alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Technical Support Document: Alabama Visible Emissions Rule Comparison

EPA first approved Alabama’s visible emissions regulations into the Alabama State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) in 1972. The last pre-2008 revision to those regulations (hereafter 

referred to as “existing SIP-approved rule”) was adopted by the State with an effective date of 

October 15, 1996, and was approved into the SIP by EPA with an effective date of August 5, 

1997.

Rule 335–3–4–.01, “Visible Emissions,” includes a 20 percent opacity limit that is generally 

applicable to all sources of particulate matter emissions. The existing SIP-approved rule 

provides an exemption to the 20 percent limit of one six-minute period per hour for opacity of up 

to 40 percent. For subject sources, the 2008 revised rule eliminates the 40 percent hourly 

exemption and instead provides an exemption for up to 24 six-minute periods per day for opacity 

of up to 100 percent, but only if the source does not exceed the 20 percent opacity limit for more 

than two percent of the quarterly operating time. The 2008 revised rule also limits subject

sources to a daily opacity average of no more than 22 percent.

The table below presents a side-by-side comparison of the SIP-approved rule before and after the 

2008 rule revision, as applicable to subject sources.

1

 

1 To simplify the comparison, the numbers shown in the table were calculated assuming the source had no periods of 

startup, shutdown, load change or rate change (or other short intermittent periods upon terms approved by the 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s Director and included in a State-issued permit) because such 

periods are allowed under both the existing SIP-approved rule and the 2008 revised rule. [Alabama rule 335–3–4–

.01(1)(c)]

Element Compared Existing SIP-approved Rule 2008 Revised Rule

Maximum # of exemptions 

allowed per day

24 (hourly) 24 (aggregate)

Maximum consecutive 

time of exempt periods 

allowed

0.1 hours (6 minutes) 2.4 hours (144 minutes)

Maximum opacity level of 

exempt periods allowed

40% 100%

(as long as 22% daily average 

limit is not exceeded)

Maximum average daily 

opacity allowed

22%

((24 x 40% + 216 x 20%) ÷ 240)

22%

(as an enforceable limit)

Maximum quarterly 

exempt time allowed

219 hours

(10% of quarterly operating 

hours)

44 hours

(2% of quarterly operating hours)

Maximum average 

quarterly opacity allowed

22%

(based on daily average 

allowable)

21.6%

(based on 438 six-minute periods 

at 100% and 21,462 six-minute 

periods at 20%)

Compliance determination 

method

EPA Reference Method 9

(Alabama rule 335–3–4–.01(2))

Continuous opacity monitoring 

system

(Alabama rule 335–3–4–.01(6))
24 

USCIB: '2fJ. 5/3 r 27 October 1954 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL .86-36/50 USC 3605 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

References: (a) USCIB 29.5/1 dated 16 February 1954. 

(b) USCIB 29,5/2 dated 7 October 1954. 

1. USCIBEC considered the references at its 21st meeting, 

22 October 1954, and agreed to recommend that USCIB approve the proposal in reference (b), sub1e~ to the und.erstanding that the 

recommended approach to the[ ~ Jwill be made through 

military (i.e., CINCFE) rather than diplomatic channels. 

2. With regard to the final sentence of paragraph 4 of 

reference (b) USCIBEC agreed to recommend that the Department of the A~ be designated the Executive Agent for USCIB in these negotiations, and that the Director, NSA, provide the technical guidance 

required. 

3. The foregoing decisions of USCIBEC are forwarded for consideration by USCIB. In the absence of objection by a:ny member prior 

to 1200, Friday, 5 November 1954, these decisions will be considered 

approved. 

4. THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION AND SHALL BE HANDLED ONLY IN CHANNELS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR 

COM.INT. 

TO:l1 SECR:Er 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-18-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B
<PAGE>
 
                                                        EXHIBIT 23.2
                                                        ------------


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement of
Segue Software, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 5, 1998, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Segue Software, Inc. as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1997, which report is included in the Segue Software, Inc. Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                              /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 17, 1998
REF ID:A59409 

• 

USCIB: 13.5/72 

24 

11 June 1954 

Ml!MORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Correction to USCIB 13.5/69 dated 25 May 1954. 

It is requested that the number designation contained in the 

reference line of subject paper be changed to read 13.5/54 in lieu 

of 13.5/34. 

