alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Item 14(c) Exhibit (i) (18)





January 27, 1999



To the Board of Directors
M.A. Hanna Company



Dear Directors:

We have audited the consolidated financial statements
included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1998 and issued our report thereon
dated January 27, 1999.  The notes to the consolidated
financial statements describe a change in the Company's
method of determining the cost of inventories from the first-
in, first-out method to the last-in, first-out method.  It
should be understood that the preferability of one
acceptable method of inventory accounting over another has
not been addressed in any authoritative accounting
literature and in arriving at our opinion expressed below,
we have relied on management's business planning and
judgement.  Based on our discussions with management and the
stated reasons for the change, we believe that such change
represents, in your circumstances, the adoption of a
preferable alternative accounting principle for inventories
in conformity with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No,
20.

Yours very truly,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
### §797b. Duty to keep Congress fully and currently informed

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall keep the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate fully and currently informed regarding actions of the Commission with respect to the provisions of Part I of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.].

(Pub. L. 99–495, §16, Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1259.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Power Act, referred to in text, is act June 10, 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063. Part I of the Federal Power Act is classified generally to this subchapter (§791a et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 791a of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986, and not as part of the Federal Power Act which generally comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress. Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives, and jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges and insurance generally transferred to Committee on Financial Services of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Jan. 3, 2001.
Search Help More Search Options Search

EERE Information Center

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Framework Meeting 

The Department of Energy (DOE) will hold an informal public 

meeting as a first step in the rulemaking process to amend 

energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts and 

adopt standards for additional fluorescent lamps ballasts, if such 

additional standards are warranted. 

Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE headquarters are 

subject to advance security screening procedures. Foreign 

nationals wishing to attend this meeting must inform DOE of this 

fact by contacting Brenda Edwards before January 30, 2008, at 

(202) 586-2945. 

The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. 

Download Acrobat Reader. 

Meeting Materials 

z Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework 

Document, issued by DOE January 14, 2008 (PDF 55 KB) 

z Rulemaking Framework Document for Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts, January 14, 2008 (PDF 1 MB) 

Comments 

All comments submitted must identify the Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballast Rulemaking activity to which it corresponds, with the 

appropriate docket number and/or regulatory information number

(RIN). The docket number and RIN for the fluorescent lamp 

ballast rule are: 

z Docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 and RIN 1904-

AB50 

Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

z Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for submitting comments. 

z E-mail: ballasts.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov

Please be sure to include the docket number and/or RIN in 

the subject line of the message. 

DATE: Wednesday, February 6, 2008 

TIME: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. EDT 

LOCATION: U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 1E-245 

Washington, DC 20585 

Appliances & Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Framework Meeting Page 1 of 2

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ballast_framework_mtg.html 1/17/2008

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 COMMENT 02
z Mail: 

Mrs. Brenda Edwards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Building Technologies Program 

Mailstop: EE-2J 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

Please submit one signed paper original. 

z Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Mrs. Brenda Edwards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

Telephone: (202) 586-2945 

Please submit one signed paper original. 

Printable Version

Webmaster | Security & Privacy | Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home

U.S. Department of Energy 

Content Last Updated: 01/15/2008 

Appliances & Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Framework Meeting Page 2 of 2

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ballast_framework_mtg.html 1/17/2008

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 COMMENT 02
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

_________________ Division 

In re Case No.

Debtor(s) Chapter

$0(1'('ORDER FOR RETURN OF UNCLAIMED FUNDS 

A Motion for Return of Unclaimed Funds having been filed pursuant to Local 

Bankruptcy Rule 3011-1, said motion having been served on the United States Trustee and the 

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and there being no objections filed; it 

is

ORDERED that the unclaimed funds in the amount of $ ,

currently on deposit with the Treasury of the United States, be returned to: 

Let the Clerk give notice of entry of this order to the debtor(s), attorney for debtor(s), 

movant, attorney for movant, if applicable, trustee and United States Trustee. 

