alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0143

Focus Ready Draft 1/30/2012

ENGINEER: Hall \ BCS

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: Crosslinkable isocyanate resin for coatings on golf

balls. 

OTHER USES: None found.

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
CRSS :

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (01/18/2012):

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN: P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt: P3B1T1

Health: 1-2 Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. This

PMN is manufactured domestically, therefore,

manufacturing is assesseed. Proc/Use of PMN as a

crosslinking resin for golf ball coatings is assessed. //

Note, SAT concern for inhalation only with releases to

water not required and migration to gw = negl. // Dermal

exposures are not assessed per SAT. // For MFG: This IRER

assesses equipment cleaning residuals and stack air

emissions to incineration (submission). Inhalation

exposure is expected to be negl. (VP < 0.001 torr). //

For PROC/USE: This IRER assesses all releases to

uncertain media (non-submitter controlled site).

Inhalation exposure is expected to be negl. for the

intended use in the casting process (VP < 0.001 torr and

no mist generation expected). // 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0143

MFG: Manufacture of PMN

Number of Sites/ Location: 2

PPG Industries, Inc. Springdale PA 15144

PPG Industries, Inc. Oak Creek WI 53154

Days/yr: 21

Process Description: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium. Note SAT concerns for inhalation with

releases to water not required and migration to gw = negl.

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0143

PROC/USE: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 1

Acushnet Corporation (pg 15 of P2 Assessment Summary) New

Bedford MA

Days/yr: 250

Process Description: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium. Note SAT concerns for inhalation with

releases to water not required and migration to gw = negl.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
§ 7.8 Other provisions. ( a ) Except for provisions required by statute, the Director may waive or modify any of the provisions of this part for good cause.
( b ) Late-filed recommendations by fish and wildlife agencies pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act for the protection, mitigation of damages to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife affected by the development, operation, and management of the proposed project and late-filed terms and conditions or prescriptions filed pursuant to sections 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act, respectively, may be considered by the Commission as cause to remove the application from the expedited licensing process. If the Director determines that late-filed recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions are likely to prevent the Commission from issuing a final licensing decision within two years from application receipt, the Director will notify the applicant that the application will no longer be processed under the expedited licensing process under this part and that further processing of the application will proceed under 18 CFR parts 4 and 5, as applicable.
( c ) *License conditions and required findings.* ( 1 ) All licenses shall be issued on the conditions specified in section 10 of the Federal Power Act and such other conditions as the Commission determines are lawful and in the public interest.
( 2 ) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, fish and wildlife conditions shall be based on recommendations timely received from the fish and wildlife agencies pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
( 3 ) The Commission will consider the timely recommendations of resource agencies, other governmental units, and members of the public, and the timely recommendations (including fish and wildlife recommendations) of Indian Tribes affected by the project.
( 4 ) Licenses for a project located within any Federal reservation shall be issued only after the findings required by, and subject to, any conditions that may be filed pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act.
( 5 ) The Commission will require the construction, maintenance, and operation of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Power Act.
# C_2011269EN.01001902.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 March 2011 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Karen Dittrich

(Case C-124/11)

2011/C 269/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Applicant:

Defendant: Karen Dittrich

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment (1) and occupation apply to national legislation on the grant of assistance to public servants in cases of illness?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16

1

---
Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

777 Old Saw Mill River Road

Tarrytown, NY 10591

914-789-2800

www.progenics.com 
 
 Tarrytown, NY, San Francisco, CA, January 30, 2014 – Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PGNX), an oncology company focused on the development of innovative approaches to targeting and treating prostate cancer, announced that findings from a Phase 2 study of its PSMA targeted imaging agent, 1404, entitled A Phase 2 Study of 99mTc-Trofolostat (MIP-1404) SPECT/CT to Identify and Localize Prostate Cancer in High-risk Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy (RP) and Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection (ePLND) Compared to Histopathology: An Interim Analysis,were presented today at the meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology's Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
 
 
 1404
    TM ® www.progenics.com
 
 
 Contact:
Kathleen Fredriksen

Corporate Development

(914) 789-2871

kfredriksen@progenics.com   Editors Note
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 THAT WERE
FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<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>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         (1)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.31

                                                                   [LOGO]
                                                           CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.



MEMO


To:    File

From:  Jeff Arnold, J. Daniel Cole

CC:    Bob P. Hardy, Helaine Carroll

Date:  October 25, 1999

Re:    Renewal of J. Arnold Contract

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

At the meeting of October 21, 1999 the Board authorized the renewal of J.
Arnold's employment contract dated September 1, 1993.  This renewal in
accordance with recommendations of the Compensation Committee dated September 8
(attached) and other actions at that meeting.

This memo clarifies some items not specified in the recommendations of the
Compensation Committee.  These items are in italics.

