alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RE: CMAS Facility Information 

Nick Parsons to: Higgins, Cortney 10/15/2012 11:50 AM

Cc: Penny Lassiter

Hi Cortney,

That's correct, the Wyeth facility already has a title V permit. Based on my review of information available online 

from the states and the 10/12/2009 Permit Status memo, the remaining facilities on this list do not already have a 

title V permit. The 10/12/2009 version of the memo is still the latest version.

Thanks,

Nick

"Higgins, Cortney" Hi Nick, I'm cross walking this list with those in the RTI... 10/15/2012 10:46:59 AM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 10/15/2012 10:46 AM

Subject: RE: CMAS Facility Information

Hi Nick,

I’m cross walking this list with those in the RTI memo – it looks like the first facility on this list – the 

Wyeth facility has a Title V permit. Can you confirm that fact and if any other facilities on this list 

already have a Title V permit? 

Also, have y’all updated the memo titled “Permit Status of CMAS that are Synthetic Area Sources for 

HAP”? If not, what’s the memo with the most recent date (is it still 10/12/2009)?

Regards,

Cortney

From: Nick Parsons [mailto:Parsons.Nick@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:37 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Cc: Paul Versace; JohnB Chamberlin; Penny Lassiter

Subject: CMAS Facility Information

Hi Cortney,

Attached is a spreadsheet containing information on the CMAS facilities that have uncontrolled HAP 

emissions greater than 100 tpy.

Thanks,
Nick
#### SPENCER v. TOWN OF SARDINIA.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 15, 1905.)

Action by Ella D. Spencer against the town of Sardinia. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**LancerCorporationList of Significant Subsidiaries**

 

**United States of America:**

Lancer CapitalCorporation

Lancer InternationalSales, Inc.

Lancer InvestmentCorporation

Lancer Partnership, Ltd.

Lancer Frank Corporation

Lancer FBD Partnership,Ltd.

Lancer Ice Link, LLC

Advanced BeverageSolutions, LLC

Moo Technologies, LLC

 

**Mexico:**

Industrias Lancermex,S.A. de C.V.

Lancer de Mexico, S.A. deC.V.

Servicios Lancermex, S.A.de C.V.

 

**Brazil:**

Lancer do Brasil, Industria e Comercio Ltda.

 

**Belgium:**

Lancer Europe, S.A.

 

**United Kingdom:**

Lancer GB, LLP

 

**Australia:**

Lancer Pacific, Pty. Ltd.

 

**New Zealand:**

Lancer Pacific, Ltd.

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 816

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 816 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 816.2 Objectives.

This part is intended to ensure that all surface mining activities are conducted in a manner which preserves and enhances environmental and other values in accordance with the Act.

[44 FR 15395, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017]
#### Dudley McCabe, Appellant, v. Town of Oyster Bay et al., Respondents, and Harbour Green Civic Association, Inc., et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Motion by intervenor-defendants-respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the March Term, beginning February 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 27, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 10, 2015

t0706 

# Order

Clerk July 10, 2015

150181

KAEE JOHNSON, DAMON JOHNSON, JANET

MARIE KUNTZ, JANET MCCASLAND, and

TIM MOHAN,

Petitioners

- Appellants,

v SC: 150181

COA: 320708

State Tenure Comm: 13

- 000003

PONTIAC SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Respondent

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

B ERNSTEIN

, J., would grant leave to appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                            123,809
<SECURITIES>                                    3,793,565
<RECEIVABLES>                                      11,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,928,380
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,910,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             113,124
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          608,293
<OTHER-SE>                                         93,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,928,380
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   44,690
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      23,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    21,129
<INCOME-TAX>                                        5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       16,129
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-111310) of our report dated March 4, 2007 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and consolidated statements of operation, changes in shareholders’ equity (capital deficiency) and cash flows for the two years ended December 31, 2006, on our audits of the aforementioned financial statements of Notal Vision Inc., which is included in Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
A member of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited

Tel-Aviv, Israel
June 25, 2008

---
§ 3.6 Limitations on cost-sharing. ( a ) When a nontraditional Defense contractor is not participating to a significant extent in the prototype project and cost-sharing is the reason for using OT authority, then the non-Federal amounts counted as provided, or to be provided, by the business units of an awardee or subawardee participating in the performance of the OT agreement may not include costs that were incurred before the date on which the OT agreement becomes effective. Costs that were incurred for a prototype project by the business units of an awardee or subawardee after the beginning of negotiations, but prior to the date the OT agreement becomes effective, may be counted as non-Federal amounts if and to the extent that the Agreements Officer determines in writing that: ( 1 ) The awardee or subawardee incurred the costs in anticipation of entering into the OT agreement; and
( 2 ) It was appropriate for the awardee or subawardee to incur the costs before the OT agreement became effective in order to ensure the successful implementation of the OT agreement.
( b ) As a matter of policy, these limitations on cost-sharing apply any time cost-sharing may be recognized when using OT authority for prototype projects.
[67 FR 54956, Aug. 27, 2002]
Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                       SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Robert A. Mariano, Chief Executive Officer of Roundy's, Inc. ("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 my knowledge:

   (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
       January 1, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
       section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
       (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: March 25, 2005



                                               /s/ROBERT A. MARIANO
                                               ___________________________
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               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.
| Exhibit 32.1 |
|--------------|

 

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Robert C. Stempel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephan W. Zumsteg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the *Sarbanes-Oxley* Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that based on his 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.

