alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Molly Joseph Ward 

Secretary of Natural Resources 

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Mailing address: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218 

www.deq.virginia.gov 

FEB 0 1 2016 

David Arnold, Acting Director 

Air Protection Division (3APOO) 

U.S. EPA, Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

David K. Paylor 

Director 

(804) 698-4020 

1-800-592-5482 

Reference: VOC Emission Standards, 

Miscellaneous Solvent 

Cleaning and Adhesive 

Application (Rev. D09) 

Dear Mr. Arnold: 

Pursuant to the requirements of§ 110 of the Clean Air Act, we are officially requesting 

approval of a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan approved 

and submitted under the authority of§ 10.1-1185 of the Code ofVirginia and in accordance with 

the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans). 

This revision consists of two new regulations: Article 57 (Emission Standards for 

Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations in the Northern Virginia VOC Emissions Control Area, 

8-hour Ozone Standard) and Article 58 (Emission Standards fm; Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesive Application Processes in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

Control Area, 8-hour Ozone Standard). These regulations were adopted in order to meet the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) for these source 

types. The regulation amendments were adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on 

June 19,2015 under the authority of§ 10.1-1308 of the Code of Virginia. 

Enclosed are the following: 

1. A true copy of the official regulation (Revision D09) which was published in the 

Virginia Register of Regulations on November 30, 2015 after being duly adopted by the State Air 
Pollution Control Board on June 19, 2015, certified by the Office of the Attorney General as 

within the Board's statutory authority on June 22,2015 and thus fully enforceable under Virginia 

law, and submitted to the Virginia Registrar on behalf of the Board by the Department of 

Environmental Quality as a true and accurate copy of the duly adopted regulation on October 29, 

2015. 

2. Certification of public participation activities and compliance with both state 

administrative procedures and the public hearing requirements of 40 CFR 51.102. 

3. Record ofhearing and summary of comment. 

For purposes of this submittal, certain provisions are being included for information 

purposes only and are not to be construed as part of the Commonwealth of Virginia State 

Implementation Plan; these provisions are specifically identified in Enclosure 2 of this submittal. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please let us know. 

David K. Paylor 

DKP\kgs 

TEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REGOO 

SIP\NONA TIN PLANS\20 16\D09-SIP.DOC 

Enclosures
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1878 

To extend the pediatric priority review voucher program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2015 

Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To extend the pediatric priority review voucher program. 

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 ‘‘Advancing Hope Act 

5 of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM FOR PRIORITY 

7 REVIEW TO ENCOURAGE TREATMENTS FOR 

8 RARE PEDIATRIC DISEASES. 

9 Section 529 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

10 Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff) is amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (a)— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1878 IS

1 (A) by amending paragraph (3) to read as 

2 follows: 

3 ‘‘(3) RARE PEDIATRIC DISEASE.—The term 

4 ‘rare pediatric disease’ means any of the following: 

5 ‘‘(A) A disease that meets each of the fol6 lowing criteria: 

7 ‘‘(i) The disease primarily affects indi8 viduals aged from birth to 18 years, in9 cluding age groups often called neonates, 

10 infants, children, and adolescents. 

11 ‘‘(ii) The disease is a rare disease or 

12 condition, within the meaning of section 

13 526. 

14 ‘‘(B) Any form of sickle cell disease. 

15 ‘‘(C) Any pediatric cancers.’’; and 

16 (B) in paragraph (4)— 

17 (i) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

18 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

19 (ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking 

20 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

21 and’’; and 

22 (iii) by adding at the end the fol23 lowing: 

24 ‘‘(G) is for a drug or biological product for 

25 which a priority review voucher has not been 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1878 IS

1 issued under section 524 (relating to tropical 

2 disease products).’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (5); 

4 and 

5 (3) in subsection (d)(2), in the second sentence, 

6 by striking the period and inserting ‘‘, but the spon7 sor of a drug that intends to request a priority re8 view voucher under this section shall notify the Sec9 retary of such intent upon submission of an applica10 tion under section 505 or section 351 of the Public 

11 Health Service Act that is the basis of such re12 quest.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# CE2004084EN.01010801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/108 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/108

---

(2004/C 84 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3869/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Impact of specific residential building schemes on SIC ES 5223037

Subject:

In its reply E-3156/03 (1) on residential building in the Serra de la Renegà and its effects on the ‘Oropesa-Benicàssim’ site of Community interest, the Commission claimed that it had contacted the Spanish authorities so as to check that the requirements of Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on assessing the indirect impact of schemes on protected areas and the conservation objectives concerned were being met.