Date: __________________________ _______________________________________ 

United States Bankruptcy Judge 

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

ENTERED ON DOCKET: 

_____________________

pc: Financial Administrator 

[ounclmfd ver. 03/06] 

Alexandria

Charles Norman Adcox 17-10314-KHK

13

1005.00

Charles Norman Adcox

c/o John Paul Goetz of John Goetz Law, PLC

86 W. Shirley Avenue

Warrenton, VA 20186

Mar 13 2020 /s/ Klinette H. Kindred

March 13, 2020

Case 17-10314-KHK Doc 33 Filed 03/13/20 Entered 03/13/20 15:06:11 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.51


                          ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

                        1984 EXECUTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN


      ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, having established the 1984 Executive Stock
Option Plan (the "Plan"), hereby amends the Plan effective as of December 19,
1995 as follows:

      Section 5.1 of Article V of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

      Subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.3 hereof,
the number of shares of stock which may be issued and sold hereunder shall not
exceed eight hundred forty thousand (840,000) shares. Such shares may be
authorized and unissued shares or shares issued and thereafter acquired by the
Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, by its duly authorized
officer, has executed this Amendment No. 1 on the date indicated below.


                                          ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

                                          BY: /s/ LORRAINE P. O'HARA
                                             -----------------------------

                                       TITLE: Assistant Secretary
                                             -----------------------------

                                       DATED: March 30, 1996
                                             -----------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee, v. Patricia Rae FRUETEL, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 02-6023.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2002.

Decided May 20, 2002.

Patricia Rae Fruetel, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Rae Fruetel appeals the district court’s order denying her petition to modify the terms of her supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(1) (West 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Fruetel,*No. CR-91-70 (E.D.Va. Nov. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
MOTION FOR LEAVE IO FILE A RESPONSE TOTHE SHOW CAUSE ORDER

IOINT APPLICATION OF DELTA AIR LINE5, INC,, VIRGIN ELUE AIRLINES PTY LIO, VIRGIN BLUE

NTERNATIONAL AIRLINES PTY LTD D/8/A V AUSTRALIA, PACIFIC BLUE AIRLINES (NZ) LTD, PACIFIC BLUE

AIRtINES (AUsT) PTY LTD Under 49 U.S.C. 56 41308-41309 FOR APPROVAT OF AND ANTITRUST

IMMUNIIY FOR ALTIANCE AGREEMENTS, DOCKET DOT.O5T.2OO9.O155

Hubert Horan

24 May 2O1L

ln its Show Cause Order dated 10 May 2011, the DOTfalsely stated that the Order had been served on

all parties to this case. Even thou8h the Show Cause Order explicitly acknowledged that I was an active

party to this case, and had filed substantive objections tothe Department's Order 2010-9-4, the DOT

had not served its Show Cause Order on mej, Since Ihave received orooer notices of DOT orders and

filinSs via email in all prior ca5es I have participated in, the Department was fully capable of following its

notice of service requirements in this case, but failed to do so. In past cases the Department has made it

clear that filings that were not properly served on parties to the case must be ercluded from the case

record, even when those filings were publicly available through other channels. The Department is

welcome to contact my email providers if jt requires additional evidence that it had failed to follow its

notice ofseNice regulations in this case. I have been work ing ove rseas, and only learned ofthe

Department's Show Cause Order yesterdav.

In addition to the Department's failure to obey its own procedures, I would note that, as tne

Department clearly understands, the "applicants have effectively submitted a substantially different

application." I The public has had eighteen months to comment on the ori8inal application, and has had

eiSht months to comnent on the Department's Order 2010-9-4. The DOT only allowed two weeks for

comments on its decision about a substantially different application. I would also note the public

interest in the precedentthat may be establtshed bythis decision. The decision criteria used in Order

2010-9-4 were substantially different from those used in prior antitrust immunity cases, but the new

Show Cause Orderfailed to address anyofthe objections raised about its wildly in con sistent criteria, 3 or

whether the substantive changes in the applications had affected these inconsistencies.

