alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OFTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAND CONSERVATION DIVISION OFAIR POLLUTION CONTROL

January 14, 2016 WILLIAM R. SNODGRASS TENNESSEETOWER 312 ROSAL. PARKS AVENUE, 15TH FLOOR NASHVILLE, TN 37243

Ms. Heather McTeerToney Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region IV Atlanta Federal Center, 1ihFloor 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Subject: Requestto Redesignate Shelby County, Tennessee, to Attainmentforthe 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and to Incorporate a Maintenance Plan for the 2008 8- HourOzone NAAQSfor Shelby County intoTennessee's SIP

DearAdministrator McTeerToney:

Tennessee is requesting EPA redesignate the Shelby County portion of the Memphis TN-MS-AR nonattainment area forthe 2008 8-Hour Ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) to attainment as per Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 107(d)(3). The

area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012. Recent ozone air quality data shows the area is now attaining the 2008 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Tennessee is also requesting the EPA incorporate into the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) a revision to the Shelby County portion of the SIP. This submittal contains a CAA Section 175A maintenance plan for Shelby County with respectto the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

In addition, this submission also contains a 2011 emissions inventory. This inventory, separate from that of the maintenance plan, is being submitted to meet the requirements ofCAA Section 182(a)(1).

A public hearing was held on December 15th, 2015. See Attachment IV of the SIP revision for documentation ofthe public announcement and comments and responses. The Air Pollution Control Board ofthe State ofTennessee approved the SIP revision on January 13th, 2016.Revision to the Shelby County Portion ofthe TN SIP January 14, 2016 Page 2 of2

The hard copies ofthe documentation attached are identical to those included on the compact disk sent with this submittal. Included on the compact disk are all of the supporting documents and attachments referenced in the narrative. These include the inventory documentation, MOVES run input and output files, point and areas source inventories and a collection of additional supporting information. Should you need further information, please feel free to contact Marc Corrigan (Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov or (615) 532-0616) on my staff.

Sincerely,

# ~~**~** Technical Secretary TennesseeAir Pollution Control Board

cc: (electronically) Mr. 

### R. Scott Davis, Branch Chief US EPA; Davis.Scottr@epa.gov Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, US EPA; Benjamin.Lynorae@epa.gov Mr. Brad Akers, US EPA; Akers.Brad@epa.gov Mr. Robert Rogers, Shelby CountyAir Pollution Control Program; Bob.Rogers@shelbycountytn.gov Mr. Marc Corrigan, DAPC; Marc.Corrigan@tn.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3095 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3095

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic staple fibers, 
dyed but not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, with 
 a cut fiber length of 100 mm to 135 mm and a target length of 120 mm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on acrylic staple fibers, 
dyed but not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, with 
 a cut fiber length of 100 mm to 135 mm and a target length of 120 mm.

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

SECTION 1. ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS, DYED BUT NOT CARDED, COMBED, OR 
              OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING, WITH A CUT FIBER LENGTH 
              OF 100 MM TO 135 MM AND A TARGET LENGTH OF 120 MM.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.23 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to acrylic staple fibers, dyed 
but not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning, with a cut 
fiber length of 100 mm to 135 mm and a target length of 120 mm) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         10761
<OTHER-SE>                                     (10761)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1093)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1093)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
Fiscal 2012 Executive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Costco Wholesale Corporation 
 Executive Bonus Plan 

For fiscal year 2012, executive officers (other than Jim Sinegal, Jeff Brotman, and Craig Jelinek) are, depending upon the individual, eligible for a
bonus award of up to approximately $100,000. The final bonus amount will be determined by Craig Jelinek, subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. 
 Eligibility for up to 50% of the bonus amount is determined by whether the Company has met its pre-tax income goal for the year, as indicated in the Company’s internal budget. 

The remaining 50% is determined by goals relevant to the executive officer’s area of responsibility: 

For those whose responsibilities are operational, the goals relate to sales, controllable expenses, shrink, and pre-tax profit in their
areas of responsibility. 
 For those whose responsibilities are primarily buying, the goals relate to sales, gross margin,
shrink, and inventory turns in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those who responsibilities combine operational and buying
functions, the goals relate to a combination of those described in the prior two paragraphs. 
 For those whose responsibilities
are staff functions, the goals relate to a combination of Company-wide operational and buying goals, in addition to qualitative factors relevant to their areas of responsibility. 
 To be eligible for the annual bonus, the individual must still be employed by the Company at the time bonus checks are issued (November).
Exhibit 32.2  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report of Medizone International, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), I, Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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/ Steve M. Hanni Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer  Date: June 30, 2008  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Approved Tribal-State Gaming Amendment.

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes an Approval of the Third Amendment to Tribal-State Compact for Technical Changes to Class III Video Games of Chance on the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Reservation.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 22, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula L. Hart, Acting Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Amendment allows for technical changes to the Compact that address the technical advances that have occurred in the market with regard to slot machines and sets in place the technical standards for gaming devices that accept coin, currency or cashless tickets and issue cashless tickets.                

