alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_1.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.1

     

    SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO

    DARTMOUTH
– PHYTOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. RESEARCH AGREEMENT

    


    


    THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT AGREEMENT
(“Amendment”) is entered into as of October 1, 2008, by and between the TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE,
a non-profit educational and research institution existing under the laws of the
State of New Hampshire (hereinafter “Dartmouth”) and PHYTOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. a Corporation of the State of Nevada (hereinafter
“Phytomedical”).

    


    WHEREAS, the parties
previously entered into that certain Research Agreement dated June 1, 2007, (the
“Agreement”); a First Amendment dated July 10, 2007; a Second Amendment dated
November 13, 2007; a Third Amendment dated November 26, 2007; a Fourth Amendment
dated March 14, 2008; and A Fifth Amendment dated March 20, 2008.

    


    WHEREAS, the parties desire to
amend such Agreement as further set forth herein;

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and the covenants herein contained, the parties
hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

    


    In
Section 9.  Contract Period, shall be amended to read:

    


    The
“Contract Period” shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date and
ending on September 30, 2009.

    


    In
Section 10. Research Support, the following shall be added:

    


    PHYTOMEDICAL
shall provide additional research support to Dartmouth for laboratory research
at a level of $47,000 for the Contract Period in accordance with the attached
budget, which makes up Attachment C, and the attached Research Plan which makes
up Attachment D.

    


    In
Section 18. Payments, the following shall be added:

    


    As per this Sixth
Amendment, the additional $47,000, as defined in the amended Section
10,  will be paid quarterly from October 1, 2008 thereafter,
the first to be due on October 1, 2008 and every three months
thereafter.  Subsequent payments after the initial payment will be due
within 30 days of PHYTOMEDICAL's receipt of Dartmouth's invoice.

     

    All other
terms and conditions shall remain the same.


    
      
         


      

      
        Page 1 of
2

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

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

    


    
      
        
          	
                  PHYTOMEDICAL,
      INC

                	
                  TRUSTEES
      OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE

                
	 
      	 
      
	
                   /s/
      Greg Wujek 

                	 
      
	
                   Greg Wujek

                	
                  /s/Alla Kan

                
	
                   President
      and CEO

                	
                  Alla Kan

                
	 
      	
                  Director,
      Technology Transfer Office

                
	
                  Dated:
      October 1, 2008

                	 
      
	 
      	
                  Dated:
      September 29, 2008

                


        

      

    

     

     

    Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------


     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------


     I, Joseph W. Pooler, Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of Pegasus Satellite
Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-K of Pegasus Satellite
Communications, Inc. for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (the "2003
Form 10-K"), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the 2003 Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc.

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

Dated:  March 23, 2004


                                                /s/ Joseph W. Pooler, Jr.
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Joseph W. Pooler, Jr.
“SECRET

DEIALL OF PROGRAM CHANGES (COMPINUED)

4 Fy 62,

¢ SUB TOTAL Yy

~L “ULLITTS 114, Yj
WADD

* DED

(¢ ana c Da. Under yu + 1960
Plan Variation and Chan aed Augus Development.

Fs tanh
rant
f




MEW _ CONSIDERATIONS
TORNADO (E-5 Acceleration) t
DSEP i ot
DATA SYST FOR DSEP t
START OV z
WEATHER t
E-7 ?
7 SAPSP-DP-hO


a ae



PROGRAM DETAIL

ep

Philco

ATLAS (29) to (26)
mor :

Wt tsesereeccessstt111t itil titi ttittip ry. <4

MMIII YY ffps Cn anata tht tld dddpnyyrtparinee. on

COULLLITAOPTELEOCPTLISUSUELEL EE Ett oc ee ny,

AFCCDD
LMMULLLLLALLALALLLLLLO 08 aLELE LE ELELALOLLAAAbUpenUAUAUEEtOEEIey
WADD
st/ac
WLULULLTALALALILLLAILOY CALLA eb hhh blldlttdtay
Cs ° 0 Us
Mit Guid i, .
“CMLL aay
Midge
SUB TOTAL



SEGRE

PROGRAM DEEKEL, (COmIINUED)

FY 61 < re |

SUB TdrIs ia bo Ma po
UUM a
Integration
Payload Dev. VULNS hii if ity LCL
Recovery
— é  £4ae—<-z
GSE New Pads
LLL EEE. SULLLILLEL LLY LEP LLLILNES TL Ly
Thor Peculiar Gaz
Agenas Y
E-6 Follow On ©
MARC (Martin) “a YU” Ul" “lp gy yyy
Boosters .
AF Bat. Proc. Lab
dedi LLL LLL EEL, Ds
SUB TOML
Yl VMEM””” ly YY
sas
P

—— ddd:

Vi

Zz
— |

* Figures in parentheses indicate expenditures higher than
- program.