1.  Contract.  The Contract is renewed for three years THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1,
    --------
    2000.

2.  Base Salary.  The Base Salary is increased to $215,000 RETROACTIVELY TO
    -----------
    SEPTEMBER 1, 1999.

3.  Bonus.  No change to attached.
    -----

4.  Immediate Stock Option Grant.  100,000 shares vesting over four years,
    ----------------------------
    consistent with the Company's Stock Option Plan. APPROVED AS OF THE
    TELEPHONIC BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1999. EXERCISE PRICE OF $2.94.

5.  Annual Stock Option Grant.  No change to attached.
    -------------------------

6.  Severance.  Increased from nine to twelve months.  ACCELERATED VESTING OF
    ---------
    UNVESTED SHARES FOR TERMINATION DUE TO A CHANGE IN CONTROL. ACCELERATED
    VESTING OF 50% OF THE UNVESTED PORTION IN THE EVENT OF A CHANGE IN CONTROL
    WITHOUT TERMINATION.



/s/ Jeff Arnold                           /s/  J. Daniel Cole
------------------------------            --------------------------------
Jeff Arnold, CEO                          J. Daniel Cole, Director

 . Page 1
<PAGE>

6.  Severance.  Increased from nine to twelve months.

Please indicate agreement with your signature below.


/s/ Jeff Arnold                          /s/ J. Daniel Cole
------------------------------           ------------------------------
Jeff Arnold CEO                          J. Daniel Cole
                                         Director


                                         /s/ Rolf Stutz
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Rolf Stutz
                                         Director



                                         /s/ Harris Berman
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Harris Berman
                                         Director
### SUBCHAPTER LIV—EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK
§ 325.15 Evidence of proper certification required on waybills; transfer bills, etc., for shipment by connecting carrier; forms of statement. ( a ) All waybills, transfer bills, running slips, conductor's cards, or other papers accompanying a shipment, in the course of importation or otherwise in commerce, of any product shall have embodied therein, stamped thereon, or attached thereto a signed statement which shall be evidence to connecting carriers that the proper shipper's certificate, as required by § 325.5, § 325.6, or § 325.7, is on file with the initial carrier. No connecting carrier shall receive for transportation or transport in the course of importation or otherwise in commerce any product unless the waybill, transfer bill, running slip, conductor's card, or other papers accompanying the same includes the signed statement in the following form: (Name of transportation company) U.S. inspected and passed, as evidenced by shipper's certificate on file with initial carrier. (signed) Agent
( b ) Signatures of agents to statements required under this section shall be written in full.
[47 FR 17276, Apr. 22, 1982]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                                  PROXIM, INC.
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-94910, 333-07419, 333-28567, 333-57629,
333-88369) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-05307, 333-93645, 333-30544, 333-50194) of
Proxim, Inc. of our report dated January 23, 2001,  appearing on page F-1 of
this Annual Report on Form  10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
February 6, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                          74,646
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,857
<INVENTORY>                                    190,404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               446,200
<PP&E>                                          34,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 497,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          186,246
<BONDS>                                        150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           293
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   497,111
<SALES>                                      1,482,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,482,814
<CGS>                                        1,325,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2,725)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,239
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,633
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,633
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010274EN.01002502.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/25

---

Action brought on 23 July 2010 — HIM v European Commission

(Case T-316/10)

()

2010/C 274/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Health Information Management (HIM) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Zeegers, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the present application admissible and well-founded and, consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present application admissible and well-founded and, consequently,

| — | order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 11 821,35, together with default interest at the statutory rate applicable in Belgium from 16 June 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 11 821,35, together with default interest at the statutory rate applicable in Belgium from 16 June 2010;

| — | order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses inclusive, the amount of which is provisionally fixed at EUR 5 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses inclusive, the amount of which is provisionally fixed at EUR 5 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the General Court, in essence, to declare that, for the purposes of calculation of the applicant’s general costs to be met by the Commission (in respect of contracts concluded under the eTen programme specifically), that is to say, that part of the general costs capable of being connected to the services of the staff working on the project, not including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff, since those sub-contractors do not incur any general costs to be borne by the applicant. Consequently, the costs of sub-contracts should not be included in the total amount of personnel costs by which the total amount of general costs is divided to arrive at the denominator to be used to determine the percentage of eligible general costs.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that, since sub-contractors’ costs do not form part of the eligible personnel costs, the fact of including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff when calculating the amount of the total personnel costs to be used to determine the percentage of eligible general costs gives rise to an inconsistency.

eligible personnel costs

eligible general costs

In addition, the fact of including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff causes damage to the applicant, since that method results in an increase in the amount of the denominator and, in consequence, gives a proportional decrease in the percentage of eligible general costs.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