The Show Cause Order states that objections or comments must be submitted no laterthan 14 calendar

days from the service date of the order, which is today. Thus I am filing this motion requesting leave to

file initial comments untilThursday, 2 June. Given the Memorial Oay Holiday, this adds one additional

working week to the originalschedule. ldonotbelievethisbriefdeiaywillcauseundueharmtoanyof

the parties to this case. Any inconvenience would be solely due to the Department's failure to obey its

own procedures,

Respectfully submitted, ,MP^fuN

' Show Cause Order DOT-OST-2009-0I55. pp.-6,2t. ' Show Cause Order, p.2, also resrar€d ar p.7. ' Comments on the Show Cause Order, DOT-OST-2009-0 I 5 5 -003 0, I 2 October 20 I 0
### §778c. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 85–342, §4, Mar. 15, 1958, 72 Stat. 35.)
§ 667.9 Consideration of evaluations. ( a ) The State DOT shall consider the results of an evaluation prepared under this part when developing projects. State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations are encouraged to include consideration of the evaluations during the development of transportation plans and programs, including TIPs and STIPs, and during the environmental review process under part 771 of this title. Nothing in this section prohibits State DOTs from proceeding with emergency repairs to restore functionality of the system, or from receiving emergency repair funding under part 668 of this title.
( b ) The FHWA will periodically review the State DOT's compliance under this part, including evaluation performance, consideration of evaluation results during project development, and overall results achieved. Nothing in this paragraph limits FHWA's ability to consider the results of the evaluations when relevant to an FHWA decision, including when making a planning finding under 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(8), making decisions during the environmental review process under part 771 of this title, or when approving funding. The State DOT must make evaluations required under this part available to FHWA upon request.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# C IVED IN THE MATTER OF 

## OCT 1 5 2015 EXTREME ENERGY SOLUTIONS, 

### INC. 

## HE,l\RING DOCKET FDMS NO. FAA-2015-1322 (Civil Penalty Action)

AGENCY'S ADDENDUM TO REPORT REGARDING RULE 26(f) MEETNG OF THE PARTIES At about 4:00p.m Eastern Time on October 

### 8, 2015, the parties conferredregarding the alternate dates for the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference currently scheduled for October 15,2015. Mr. Burlum indicated that atthis pointhe can only committo two dates. They are October 30,2015, andNovember 17,2015. He is available from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00p.m. Eastern Time both days. Agency counsel is currently scheduled to attend depositions in St. Paul, Minnesota, on October 29, 2015, and will be returning to Anchorage on October 30th. While travel reservations have notyet beenmade, it is highly uulikely thathe willbe available for the conference on October 30th. Agency counsel is available onNovember 17thas well as onmost other days. Respectfully submitted this 8th day ofOctober 2015. Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement

By: Glenn H. Brown Enforcement Division, Western Team l222 W 7thAvenue Box 14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 email: glenn.brown@faa.gov telephone: (907) 271-5271 (direct) (907) 271-2800 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. FDMS No. FAA-2015-1322
I hereby certify that onthis date I have served a copy ofthe Agency's Addendum to Report Regarding Rule 26(f) Meeting ofthe Parties by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile transmission to the following: Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 US Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536 Mr. Samuel K. Burlurn, President/CEO Extreme Energy Solutions, Inc. 150 Main Street Ogdensburg, NJ 07439 Fax: 973-209-4796

I further certify that on this date I have served the original and one copy ofthe Agency's Motions to DeemFacts Admitted and for a Decision Regarding the Violations bypostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested and facsimile, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 Fax: (202) 493-5020 DATED: 

# 0d**~**;201-5-

Office ofRegional Counsel 222 West 7thAvenue, Box 14, AAL-7 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587

2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 February 23,2011

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS SUBJECT: Posting EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 to Regulations.gov for Public Access FROM:

Thru: William H.