1

2

Can the Commission state whether the Spanish authorities, as laid down by the Directive, have demonstrated the complete absence of alternatives to this scheme? Can the Commission confirm that the Spanish authorities believe that the construction of the thousand chalets and the two hotels in question is an absolute necessity ‘because it is a project of public interest’? Has the Commission been informed of the compensatory measures which the Spanish authorities intend to carry out so as to guarantee that there is no negative impact on the Natura 2000 Network in this instance?

The Commission failed to respond with regard to the species protected by the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (3)) which inhabit the areas mentioned.

3

Does the Commission not believe that the building of these chalets and tourist installations runs flat counter to the provisions of the Birds Directive in terms of the negative impact which these building schemes will have on the protected species?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

(22 January 2004)

The Spanish authorities have not yet replied to the request for information from the Commission concerning the urban and tourist development project in the Renegà Range. For this reason, the Commission has not yet reached any conclusions in its investigation of the issues raised.

On the other hand, the Commission considers that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (4) is not relevant to this case, as the Spanish authorities have not classified this area as a Special Protection Area and the scientific community has not included it in the inventory of Important Bird Areas.

4

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 477.

1

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

2

(3)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

4

---
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Intermagnetics General Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the year ending August 29, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael K. Burke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 oF the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and result of
                operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael K. Burke*
---------------------------
Michael K. Burke
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
October 7, 2004


* These certifications are being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to
the liability of that Section. These certifications shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 173 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 173

            To modify the definition of ``antique firearm''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 13, 2015

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To modify the definition of ``antique firearm''.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.

    Section 921(a)(16)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``1898'' and inserting ``the calendar year that is 100 
years before the calendar year in which the determination as to whether 
the firearm meets the requirement of this subparagraph is being made''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