4 ra  SAPSP-DP-ko- .

3 ay 32.0
NROAPF.C. OVED FOR 

RELEAS l'.■2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

wA.sH:NG-roN 

Functions: NRO 

Se curl ty: Policy ar/~ 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE (ARMS CONTROL) 

SUBJECT: Project DORIAN Access 

Reference: BYE-5080./66 

The DepE, Lnent of Defense's MOL program, as presently 

planned, is no more unique in its applicability to arms control an 

disarmament than any other satellite system within the National 

Reconnaissance Program. Viewed in perspective, MOL represents 

only one additional step in the improvement of an intelligence collec= 

tion capability which began over five years ago. Clearances for. 

personnel at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have been 

provided in this broader context. 

As an independent agency, ACDA has need for awareness of.. 

DOD reconnaissance programs for several functional specialists. 

Within the DOD, however, these functions are divided among several 

different offices with the NRO serving as a focal point. The NRO 

Staff is prepared to assist you, should a legitimate need in connection 

with arms control matters arise, on technical, operational and 

administrative matters relating to the MOL program. 

The MOL program is more vulnerable to international criticism than other satellite reconnaissance programs simply because 

it reintroduces the concept of a man - a military man - performing 

intelligence functions over denied areas. This vulnerability and 'ie 

prejudicial effect it could have on the total National Reconnaissance 

Program were considered at length prior to the approval of MOL 

last August. 

Because of this vulnerability, and because of the publicity'which 

has already been associated with the program, I would be most concerned if MOL were singled out for speCial consideration in connection 

EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC =, 

REGRADING; DOD DIR 5200.10, I 

DOES NOT APPLY 

HAM VIA 6' Vf.141P24 

• COMM 

DLAXX-3A CONTROLLED 

DORIAN 

110 S7CR:77 

Cow 

Control lick. YA 74:51,,2L5-04: 
/A. 

--<••;4•4-1' t9

Alexander H. Flax 

Director - 

National Reconnaissance Office 

• 

T 1 1 rr Li • . ■ 11 "I• 

f-•:•11:7-R to, frj 

fAI,Cillfl SYSTEM. 

DORIAN 

. • 

.• • • • Va.—• • 

Co 

Control No.2..Z.4‘0-eed."-/A 

... 

/ NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE )2(11 5 

with arms control and.disarmaraent. I would expect a very modest 

level of staff activity, in your office or in ACDA regarding MOL. If, 

this situation should change, I would appreciate your calling it to 

my immediate,attention. • If warranted, I would then be pleased to 

consider your specific requirements for additional clearances.
## RentaSky – WiskCal, LLC June 6, 2016

RentaSky - WiskCal LLC P.O.Box 804 Pickerington, OH 43147 614 - 581 -3021 DaveKing@WiskCal.com Federal Aviation Administration U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir or Madam: The file size of the DJI Owner’s Manual was too large to upload to the FAA website. Below is a link to the manufactures website containing a PDF version of the manual. Thank You, Dave King RentaSky – WiskCal, LLC http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/download
Clark v. Progressive Insurance Corp., No. S0480-03 CnC (Norton, J., Aug. 

4, 2005) 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been 

reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is 

not guaranteed.] 

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT 

Chittenden County, ss.: Docket No. S0480-03 CnC 

CLARK 

v. 

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CO. 

ENTRY 

 Following trial and judgment in which she was found to owe 

Defendant $9,885, Plaintiff seeks to amend judgment by reducing the 

amount by the common fund doctrine. Defendant opposes this motion and 

seeks court costs for fees and deposition costs. 