USCIB: 13.5/72 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 02-19-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
, J. Has de sty


## C OL

" 4 •.---Q

Parraguirr , J. After the underlying case was appealed, this court reversed in part and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings on issues concerning petitioner's managerial rights in Granite Investment Group, LLC, and the interpretation of, and determination of compliance with, the company's operating agreement. Weddell v. H20, Inc., 128 Nev. , 271 P.3d 743 (2012). The district court held a hearing on remand and subsequently entered an order resolving the issues on October 17, 2012. Petitioner filed this petition challenging the district court's order in proper person on December 13, 2012. Counsel for petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal from the order on December 21, 2012, and the appeal is presently pending in this court. Weddell v. Stewart, Docket No. 62366 (filed Dec. 21, 2012). Accordingly, because petitioner has an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from the October 17 order, and has in fact appealed that order to this court, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted, NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A • 7 2cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Rolland P. Weddell Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low Carson City Clerk

3
I
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Earnest Taylor and Lisa Taylor d/b/a T&S Enterprises v. 

Alfred Cantu, Lynn A. Cantu, Vela Ranch, L.L.C., and 

Brazoria County 

Appellate case number: 01-19-00353-CV

Trial court case number: 81916-CV

Trial court: 23rd District Court of Brazoria County

Appellants Earnest Taylor and Lisa Taylor d/b/a T&S Enterprises have filed a

“Motion to Substitute Counsel” requesting that Stephen Casey be substituted as 

appellants’ counsel. The motion is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d).

The Clerk of this Court is directed to substitute Stephen Casey as counsel for 

appellants on the docket of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy_______

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___December 2, 2021____
# CE2004078EN.01090001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/900 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/900

---

(2004/C 78 E/0951)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4040/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE), Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE), Claude Moraes (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   MEDEA Programme and Article 13 of the Treaty

Subject:

Will the Commission outline its plans for incorporating the concerns of Article 13 of the Treaty in the MEDEA Programme? Is the Commission aware how far behind it is here compared to other areas of its work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

(12 February 2004)

The MEDEA programme referred to in the question was launched by the Andalusian autonomous government (Junta de Andalucia) as part of the Euromed Audiovisual I Regional Programme. Its purpose is to devise Euro-Mediterranean audiovisual projects. MEDEA was selected by the Commission in 2000 and its three-year funding has been extended up to September 2004 without any change to the Community contribution.

The eligibility criteria set out in the call for proposals in the MEDEA project (point 4) are in keeping with the principles enshrined in Article 13 of the EC Treaty on the measures necessary ‘to combat discrimination based on the grounds of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation’.

Point 4 of the call for proposals open to the 27 partners states that ‘ ... special attention will be paid to projects that promote common values, as a statement of the identity of the area, creating an awareness of their contribution to international material and ethical progress, such as the fight against racism and xenophobia, intolerance, mistrust, stereotypes and prejudices; and promote activities to protect young people and human dignity.’

---
99-973.

#### State ex rel. Dist. 1199, Health Care & Social Serv. Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1041-000]


Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is March 10, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92d4d7c0d1ddfcfefbfcf7c1e7e2e2fde0e6d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86c0c3d4c5c9e8eaefe8e3d5f3f6f6e9f4f2c6e0e3f4e5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03748 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
^AF'MEMT OF 

MICHAEL P. BELL 

MAYO R 

^FORin 

\ m CPERAIiONS 

A 2b 

July 29,2011 

Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

1200 Nev^^ Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Director Ley: 

Toledo Express Airport has suffered from a significant decline in its air service over the 

past decade and airline capacity at Toledo Express is down more than 70% fi-om 2003. 

In light of this circumstance Toledo Express Airport and its conmiunity partners have 

made an application for a Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant. 

This Grant would be used to attract new air service fi-om Toledo Express to improve our 

communities' air service needs. 

Toledo Express Airport and its partners will match the Grant funding with significant 

local cash and in-kind matches. The Airport has also developed a comprehensive new air 

service incentive program, including ground handling support and startup phase fee 

waivers. The combination of the Grant supported marketing and promotional funding and 

the Airport developed incentive program will give Toledo the tools it needs to reverse the 

leakage of local air travel demand to other airports and re-establish some of the air 

service that has been lost in recent years. 