    Subsection (g) of section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1898'' the first place it appears and 
        inserting ``the calendar year that is 100 years before the 
        calendar year in which the determination as to whether the 
        firearm meets the requirement of this subsection is being 
        made'';
            (2) by striking ``the year 1898'' and inserting ``the 
        calendar year that is 100 years before the calendar year in 
        which such determination is being made''; and
            (3) by striking ``1898,'' and inserting ``the calendar year 
        that is 100 years before the calendar year in which such 
        determination is being made,''.
                                 <all>
```
Capt. Terry L. McVenes The Boeing Company 

Director P.O. Box 3707, MC 07-30 

Operational Regulatory Affairs Seattle, WA 98124-2207 

May 17, 2011 

B-H001-REG-11-TLM-34 

Ms. Margaret Gilligan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aviation Safety, AVS-1 

800 Independence Avenue SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Ms. Rebecca MacPherson 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Regulations Division, AGC-200 

800 Independence Avenue SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Subject: Request for extension of the comment period for FAA Proposed 

Airworthiness Directive Legal Interpretation 

Reference: Proposed legal interpretation published in the Federal Register on April 14, 

2011 (72 FR 20898); Docket No. FAA-2010-1167 

Dear Ms. Gilligan and Ms. MacPherson, 

On behalf of the industry members of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), I am respectfully requesting that the FAA extend the 

comment period for the subject proposed legal interpretation until June 30, 2011 The AD 

ARC is nearing the completion of its intensive, two-year effort to resolve issues that arise 

with ADs and we are anticipating several noteworthy improvements, several of which may 

be affected by the proposed legal interpretation. 

Although the AD ARC had expected the FAA to provide an interpretation, we now find that 

the scope and extent of the actual proposal is such that we require more time to perform 

further analysis and evaluate the ramifications of this interpretation to the ARC 

implementation activities. 

Additional time is needed not only for the AD ARC to accomplish its review, but also other 

manufacturers, operators, maintenance organizations, and individual aircraft owner 

operators directly affected by the proposal. Consequently, we ask that the date be 

extended to June 30, 2011 
Letter B-H001-REG-11-TLM-34 

Page 2 

We look forward to a positive response to this request so that we can more effectively 

participate in the development of this important guidance material. 

Sincerely, 

Terry L. McVenes 

Co-Chair, AD Implementation ARC 

cc: U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

Docket No. FAA-2010-1167 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Mr. John King 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Regulations Division 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 22, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 22, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0164. STATE OF GEORGIA v. JANET MILLER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

17CR386
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1755 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1755

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a 5-year 
 extension of the tax credit for residential energy efficient property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2015

Mr. Schatz (for himself, Mr. Heinrich, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Booker, Mr. 
 Whitehouse, and Mr. Franken) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a 5-year 
 extension of the tax credit for residential energy efficient property.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT 
              PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (g) of section 25D of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2016'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2021''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
• S

' ~..l1'.1Mi23391 

tt~i • 

BRIEFING SHEl!1l' FOR THE CHAIRMAN, JOI:NT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

JOIN.r CHIEFS OF STAFF MEETING, 1400, TUESDAY 

25 AUGUST 1953 

'• AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 

,r_.c.s. 2074/?.8 

SUBJECT: U.K./u.s. COMMUNICATION SECURITY CONFERENCE,-1953 

BACKGROUND: 

l. In consonance with an agreement reached between the British Chief's of' Staff and 

the United States Joint Chiefs or Staff' (J.c.s. 2074/7), a series of' Communication 

Security Conferences to discuss cryptographic items of' comm.on interest to the two 

countries was begun in 1950. The third annual conference was held in Washington in 

May 1952. The next conference is scheduled to be held in London in October 1953. 

CURRENT REPORT: 

2. The 1953 UK/US Conm~ication Security Conference will ~aitiilience on-26 Octobe; and 

will continue until 16 November 1953. There will be a two-week period pr.eced.ing the 

conference proper, 12 October to 23 October 1953, when representatives of' the Natipnal - Security Agency (NSA) and the London Cypher Policy Board will informally participate 

in technical discussions, examination of connnunications security equipments, and 

visits to cryptographic establishments. 

3. The conference proper will be div.ided into two phases and, although a detailed 

Agenda. has not yet been received f'rom. the London Cypher Policy Board, it is anticipated 

that the discussion in Phase I will encompass the exchange of information on each 

cryptosystem considered, determination of' the degree of' ~ecurity it affords, methods 

o:f improving security, and agreement on the level, or echelon, of' use for which a 

cryptosystem is acceptable. Security standards are to be discussed with a view to 

establishing a canm.on set or standards for judging the security of cryptosystems. _ _ _____ _ 

4. Phase II of the conference is to be directed toward discussion and agreement on 

crypto-equipments or cryptosystems to meet stated Combined (UK/US) and NATO cryptographic requirements. 

5. The Director, NSA, has designated Mr. William F. Friedman, NSA, as Read of the 

U.S. Delegation. NSA Engineering and Security experts, who will accompany him, will. 

participate in the technical discussion during the two weeks preceding the opening of 

the conference proper. Some or these experts will remain for Phase I or II or both. 

The Director, NSA, recamnends in J.C.S. 2074/28 that the· Joint Chiefs of Staff' concur 

in th~ designation of Mr. Friedman as Head of the U.S. Delegation, ~ designate a 

representative of each Service to participate in Phase II of the Coni'eren~e. 

RECCJ.1MENDATION: 

6. It is recommended that J.c.s.-2074/28 be approved • 

.nM.-'~r _.._ J • 

Lieutenant Gene 

~irector, National 

Briefing Sheet prepared by Major H. W. Astor 

Plans and Policy Division 

NSA Ext. 60548 

---c;:·-- Secy, Joint Chiefs of Sta.ff 

ATTN: Mr. Kearney ( 5) 

NSA Pent. Liaison Group (2) 

SECRET 

cc: c/s 

s/AssrA 

AG 

··P/P 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-15-2014 pursuantto E _Q _ 1352a 

. ~ 

."";:·;
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,449                   1,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,050                   5,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (496)                   (439)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,689                   7,340
<PP&E>                                           4,020                   3,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,614)                 (1,294)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,385                  14,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,377                   3,646
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,463                   8,455
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             1                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                         493                     580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,385                  14,479
<SALES>                                         14,832                  10,963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,832                  10,963
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,556                  11,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 106                      99
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (79)                   (291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                   (155)
<NET-INCOME>                                      (79)                   (446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)                  (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)                  (0.31)



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0375

ESTATE OF GREG PHILLIPS; GREG 

PHILLIPS INDIVIDUALLY; CAROL 

PHILLIPS, INDIVIDUALLY, and as 

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF 

THE ESTATE OF GREG PHILLIPS

Appellants,

v.

ANNA ROBBINS, MD; LOGAN 

HEALTH, f/k/a KALISPELL 

REGIONAL HEALTHCARE; JOHN 

DOES 1 – 10; and DOE BUSINESS 

ENTITIES X, Y, and Z.

Appellees.

ORDER

THIS MATTER, having come before this Court on Appellants’ Unopposed Motion to 

Extend Deadline for Reply Brief, having been reviewed and good cause appearing;

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellants are granted an extension of time to 

prepare, file and serve their reply brief to and including February 12, 2024.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 4 2024

01/04/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0375