 The common fund doctrine is an equitable principle established as a 

way of spreading costs for a party who prevails through litigation or 
prolonged settlement in establishing a fund that is intended to benefit others 

as well. Daniels v. Vt. Ctr. for Crime Victims Servs., 173 Vt. 521, 522 

(2001) (mem.). It allows the litigating party to subtract a portion of its 

attorney’s fees and costs from the amount to which the other parties are 

entitled. Id. The purpose of this is clear; parties who benefit from a 

judgment but have not contributed to the costs of recovery or participated in 

the litigation should not get the windfall of a full share while the party that 

litigated bears all of the expense. Guiel v. Allstate Ins., Co., 170 Vt. 464, 

469–70 (2000) (emphasizing that the doctrine is only appropriate in certain 

equitable situations). 

 In this case, Plaintiff claimed extensive damages. She was 

reimbursed for some of her medical expenses by her insurer, Defendant, 

and quickly obtained a settlement from the tortfeasor’s insurer. She then 

sought to recover further from Defendant, which led to the immediate case. 

At trial, the jury found that Plaintiff’s damages did not exceed the 

tortfeasor’s insurance policy and were, in fact, much less than her 

settlement. Given those findings, the court finds it inequitable to reduce 

Defendant’s recovery through the common fund doctrine. First, Plaintiff 

was more than adequately compensated for any expense she incurred in 

obtaining a quick settlement that outstripped her damages. Second, 

Defendant has now had to expend its own attorney’s fees and costs to 

recover what it was eligible for under its insurance contract. Another 

reduction would merely punish Defendant. 

 Next, Plaintiff seeks to deny Defendant’s motion for costs. V.R.C.P. 

54. Plaintiff bases her motion on the fact that she has also incurred costs. 

Under Rule 54, the court has discretion to assign or deny costs associated 

with taking depositions. As these costs are minimal and not particularly 

onerous in light of its success, Defendant’s motion for deposition costs is 
denied. The $50 for court costs is, however, granted. 

 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is Denied. 

Defendant’s motion for costs is Granted in part and Denied in part. 

 Dated at Burlington, Vermont________________, 2005. 

____________________________ 

Richard W. Norton, Judge
SPECIAL HANDLING 

FOR 

RELSE 1,JULY 2015 SPECIAL HANDLING -SECRET-- 

ISITIO TELETHC rro 

ELIMINARY DESIGN Si 

PHASE fl 

November 15 196ir 
SC PE SPECIAL HANDLING SECRET 

i 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RE 

PRELIMINARY SYSTEM DESIGN 

OPTICAL DESIGN 

INTERNAL TELESCOPE 

• SHELL PEWETRAT1ON 

TRACKING PEDESTAL 

AGE DEFINITION 

SPECIAL HANDLING 
NRQAPPROVD FORRELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SPECIAL HANDLING -SE-C-RET 

APERTU E: PRIMAitY - 10 INCHES 

ALTERUATE - 8 INCHES 

EXIT PUPIL: 2. MILLIMETERS 

MINIMUM FIELD: I DEGREE (OW HI - X) 

4 DEGREES (tpvtf 

CONFIGURATION : DAC J 

TRACKING 

IN TRACK, NO VIGIETTING - + 

IN TRACK, TOTAL + 70° 

CROSS TRACK - 45° 

450to 100 

to-Ad 

SPECIAL HANDLING SECRET 
FIELD ANGLE 

NROVAPPROVED FOR 

RE ASE 1 JOLY 2015 

e DEFINED 

MAXIMUM MAGNIFICATION 127 

4 

• TO BE DETERMINED - • 

••• 

ZOOM RANGE 

MINIMUM MAGNIFICATION. 

SPECIAL HANDLING --SfeffE 
NRO AR11120Vcp FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 ING SECRET 

APOCHROMAT1C OBJECTIVE LENS 

ADEQUATE QUALITY THROUGHOUT FIELD 

2:1 ZOOM SMALL AND LIGHT 

60° FIELD AT EYEPIECE 

FOCUS ADJUSTMENT AVAILABLE 

SPECIAL HANDLING -SEeRET---- 
O • 

RO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE,--1---MLy 2U11- 

3 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

-SfeRET- 

• 

FLEXICILE 

SPECIAL HAND! IKIP. DT 

h,0 APPROVED FOR 

EASE 1 JULY 2015 

110, 
SPECIAL HANDLING 

-SfeRIE-iED IRO APPROVED FOR 

-1-,j1)LY 2615 

PROVIDES MOUNT FOR FOLDING MIRROR 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

FORMS PART. OF PRESSURE SHELL 

• 

INCLUDES WINDOW 

PROVIDES REFERENCE AND SUPPORT FOR . 