Dated: April 13, 2009.

George T. Skibine,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development.

[FR Doc. E9-9263 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
EXHIBIT 13.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Exeter Resource Corporation (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Wendell Zerb, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 results of operations of the Company.














Date: April 17, 2014 /s/ Wendell Zerb___________________


Wendell Zerb, Principal Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the annual report or as a separate disclosure document.
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time--Page 1 

IN THE 

COURT OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

______________________________ 

No. PD-1341-14

_______________________________ 

STACY STINE CARY, Appellant 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

Court of Appeals No. 05-12-01421-CR

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED FIRST MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF 

 Appellant Stacy Stine Cary respectfully moves for an extension of time to 

file her Appellant’s Brief by thirty (30) days. In support of this motion, she would 

respectfully show as follows: 

1. The deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief is April 24, 2015. 

2. Appellant seeks a thirty-day extension. 

3. An extension is necessary because of appellate counsel’s schedule 

since the time the PDR was granted, the complexity of the facts and issues, and the 

fact that the Fifth Court of Appeals has now issued an opinion in the related case of 

David Cary v. State of Texas, No. 05-13-01010-CR, in which the Court of Appeals 

PD-1341-14

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/24/2015 2:13:36 PM

Accepted 4/24/2015 2:28:16 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time--Page 2

reversed the appellant’s conviction, and this opinion should be addressed in the 

initial brief. APPELLEE, THE STATE OF TEXAS, DOES NOT OPPOSE 

THIS REQUESTED EXTENSION.

4. No previous extension has been sought or granted.

Respectfully submitted, 

____/s/ John M. Helms____________

John M. Helms

Texas Bar No. 09401001

BRODEN, MICKELSEN, HELMS & 

SNIPES, LLP

2600 State Street

Dallas, Tx 75204

Tel: (469) 951-8496

Fax: (214) 720-9594

john@johnhelmslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT,

STACY STINE CARY

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Undersigned counsel has conferred with Joseph Corcoran, counsel for 

Appellee, the State of Texas, and the Appellee does not oppose this motion. 

____/s/ John M. Helms____________

John M. Helms
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time--Page 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This certifies that a true and correct copy of this instrument has been served 

on counsel of record on April 23, 2015, as follows:

Joseph Corcoran

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

____/s/ John M. Helms____________

John M. Helms
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I,Randy Moeder, Chief Executive Officer and President of Hiland Partners GP, LLC,the general partner of Hiland Partners, LP, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of Hiland Partners, LP;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Securities and Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annualreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based onsuch evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: March 30, 2005 | /s/ Randy Moeder                      |   |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Randy Moeder                          |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

----
From:    Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov

Sent:    Friday, August 28, 2009 11:48 AM

To:    cwhiteman@icac.com

Cc:    Laney, Michael N.

Subject:  Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS  

Dear Chad:

I think a covered some of the areas of specific EPA concern about control performance when I did the

presentation on the proposed Portland Cement NESHAP.  However, I wanted to add some additional

information, share some areas of additional concerns for both the NESHAP and NSPS, and ask for some  

contact information.

1.  Do you have some contacts for companies that manufacture and install total hydrocarbon monitors

and VOC monitors?

2.  I heard somewhere that ICAC was preparing or had prepared a white paper on SNCR vs. SCR for NOx

control.  Is that correct, and if so could I get a copy?

3.  I had one conversation with a wet scrubber vendor on the use of water scrubbers vs. caustic

scrubbers for HCl control.  Based on that conversation, it would appear that to get the HCl emission

numbers we are proposing, you would need caustic and potentially to use a packed bed rather than a

spray tower scrubber. I hope that while you and/or your members are preparing your comments you are

able to thoroughly address this issue.

4.  We did not propose that kilns that use wet scrubbers for HCl control in the NESHAP monitor for HCl.  

However, scrubber parameter monitoring, or monitoring SO2 as a surrogate, would probably be

necessary.  We are hoping your comments will address the issue of what operating parameters do you

need to monitor when using a wet scrubber for HCl control and/or SO2 control to insure the device is

performing properly.  My guess would be liquid flow rate, pH, and solids content of the scrubber liquid.

5.  Currently all cement kilns that have wet scrubbers produce gypsum that is fed to the finish mill with

the clinker to produce cement.   In all of these cases, all of the gypsum produced by the scrubber can be

used in the grinding process.  But what about the situation where a facility has to install wet scrubber

for HCl control, but they have low SO2 emissions. In that case they would not produce as much gypsum.  

Does this present a problem?  Or would the facility simply have less gypsum available to add to the

finish mill.

6.  I was told that when an ESP is used for particulate matter control, some facilities add ammonia as a

conditioning agent.  Is this ever done in the cement industry?  If so, does anyone know where?

Please contact me if you have questions.

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243‐02

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

919‐541‐5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov