestock and Gregory “look at me, I’m in a picture” Pigg. The winners will be announced later this week.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionDistribution
AAM-11-457-E 

September 21, 2011 

 Exemption No. 9945A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0884 

Ms. Deann J. Shier 

Chief Executive Officer 

Shier Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopters 

3753 John J. Montgomery Drive, Suite 2 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Dear Ms. Shier: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9945. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 8, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Shier Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopters (Corporate Helicopters) 

for an extension of Exemption No. 9945. That exemption from part 120, Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Corporate Helicopters which is operating under separate parts of 

the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Corporate 

Helicopters. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9945 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Corporate Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at 

all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Corporate Helicopters part 135 operation, not under the part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9945 to October 31, 2013, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9945 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9945. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9088]

Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 
the PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board hereinafter referred to as ``the 
Board'', will meet as indicated below.
    The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) 
Scientific Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, April 30th via 
teleconference. The meeting will be from 9 a.m. ET until approximately 
10:30 a.m. ET and is open to the public (please see teleconference 
phone number below). The meeting will be hosted by the Office of the 
U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Deborah L. Birx, who leads 
implementation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 
(PEPFAR). The PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board serves the Global AIDS 
Coordinator in a solely advisory capacity concerning scientific, 
implementation, and policy issues related to the global response to 
HIV/AIDS. These issues will be of concern as they influence the 
priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and research, the content 
of national and international strategies and implementation, and the 
role of PEPFAR in the international discourse regarding appropriate and 
resourced responses. The April 30th teleconference will act as an 
introduction to PEPFAR programs, the goals of the Board, and provide an 
overview and forum for discussion of PEPFAR 3.0, (http://www.pepfar.gov/documents/organization/234744.pdf) which sets the 
strategic direction of the program. The public may attend this meeting 
by using the conference number provided here: (United States: (800) 
230-1951/International: (612) 332-0226/Confirmation Number: 357464).
    To RSVP, please contact the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS 
Coordinator: email (PEPFAR_SAB@state.gov), by April 22nd, 2015. While 
the meeting is open to public attendance, the Board will determine 
procedures for public participation and will announce those procedures 
at the meeting.
    For further information about the meeting, please contact Dr. Julia 
MacKenzie, Senior Technical Advisor and Designated Federal Officer, 
Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator at (202) 663-1079 or 
MacKenzieJJ@state.gov.

    Dated: April 2, 2015.
Julia MacKenzie,
Senior Technical Advisor, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, 
U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-08157 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
Before the First Division,

April 14, 1943

No. 48193.

#### Protest 88282-K of Louis Wolf & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the velvet glove monkeys in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 46499 the claim under paragraph 909 was sustained.