TELESCOPE 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELE 

SPECIAL HANDLING --8E-GRgr-- 
NC1-APPROVE-FOR-

„ 14ELEASE 1 JULY 2015 SPECIAL HANni 

I 

SPECIAL HANni Ser—Pfrrr 
RO APPROVE.a FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SPECIAL HANDLING -9E-G4E4- 

AC ING COUR LS 

FEASIBLE DESIOW EXISTS 

COMPUTER INTERFACE: 

POSITION', SYNCHROTJOU3 OR ASYNCHRONOUS 

RATE : ASYNCHRONOUS 

POSITION RESOLUTION LESS THAN 04° 

SLEW RATE'. 30 DEGREES / SECOND 

VELOCITY ERROR INPUT'. 

LESS THAN 6% OF MINIMUM RATE 

SPECIAL HANDLING -SE-CU L_ 
I:20.RPP20VED FOR 

'EASE •1 JULY 2015 

SPECIAL HANDLING SECRET 

1N-TRACK ( PITCH) 

+70°to +45° is 70 Z MAXIMUM VIGNETTING 

+450to -10° 4 6NO VIGNETTING 

-10°to - 40°31 Z MAXIMUM 

1:s 

CROSS-TRACK (ROLL) 

+ 45°to - 45° st NO VIGNETTING 

75° to INCLUDE HORIZON EACH SIDE 

"Set EC1 A \1111 1
NRCY APPROVEQFOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 DUNG SFr.RFT 

APERTURE 

MAGNIFICATION 

HI RANGE . 

LOW RANGE 

FIELD ANGLE 

HI RANGE 

LOW RANGE 

TOTAL WEIGHT 

PEAK POWER 

PRIMARY ALTER W ATE 

10 INCHES 8 INCHES 

127- 63 102 - 5i 

30-15 30- 15 

0.5- 1.0° 0.6 1.2. 

2.2- 4. 4° Z. 4.4° 

350 LBS 290 LBS 

210 WATTS 170 WATTS 

SPECIAL HANDLING SECRET 4t 
ROVEDR 

R EASE 1 JULY 2015 

TEST OPE AT1ONS CONSOLE 

TELESCOPE ALIGNMENT SET 

TRACKING ALIGNMENT Sir 

IMAGE QUALITY. TEST EQUIPMENT 

TEST STANDS 

MOUNTING FIXTURE (DAC) 

HANDLING 4. SHIPPING EQUIPMENT 

SPECIAL HANDLING -SECRET-
# News & Media

Featured StoriesPress ReleasesPodcastsSpeeches & Testimony
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51304

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SILVERIO MORALES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1106-1

Before KING, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Silverio Morales

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 5, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51304

2

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance, which relies on inapposite authority, is DENIED.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1122/2006

of 20 July 2006         

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 14 to 20 July 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 935/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 July 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 3.

(3)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

 

NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sept. 5, 2018

Contact NGA: Contact NRO:

Erica Fouché, Chief of News and Information Loretta DeSio, Director of Public Affairs

(571) 557-5450 (703) 808-5050

MediaRelations@nga.mil publicaffairs@nro.mil

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and National Reconnaissance Office 

transition commercial imagery acquisition contract

The National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

transitioned the EnhancedView commercial imagery acquisition contract from NGA to NRO.

As part of the transition, on August 29, 2018, NRO awarded DigitalGlobe, a Maxar 

Technologies company, the EnhancedView Follow-On (EVFO) contract to provide the U.S. 

Government with continued access to DigitalGlobe’s WorldView-1, 2, and 3 satellite 

constellation, as well as access to the company’s image archive. The EVFO award includes a 

one-year base contract, with one option year, valued at $300 million annually. 

NRO Director Betty Sapp and NGA Director Robert Cardillo said the commercial imagery 

produced under EnhancedView will continue to contribute to the U.S. defense and 

intelligence communities, as well as to federal civil agencies, humanitarian organizations and 

international partners.

“Commercial imagery is an increasingly important part of satisfying both existing and 

emerging security and intelligence challenges,” said Sapp. “The award of EVFO is an 

important first step in the NRO’s strategy of embracing commercial imagery as a key element 

of our current overhead architecture and a critical and integral element of our future overhead 

architecture.”

Cardillo spoke to the larger significance of this transition.

“For decades, the partnership between NGA and NRO has directly strengthened our nation. 

For the past eight years, DigitalGlobe — via EnhancedView — has steadily grown its 

contributions to NGA’s GEOINT service” said Cardillo. “Further, as the GEOINT Functional 

Manager, I especially value how this transition enables our broader enterprise to leverage 

data analytics and the broad spectrum of emerging commercial GEOINT services.”

###
BEVERIDGE~

&DIAMONDpcT

Karen M. Hansen

1350 I Street, N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20005-3311

Direct: (202) 789-6056

Fax: (202) 789-6190

khansen@bdlaw.com

January 14,2010

Via Electronic Mail

Debra Edwards, Ph.D.

Director

Office of Pesticide Programs (7501P)

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency

One Potomac Yard

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Room S-12622

Arlington, Virginia 22202

Joan Harrigan-Farrelly

Director, Antimicrobials Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 7510P

Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. Philip J. Ross

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of General Counsel

Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office

Ariel Rios North

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: EPA Consideration ofNalcp's Two Biocides

Dear Dr. Edwards, Mr. Ross and Ms. Harrigan-Farrelly:

We are writing in response to Nalco's letters dated January 8 and January 12,2010. Any

additional delay of the kind advocated by Nalco is entirely unwarranted, as the issues raised by

the parties have been under advisement by EPA for a considerable time. In this regard, we

appreciate your recent confirmation of a meeting among the parties and EPA on February 16,

2010.

FIFRA unambiguously requires the registration of pesticides prior to their sale or

distribution, and EPA's primary objective here should be to prohibit sales of umegistered

pesticidal products. Nalco' s desire for additional input from a wide range of industries and users

that it alleges "may" be affected by EPA's decision on its two biocide products should under no

Washington, D.C. Maryland New York Massachusetts New Jersey Texas California
teote-6-/p 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

September 29, 1969 

00111•11■111111MINIO. 

DORIAN 

...a." 'at; 

r7c1'; 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY'2015 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

try 

Dear Homer: 

We have your letters of September 12 relating to 

NASA interest in exploring utilization of certain _1 

developed hardware and related technology. It is 

reasonable, I believe, to proceed with these studies 

to the extent you suggest and we are prepared to assist 

as you require. 

Colonel Lew Allen of Ay Office of Space Systems 

will be the focal point for our support and he will 

make arrangements as required with SAFSP. 

To help prepare the work statement, may I offer the 

assistance of certain Air Force personnel now in the 

Washington area, and thoroughly familiar with the equipment. 

I would like to have some of our people participate 

 at least in the initial studies involving the ATS. This 

 would permit us to determine at an early date, what 

 further interest we will have in the experiment as it may 

 proceed. 

I agree that it is necessary to conduct the fr_ial 

analyses within the existing security arrangements 

 BYEMAN Control System). We will arrange for a suit, -:.:.e 

method of contractil._ upon receipt of your work star - 

 ment and appropriate funds. 

rn 

FIN"'"""." As you have suggested, there are a number of policy 

 questions must be addressed if the results of your 

 initial in - ion so warrant. However, such 

BYE 13233-69 

Page 1 of 2 Pages 

Copy.2 of C41;50$ 

System .90f-'27"- 
• NRO AFTROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 r-ft ': v 

JL ija k 

ane.!a via FI!- ! 

Irrf-,n41 eurvtranq 

JUliti ‘IiJa.t41 

considerations are not required at this time and should 

present no obstacle to your immediate plan. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Homer E. Newell 

Associate Administrator 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Washington, D. C. 20546 

DORIAN 

9antila ir' Ylu L) 

r- rr.4 el ics4r,rn 

WIC

t

A 

BYE 13233-69 

Page 2 of 2 Pages 

Copy of Copies