alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Statement of the Air and Radiation Management Administration Department of the Environment

for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed amendments to Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions; and Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.09 Control of Fuel-Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, a nd Certain Fuel-Burning Installations concerning the Definition of “Fuel Burning Equipment” held on August 4, 2010 in Baltimore, MD

My name is Randy Mosier. I am the Division Chief of the Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation Management Ad ministration, Department of the Environment.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Artic le, Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101.

Notice of this hearing appeared in the:

Maryland Register on July 2, 2010; Baltimore Sun on July 2, 2010; Saint Mary's Enterprise on July 2, 2010; Cumberland Times-News on July 2, 2010; Frederick News-Post on July 2, 2010; Salisbury Daily Times on July 2, 2010; Washington Post on July 1, 2010;and the MDE's website on June 22 - August 4, 2010

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record.

Copies of the proposed amendments and supporting documents were submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies of the proposed amendments and supporting documents were made available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control

offices.

The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on proposed amendments to (1) Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions; and (2) Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.09 Control of Fuel-Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations.

12 Summary of Amendments

The action will remove the word "furnace" from the definition of fuel burning equipment in COMAR 26.11.01.01B(17) and remove the defi nition “fuel burning equipment” from

COMAR 26.11.09.01.

Submission to EPA as Revision to Maryland's SIP

These amendments will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to Maryland’s State Implementation Plan.

Consideration of Comments

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt these

amendments.

L:\AQPlanning and Monitoring\Regulation Development Division\Hearing Materials & Notification\Hearing Statements\Hearing Stmt - 26. 11.09 fuel burning def.01.doc
EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Small Business Issuer
--------------------------------------

1.    MadeMyWay.Com (Became Inactive During The 2001 Fiscal Year And The
      Investment Was Written Off).

2.    Peripheral Equipment Corporation.

      ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES.

               The following table represents the aggregate fees billed for
      professional audit services rendered to the Company by Davis Monk & Co.
      for the audit of the Company's annual financial statements for the 2
      years ended October 31, 2004 and 2003, and all fees billed for other
      services by Davis Monk & Co. during those periods:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Ended October 31,                                       2004           2003

Audit fees (1)                                            $14,531        $90,736

Audit Related Fees (2)                                    $ 4,477           None

Tax fees (3)                                              $14,088          1,375

All other fees (3)                                           None           None

Total Accounting Fees and Services                        $33,096        $92,111

      (1)   AUDIT FEES. These are fees for professional services for the audit
            of the Company's annual financial statements, and for the review of
            the financial statements included in the Company's filings on Form
            10Q and for services that are normally provided in connection with
            statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.

      (2)   TAX FEES. These are fees for professional services with respect to
            tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning.

      (3)   ALL OTHER FEES. These are fees for permissible work that does not
            fall within any of the other fee categories, i.e., Audit Fees or Tax
            Fees.

     PRE-APPROVAL POLICY FOR AUDIT SERVICES

              The Company's Audit Committee has responsibility for the
     approval of all audit and non-audit services before the Company engages
     an accountant. All of the services rendered to the Company by Davis
     Monk & Co. for the fiscal years ended October 31, 2004 and 2003 were
     pre-approved by the Audit Committee before the engagement of the
     auditors for such services. The Company and the Audit Committee are
     working with the Company's legal counsel to establish formal
     pre-approval policies and procedures for all future engagements of the
     Company's accountants. The Company's pre-approval policy will expressly
     provide for the annual pre-approval of all audit, audit-related and all
     non-audit services proposed to be rendered by the independent auditor
     for the fiscal year, as specifically described in the auditor's
     engagement letter, such annual pre-approval to be performed by the
     Audit Committee.
262 La. 95

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph L. CHASE.

No. 52306.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1972.

*383Emmett E. Batson, Nathan S. Fisher, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Joseph L. Chase, was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62. He was sentenced to serve three years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary. No bills of exceptions were perfected by the defendant. We are therefore limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971). We find none.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3344 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                Private Calendar No. 14
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3344

                          [Report No. 103-836]

                   For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 21, 1993

  Ms. Byrne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                            October 5, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

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

SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

    (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Lloyd B. Gamble of 
Fairfax, Virginia, the sum of $253,488.
    (b) Basis.--The payment required by subsection (a) shall be to 
compensate Lloyd B. Gamble for the injuries sustained by him as a 
result of the administration to him, without his knowledge, of lysergic 
acid diethylamide by United States Army personnel in 1957.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

    The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in full 
satisfaction of all claims Lloyd B. Gamble may have against the United 
States for any injury described in such section.

SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

    Upon payment of the sum referred to in section 1, Lloyd B. Gamble 
shall not be eligible for any compensation or benefits from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense for any 
injury described in such section.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount of more than 10 percent of the 
amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to or received by any 
agent or attorney for any service rendered to Lloyd B. Gamble in 
connection with the benefits provided by this Act. Any person who 
violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be 
subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United States 
Code.
                                     

                                                Private Calendar No. 14

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3344

                          [Report No. 103-836]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

                   For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 5, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed
```
#### Carmine Citera et al., Respondents, *v.*Dominic Salzano et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of S & S Carting Company, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 26, 1953.

*Abraham E. Glide*for appellants.

*William Alden Wingate*for respondents.

*288
      *Per*Curiam.

Plaintiffs, admittedly nonresidents of the borough of Manhattan, improperly brought this action in that borough and defendants were entitled to have it transferred to the borough of Queens, where both defendants resided and maintained their place of business. The fact that it was removed to a district in Queens in which defendants did not reside or have their place of business did not warrant the retransfer to The Bronx. Section 17 of the New York City Municipal Court Code provides that the basis for the proper place of venue is the borough, and not the district, in which a party resides.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion for reargument denied, and cause transferred to the Municipal Court, Fourth District, Queens.

Hofstadter, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
#### CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, Petitioner, v. Herbert FISCHBACH, Sidney Kessler and Richard Kessler, Respondents.

No. 1294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

March 22, 1967.

Appeal quashed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

               As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this registration statement of our reports dated
January 31, 2000 included in Bluestone Software, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1999 and to all references to our Firm included in this
registration statement.

                                             /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                             -----------------------

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 11, 2000
# C_2013342EN.01000201.xml

| 22.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 November 2013

2013/C 342/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3472 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4589 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83500 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9353 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2318 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2065 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,197 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 297,46 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7027 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1923 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4518 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7200 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4536 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4109 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4434 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6393 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6818 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 431,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6700 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2082 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6503 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 765,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3178 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,947 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,3825 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,858 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1130 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6655 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,7930 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3472

JPY

Japanese yen

135,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4589

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83500

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9353

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2318

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2065

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,197

HUF

Hungarian forint

297,46

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7027

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1923

RON

Romanian leu

4,4518

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7200

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4536

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4109

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4434

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6393

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6818

KRW

South Korean won

1 431,41

ZAR

South African rand

13,6700

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2082

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6503

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 765,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3178

PHP

Philippine peso

58,947

RUB

Russian rouble

44,3825

THB

Thai baht

42,858

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1130

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6655

INR

Indian rupee

84,7930

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12-A


                         Delmarva Power & Light Company

                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                       ----------------------------------
                             (Dollars in Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                Year Ended December 31,
                                            ---------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                         <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
                                               1999         1998         1997         1996         1995
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   -----------

Income before extraordinary item             $142,179     $112,410     $105,709     $116,187     $117,488
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   -----------
Income taxes                                   95,321       72,276       72,155       78,340       75,540
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   -----------

Fixed charges:
        Interest on long-term debt
            including amortization of
            discount, premium and
            expense                            77,790       81,132       78,350       69,329       65,572
        Other interest                          6,117        9,328       12,835       12,516       10,353
        Preferred dividend require-
            ments of a subsidiary
            trust                               5,687        5,688        5,687        1,390            -
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   -----------
            Total fixed charges                89,594       96,148       96,872       83,235       75,925
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   -----------

Nonutility capitalized interest                     -            -         (208)        (311)        (304)
                                            ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   -----------

Earnings before extraordinary
        item, income taxes, and
        fixed charges                        $327,094     $280,834     $274,528     $277,451     $268,649
                                            ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ===========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges               3.65         2.92         2.83         3.33         3.54
</TABLE>


For purposes of computing the ratio, earnings are income before extraordinary
item plus income taxes and fixed charges, less nonutility capitalized interest.
Fixed charges consist of interest on long- and short-term debt, amortization of
debt discount, premium, and expense, dividends on preferred securities of a
subsidiary trust, plus the estimated interest component of rentals.
#### CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1973.

Burton B. Loebl, City Atty., for appellant.

Stuart Simon, County Atty., and John G. Fletcher, Asst. County Atty., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVER-FIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant, City of North Miami Beach, seeks review of the trial court’s final order dismissing its complaint. The appellant city complains that, owing to a lack of notice, it had no opportunity to participate in the decision making process in the planning and location of regional sewerage treatment and disposal facilities in the North Dade area. The county denied the need for such notice and the court below, after hearing the arguments of counsel, granted the county’s motion to dismiss plaintiff city’s complaint.

The Board of County Commissioners, as governing body of Dade County, adopted ordinance no. 70-16 which created the Metropolitan Dade County Water and Sewer Authority. This ordinance was subsequently codified as Article VI of Chapter 32, Metropolitan-Dade County Code. Pursuant to this ordinance, the Dade County Water and Sewer Authority has exclusive jurisdiction over all water and sewer matters including but not limited to the establishment, creation, acquisition, and expansion of the necessary facilities. Dade County Code § 32-86, § 32-87. After a close examination of this ordinance we can find no provision concerning the requirement for notice before the Dade County Water and Sewer Authority can act. Due to the absence of any notice provision in Article VI of Chapter 32, Metropolitan Dade County Code, and the fact that appellant city has not pled or proven any damages resulting to it from the county’s actions, the city’s argument must fail.

- We have reviewed appellant’s other points on appeal and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the order appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.

Affirmed.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 

### 2011

- NM

- 075

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# CA2011294EN.01000101.xml

| 6.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 294/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 294/1

---

RESERVE LISTS (1)

1

OPEN COMPETITIONS

EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)

and

EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)

HEADS OF UNIT WITH ROMANIAN CITIZENSHIP (RO)

(2011/C 294 A/01)

1.   Law

EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)

| BACHMANN | Dana Carmen |
| --- | --- |
| MERCORE | Elena-Gabriela |

BACHMANN

Dana Carmen

MERCORE

Elena-Gabriela

EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)

No successful candidate

2.   Economics

EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)

| BOICIUC | Alina |
| --- | --- |
| GURZUN | Maria Magdalena |
| HRISCU | Oana Geanina |
| JAKAB | Istvan |
| LABUNET | Mihai |
| MOLDOVAN | Adrian Eugen |
| RANTA | Sergiu Cristian |
| STRACHINESCU OLTEANU | Magdalena Andreea |

BOICIUC

Alina

GURZUN

Maria Magdalena

HRISCU

Oana Geanina

JAKAB

Istvan

LABUNET

Mihai

MOLDOVAN

Adrian Eugen

RANTA

Sergiu Cristian

STRACHINESCU OLTEANU

Magdalena Andreea

EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)

| CONSTANTINESCU | Mircea Cristian |
| --- | --- |
| CRISTEA | Claudiu Ciprian |
| DUMITRESCU | Vasile |
| PURCAREA | Adrian |
| ULCELUSE | Anisoara |

CONSTANTINESCU

Mircea Cristian

CRISTEA

Claudiu Ciprian

DUMITRESCU

Vasile

PURCAREA

Adrian

ULCELUSE

Anisoara

3.   European public administration

EPSO/AD/198/10 (AD 9)

Merit group 1

| BUGEAC | Alin-Gabriel |
| --- | --- |
| PURCAREA | Octave |
| TODORAN | Horea Silviu |

BUGEAC

Alin-Gabriel

PURCAREA

Octave

TODORAN

Horea Silviu

Merit group 2

| BAKKER | Elvira Cezara |
| --- | --- |
| LEONTE | Gabriel Octavian |
| PASECINIC | Liliana |
| PECA | Viorel Daniel |
| SURDEANU | Radu |

BAKKER

Elvira Cezara

LEONTE

Gabriel Octavian

PASECINIC

Liliana

PECA

Viorel Daniel

SURDEANU

Radu

EPSO/AD/199/10 (AD 12)

| COPIL-BRINDA | Viorel |
| --- | --- |
| DIMA | Alexandru |
| DIONISIE | Valeriu Dan |
| NECSA | Daniel |
| PASCA PALMER | Cristiana |

COPIL-BRINDA

Viorel

DIMA

Alexandru

DIONISIE

Valeriu Dan

NECSA

Daniel

PASCA PALMER

Cristiana

The reserve lists will be valid until 2 July 2012.

2 July 2012

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
#### Richard STALFA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2014429EN.01000901.xml

| 29.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/9

---

Notice concerning a request under Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Withdrawal

Request from a Member State

(2014/C 429/09)

On 15 May 2014 the Commission received a request under Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1).

1

This request, made by the Republic of Poland, concerns the production and wholesale of electricity produced from conventional sources in that country. The relevant notice was published on page 14 of OJ C 186 on 18 June 2014. The deadline for adoption of the relevant Commission Decision was prolonged twice (2) and the final deadline was 31 December 2014.

2

On 18 November 2014, the applicant withdrew the request, which is to be considered null and void. There is consequently, no reason to decide whether Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU applies to the sectors concerned in the Republic of Poland. Directive 2014/25/EU therefore continues to apply when contracting entities award contracts concerning production and wholesale of electricity in the Republic of Poland and when they organise design contests for the pursuit of such activities in that geographical area.

---

(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.

1

(2)  OJ C 310, 12.9.2014, p. 10 and OJ C 384, 30.10.2014, p. 4.

2

---
#### ENDURE-A-LIFETIME AWNING SALES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. V. V. EASSEY, Appellee.

No. 2674.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 10, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.