ORTHOVITA, INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

I, Antony Koblish, Chief Executive Officer of Orthovita, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:

(1) The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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





/s/    ANTONY
KOBLISHPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: March 16, 2010
### Martin , Michae l (OST) Qgr - C^^NT - 

### QmT ^ ~ W ^ ^

\ From : Linda.Gundlac h [lrgundlach@yahoo.com ] -r y "-" • " ^rCRWiO N Sent : Wednesday , Apri l 21,201 0 9:3 8 A M ' ' C To : EAS(OST ) Subject : JOHNSTOW N AIRPOR T CONTRAC

T I understan dfro ma

n articl e i n th e Johnstow n Tribun e Democra t tha t th e contrac t

for essentia l ai r

servic e for bot h Johnstow n an dAltoon ai s currentl y unde r review . Th e curren t

provider , Colgan , work s with Unite dExpres s t o provid e servic e throug h Dulles . Colga n ha s bee n recommende db y both airport authoritie s t o hav e thei r

contrac t renewed . Othe r

companie s ar e als o askin g for consideration . I liv e i n Johnstow n an dappreciat e th e fac t that Johnstow n ha s a

n airport with servic e t o amajo r

airport . I kno w th e goal i s t o increas e enplanement s fro mJohnstown . I woul dlik e t o informyo u o f aproble mwith Colgan/Unite dExpres s whic h I fee l contribute s t o travelers ' decision s t o us e othe r

airports . Johnstow n airport

ofte n experience s advers e weather . N o on e i s responsibl e for that . Bu t

durin g th e recen t winter , whe n reservation s wen t throug h Johnstown , ther e wa s n o way t o ge t accurat e informatio n abou t a flight' s status . Instruction s wer e t o cal l United . O n callin g Unite dan dnavigatin g throug h thei r automate dsyste mwith departur e cities , times , fligh t numbers , etc . assuranc e wa s give n tha t flight s wer e o n time . I personall y mad e four suc h call s for

on e fligh t

durin g aSunda y mornin g concernin g a2:0 0 departure . I wa s assure deac h time , throug h an automate dvoic e whic h wa s th e onl y voic e availabl e t o me , tha t th e fligh t wa s o n time . O n arrivin g a

t th e airport , w e wer e informe dthat flight s wer e no t

ye t landin g a

t Johnstown . We , alon g with several othe r

passengers , wer e lef

t scramblin g decidin g whethe r t o driv e t o PIttsbug h t o mak e othe r connections , driv e t o Altoona , driv e t o Washington , o r reschedule . Th e flight wa s abl e t o lan dan dtak e of f i n Altoona . S o th e fligh t numbe r wa s activ e an dthu s th e informatio n fro mth e automate dsystem . Ther e hav e bee n othe r

occasion s experience db y famil y member s wher e Johnstow n wa s no t recognize db y Unite dagent s i n (then ) Pittsburgh . I kno w thi s uncertaint y make s my famil y reluctan t t o depen do n th e Johnstow n connection . I suspec t that i s tm e o f othe r traveler s a s well . I believ e th e proble mi s probabl y no t with Colga n but

with United . The y nee dt o communicat e with thei r Johnstow n passenger s with accurat e fligh t information . I f Colga n canno t

accomplis h this , the n I woul dsugges t that anothe r contracto r

b e give n th e opportunity . Lind aGundlac h
§ 806.21 General standards. ( a ) A project shall be feasible and not be detrimental to the proper conservation, development, management, or control of the water resources of the basin.
( b ) The Commission may modify and approve as modified, or may disapprove, a project if it determines that the project is not in the best interest of the conservation, development, management, or control of the basin's water resources, or is in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
( c ) *Disapprovals—other governmental jurisdictions.* ( 1 ) The Commission may suspend the review of any application under this part if the project is subject to the lawful jurisdiction of any member jurisdiction or any political subdivision thereof, and such member jurisdiction or political subdivision has disapproved or denied the project. Where such disapproval or denial is reversed on appeal, the appeal is final, and the project sponsor provides the Commission with a certified copy of the decision, the Commission shall resume its review of the application. Where, however, an application has been suspended hereunder for a period greater than three years, the Commission may terminate its review. Thereupon, the Commission shall notify the project sponsor of such termination and that the application fee paid by the project sponsor is forfeited. The project sponsor may reactivate the terminated application by reapplying to the Commission, providing evidence of its receipt of all necessary governmental approvals and, at the discretion of the Commission, submitting new or updated information.
( 2 ) The Commission may modify, suspend or revoke a previously granted approval if the project sponsor fails to obtain or maintain the approval of a member jurisdiction or political subdivision thereof having lawful jurisdiction over the project.
[71 FR 78579, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 29392, June 29, 2017]