# Maxw~ll**w~-f-f. ~~**  EP

### AlOARIOAQPS/SPPD/ESG Peter Tsirigotis Director, Sectors Policies and P.

This memorandum authorizes the posting ofEPA-HQ- OAR-2009-0234 to Regulations.gov for public access. The subject docket was established for the Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 rulemaking (also known as the Utility MACT, Utility NESHAP, and the Toxics Rule). An information collectionrequest (ICR) action was undertaken under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which necessitated two periods of public comment in 2009. The subject docket was "opened" for the purpose ofreceiving comments during these two public commentperiods. Docket entries made as aresult of this PRA action, bothpublic and Agencymaterials, are currently available to the public. The utility industry was thenrequired to complywith the ICR through issuance ofa CAA section 114 request which necessitated submittal ofdata and other information to EPA throughout 2010. The responses to this request have beenreceived and are being submitted to the docket through FDMS for ultimateposting to the public. However, the public has shown great interest in being able to access the ICR submittals prior to the next docket phase being openedwithpublication ofthe proposedrule in the Federal Register (likely to occurin late March or early April 2011). Therefore, we are requesting that these ICR submittals be posted for public availability now as "supporting and related materials." Any public comments received in anticipation oftheproposed rule should not be made publicly available until proposal in the Federal Register. The requestbeingmade here is strictly for supporting materials submitted through FDMS byEPA or its contractor. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact William Maxwell at (919) 541-5430, or via email at maxwell.bill@epa.gov.

Internet Address (URL) • http://www

.epa.gov RecycledIRecyclable • Printed wHh Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) '

.
# Official Journal C 164/23 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 164 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4723 June 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 164

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4723 June 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 164/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 164/1

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EPA R3 Meeting with PA’s Storage Tank Advisory Committee

December 6, 2011

EPA Region 3 met with PA's Storage Tank Advisory Committee in Harrisburg, PA. Claudette 

Reed of EPA gave an overview of the 16 proposed changes using the 8-page Comparison 

document which is available on EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/oust

EPA showed a short powerpoint presentation on the proposal, and how and when to comment, 

and handed out a copy of the 8-page comparison document from EPA OUST’s website. EPA 

also handed out screen shots of the OUST web page housing the proposed regs and related links

and the regulations.gov page.

In attendance were about 30 people including: 

 EPA Region 3

 County Commissioners Assoc

 Assoc of Township Supervisors

 Assoc. Petroleum Industries of PA

 PA Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Stores Assoc

 PA Environmental Council

 A law firm

 A hydrogeologist

 An engineering firm

 A commercial farm Owner/Operator

 PADEP from the UST & LUST programs

.
(No. 78-CC-1559

#### Brokaw Hospital, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed June 27,1979.*

Holderman, J.

This matter comes before the Court upon a motion by Respondent to dismiss said cause and objections to said motion filed by Claimant.

Respondent’s motion is based upon the premise that Claimant’s contract with the State was exceeded and that there was no contract in existence at the time the services were rendered.

Claimant, in its objections to Respondent’s motion, the case of *Vancil, Inc. v. State, 27 Ill.Ct.Cl. 352.*It is the Court’s opinion that the present case is distinguished from the case above cited because of the fact the services rendered by Claimant in the above case were of an emergency nature and for the benefit of the State whereas in the present case the services were rendered on behalf of the patient and were not for the benefit of the State.

For the Court to order payment of this claim could and would result in services being rendered in amounts far above those provided for in the contract and would practically eliminate the need for contracts between the State and Claimants.

*812It is hereby ordered that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is, granted and this cause is dismissed.
§ 8.7 Release before claim. ( a ) After seizure for forfeiture and prior to the filing of any claim, ATF's Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Seized Property Branch, or designee, the appropriate DEA Special Agent in Charge, or designee, or the appropriate FBI Special Agent in Charge, or designee, whichever is applicable, is authorized to release property seized for forfeiture, provided: ( 1 ) The property is not contraband, evidence of a violation of law, or any property, the possession of which by the claimant, petitioner, or the person from whom it was seized is prohibited by state or federal law, and does not have a design or other characteristic that particularly suits it for use in illegal activities; and
( 2 ) The official designated in paragraph (a) of this section determines within 10 days of seizure that there is an innocent party with the right to immediate possession of the property or that the release would be in the best interest of justice or the Government.
( b ) Further, at any time after seizure and before any claim is referred, such seized property may be released if the appropriate official of the seizing agency determines that there is an innocent party with the right to immediate possession of the property or that the release would be in the best interest of justice or the Government.
EXHIBIT 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the quarterly report of FreeStar Technology  Corporation
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission  ("Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby certify pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  Section  1350) that to their
knowledge:

          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.

Dated: February 21, 2006                      By: /s/  Paul Egan
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                      Paul Egan
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

Dated: February 21, 2006                      By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                      Ciaran Egan
                                                      Secretary/Treasurer/
                                                      Chief Financial Officer