As a member of the Toledo Region, I urge you to give the Toledo Small Conmumity 

Grant Application favorable consideration. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. 

Sincere y, 

One Government Center Suite 2200 Toledo, Ohio 43604 

Office (419) 245-1004 Fax (419)245-1370 

E-mail mayor@toledo.oh.gov
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1313 

To expand eligibility for reimbursement for smoking cessation services to 

include copayments for such services paid after fiscal year 2009 by 

covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program who are eligible for 

Medicare. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2015 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. DURBIN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To expand eligibility for reimbursement for smoking cessation services to include copayments for such services 

paid after fiscal year 2009 by covered beneficiaries under 

the TRICARE program who are eligible for Medicare. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strong Lungs, Strong 

5 Lives Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1313 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR SMOKING 

2 CESSATION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN 

3 TRICARE BENEFICIARIES. 

4 Section 713(f) of the Duncan Hunter National De5 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

6 110–417; 122 Stat. 4503) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘during 

8 fiscal year 2009’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘during 

10 such period’’; and 

11 (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘during fiscal 

12 year 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘after September 30, 

13 2008’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
P.1 

OAR Box 1163 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

165) ll-F-1 

Docket Number: 

A-88-33 

Printed 4/25/2008 9:22:54 AM Sheet 165 of 165 
P.2 

A4?-i3 H-F-/ 

• or <a> 

ISIS*1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT LABORATORY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK 

NORTH CAROLINA 27711 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: \ November 21, 1988 

SUBJECT: Photochemical Reactivities of CFC Substitutes 

FROM: Basil Dimitriades 

Senior Science Advisor, CPCD (MD-59) 

TO: Kent Berry, OAQPS (MD-15) 

We have examined the reactivity evidence submitted by the Alliance for 

Responsible CFC Policy (Alliance letter of 10/6/88 to G. Eraison) for 12 

specified halocarbons and halocarbon classes and we offer the following 

comments. 

The judgment of relevance here is solely on whether the proposed CFC 

substitutes are negligibly reactive or not, with respect to contributing to 

the photochemical ozone problem in the lower troposphere. The only definition of "negligible reactivity" officially given by EPA is an implicit one 

expressed in terms of a 3-Class classification scheme described in FR, 

p. 35314 (July 8, 1977). The most reactive VOC listed in Table 1 (group of 

"negligibly reactive" VOC's) of that publication is ethane, which suggests 

that VOC's equally or less reactive than ethane should also be accepted by 

EPA as "negligibly reactive". 

To compare the reactivity of a VOC with that of ethane, one should use 

koH-reactivity data and/or ozone yield reactivity data. For VOC's less 

reactive than ethane, the kQH-reactivity data alone are sufficient and 

conclusive. 

In the cases in hand, the kQH*-reactivity data suggest lower-than-ethane 

reactivities for all proposed CFC substitutes. Our own sources show the 

specific koH values for some substitutes to be somewhat different than those 

submitted by the Alliance but still considerably lower than that for ethane. 

Based on this latter fact, we concluded that the proposed CFC substitutes 

are less reactive than ethane and, hence, should be accepted as negligibly 

reactive. 

We have also considered Alliance's submission (letter of 10/21/88 to 

G. Emison) on the (stratospheric) ozone-depletion-potential evidence for 

the proposed substitutes, but we are not in a position yet to offer you 
P.3 

-V. 

a responsible review. I have requested that Dr. Joe Pinto, a new member of 

AREAL with expertise in this area, start an effort to develop a simple 

method for classifying VOC's with respect to their ability to destroy 

stratospheric ozone. If the effort is successful, we will be in a position, 

within the near future, to respond quickly to requests such as this one. 

cc: G. Foley 

J. Shreffler 

J. ^ufalini 

J. Pinto
Serving the Vending, OCS and Foodservice Management Industries

February 24, 2006

Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones,

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

Mailstop EE-2J

2006 Appliance Standards Schedule Setting

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585-012 1

Re: 2006 Appliance Standards Schedule Setting

Dear Ms. Edwards-Jones:

#101

With regards to the Department of Energy's call for comments on the Department's desire to bring all appliance rulemaking

activities into compliance with the applicable statutory requirements, we submit the following information.

The National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) is the national trade association representing vending machine,

office coffee and food service industries. NAMA has approximately 2400 members who operate vending machines, sell or

manufacture equipment, and distribute or manufacture food and beverage items for sale through vending machines and

related outlets.

For several years, NAMA has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency to develop Energy Star standards for

can/bottle refrigerated beverage vending machines. The standards for new equipment were issued in April 2004 and we are

now working on standards for refurbished (used) can/bottle refrigerated beverage vending machines.

Because of the extensive work already done by the vending industry regarding energy standards we ask to be included in the

DOE standard setting process to assist the DOE in meeting your scheduled deadline. NAMA also wants to avoid the

development of conflicting standards which lead to confusion in the marketplace along with adding extra and unnecessary

costs for the vending machine industry. The industry has already worked with the California Energy Commission and Natural

Resources of Canada in the development of uniform energy standards for the vending industry to achieve uniform energy

standards.

Thank you for considering these remarks. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact us.

Cordially,

-,

Larry M. Eils

Senior Director Technical Services

LME

JB/jb

cc: B. Allen, NAMA

D. Del Carlo, NAMA

The National Automatic Merchandising Association . www.vendin.or

HEADQUARTERS: 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite3500, Chicago,1L60606-3102, Voice: 312/346-0370, Fax: 312/704-4140

EASTERN OFFICE: 783 Station Street. Unit ID Herudon, VA 20170-4607. Voice: 703/435-1210, Fax: 703/435-6389

SOUTHERN OFFICE: 1521 Johnson Ferry Rd.. Suite 110, Marietta, GA 30062. Voice: 678/560-8705. Fax: 678/560-8702

WESTERN OFFICE: 150 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 830, Pasadena, CA 91101. Voice: 626/229-0900, Fax: 626/229-0777

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 01
REF ID:A61558 - _...._.& ----~-. 

•. 

!01'E l.a 

~·r:et traa 1 MO 12;"8 J'lln '~' ~S t<> eIJ() wuh15'Eon 

l ..... I____ lt0i4. U.K. npreaent&tiye/tbatto•• 4upU.Qate the aupplJ" , '' ' . 

of hia trattic to both the U.8. NJ4 U.I:. YQUl4/b• :ta~u(lua iD..TiflY or tb.e 

obv1oua US/UK coordination at acme l~lll. /on .,,..I /_; .,....,.........,.........,.........,.... _ __.~ : : ,' : : 

a. Ile hinted that only nm;ple•/ were °'in&• given the u.s., and unl.eas . ' ' ' . . ' ' ' . 

he act ccament•1 apprec1ations,/and ~ aa1iatance1 he WOUld be unwilling 

to continue the supply of rav •t~ial tt:f the U. 8. 

3• I I then atated/that I I ahcr\ild b~ane a Tr ipe.rtite 

allair and intell1gence/obta1n«d theretrootb7 the US/UK •h®ld be made 

ava1lab1e t~...._ __ __, 

Fl! 21 

l!Ss:et traa1 Lett~~ l8 t'tlb~ l.2~3 trc:a r~~ .. llowl.-tt to 

&ilJ. !· ,WeJii!r • • • 

i. I lrequeated •~ecitic int'omation on I .... _,__ __ _,__ ____ _. 

frail tbe l .... __________ __.t ~spite hi• real.i•ation th&t the US/ 

~ement did not provide 'far the tranamttta.l. ot auch information. 

1. He expl.ainedt •u/acme ~cea,I ~ tor 

• ...,1., an *'ftd to the{ I.no. vice Ter11a. • •• 'When aueh movea take 

pace the unJ:ta retain tl1e Ame call •1gna. Thi• ~ ~hat '9hen a move take• 

pl.ace, hi• aerv1ce i• t-.Ced Yith the probl- ot &tte:mptina to identity the 

».ev e&ll. aigna which have appeared in tbel ~ 'l'hia trequentl.y 

t&kea & lona time anO/ re•ulte in a gen.er~ •lov-down at. operations.• 

3. I l.tated he coul.4 send aane people tol I to mon1 tor the 

...._ ______ __.r to obt&1n the 4ea1red into:rmation, but he :reel• it would be 

too dif'ticult ~too coetly tor h11 IDJ.ll 1erviec. 

~ lclid not get what he uked tar.) 

eclassi i ed and a