 

 

/s/ Robert C. Stempel                                    

Robert C. Stempel

Chief Executive Officer

January 4, 2006

 

 

/s/ Stephan W. Zumsteg                                

Stephan W. Zumsteg

Chief Financial Officer

January 4, 2006
Exhibit 99.1


                    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 the Quarterly Report of Ennis Business Forms,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on
the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, Keith  S.  Walters,  Chief
Executive  Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to  18
U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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/ Keith S. Walters

Keith S. Walters
Chief Executive Officer
January 10, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(c)

                             MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

     THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective as of the 15th day of
June 2001, between The Elder-Beerman Stores Corp., an Ohio corporation
("Employer"), and James M. Zamberlan ("Executive").

     WHEREAS, Employer and Executive are parties to that certain Employment
Agreement for James M. Zamberlan dated as of December 30, 1997 (the "Employment
Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, Employer and Executive mutually desire to modify the provisions in
the Employment Agreement dealing with certain terminations of Executive's
employment with Employer.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants
contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:

     1. MODIFICATION OF SECTION 2.7(C)(II) OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. Pursuant
to Section 5.5 of the Employment Agreement, Employer and Executive hereby modify
the terms of the Employment Agreement by deleting the existing Section
2.7(c)(ii), which is titled "Not for Cause," and replacing it with the
following:

          (ii) Not for Cause. In addition to Employer's rights under Section
     2.2, Employer may terminate the employment of Executive at any time for any
     reason. However, if termination of Executive's employment does not occur
     under the circumstances described in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)(i) of this
     Section 2.7, Employer shall remain obligated to Executive for (I) payment
     of Executive's unpaid Base Salary (as described in Section 2.4) through the
     then-remaining term of this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.2 or, if
     longer, for a period of one year following Employer's termination of
     Executive's employment, (II) any Bonus (as described in Section 2.4) paid
     on or before Executive's last day worked and (III) payment for any vacation
     accrued but unused as of before Executive's last day worked.

     2. NO OTHER CHANGES. With the exception of the revisions set forth in
Section 1 of this Modification Agreement, the remaining terms of the Employment
Agreement shall be unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
and year first above written.

                                         THE ELDER-BEERMAN STORES CORP.

                                         By: /s/ Frederick J. Mershad
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Frederick J. Mershad
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                         By: /s/ James M. Zamberlan
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           James M. Zamberlan
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Dated May 10, 2006



Commission File Number: 001-14666



MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.

(Translation of registrants name into English)



15th Floor, Hofplein 20

3032 AC Rotterdam

The Netherlands

(Address of principal executive offices)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.



Form 20-FxForm 40-Fo



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): _____



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): _____



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



YesoNox



If Yes marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-________





















---









On May 9, 2006, Mittal Steel Company N.V. held a  press conference, a transcript of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.



Exhibit List



|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                                   | 
|------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Exhibit 99.1 | Transcript of the Mittal Steel Company N.V. web cast of press conference held on May 9, 2006.











| |  | 
| |  | 











| | 2 | 
| | - | 





---









SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



Date: May 10, 2006



| | By: | /s/Henk Scheffer
| | --- | ----------------
| |     | Name:           
| |     | Title:          















| | 3 | 
| | - | 





---













Exhibit Index



|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                                   | 
|------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Exhibit 99.1 | Transcript of the Mittal Steel Company N.V. web cast of press conference held on May 9, 2006.











| | 4 | 
| | - |
This action is certainly a step in the right dir ection, but it is merely the first step of many. It is too bad that it took air pol lution obstructing the scenic vistas of national parks for Idaho to take the proper action in combating polluti on. Regardless, a rather late fix born from questionable motives is better than no fix at all.

The state of Idaho should be commended for a number of reasons: it is refreshing that a state is proactively trying to do something about air pollution and im pairment of wilderness views. Too often, cities or states neglectremedying pollution problems until a governmental agency mandates it or the locality faces a lawsui t from either an individual or an interested group. By taking matters into their own hands and taking action to retrofit the sources of air pollution, Idaho has shown that it not only respects its lands but also its ci tizens. Idaho should be proud of taking this first step, but only if they follow up and continue to take action to combat these pollution problems. The state is taking action to remedy the pr oblems faced by national parks and wilderness areas, because of air pollution. However, if th ese measures prove successful, Idaho needs to dream bigger. If statutes and re trofits clear the air above the st ate’s forests, why can’t similar measures begin to clear the air above Idaho’s urban areas as well? Sm og and pollution may be more apparent and even more damaging in natio nal parks, but taking ac tion to treat a symptom will only ensure, at best, that the symptom is m itigated, not that the disease is cured. Idahoans living in the state’s urban areas have just as much of a right to breat he clean air and enjoy increased visibility as do the tourists who come to Yellowstone . The retrofits are a good fix, and they will likely sustain Idaho for the moment, but if real progress is to be made, real solutions

must be found. Unfortunately, air pollution doe s not respect state lines in the same way that the legal system does. Much of Yellowstone National Park, one of the areas Idaho’s policies are trying to improve, actually lays in Wyomi ng. The fact is, Idaho can spend countless funds and man hours trying to improve the air quality of the state, butif the neighboring stat es do not adopt similar practices, it may all be for naught. Large-scale po llution remedies will likely begin on the levels of individual states, but at some point the states need to begi n working together, or at least working towards the same goals, or no one will accomplish anything. Idaho taking proactive measures to combat pollution is a good first step, but it is a first step. If real, lasting change is ever going to take root, more steps will need to be taken. Idaho has laid the foundation, but a foundation doesn’t do anyone any good unless something further is built upon it.
#### MARSHALL v. SIZEMORE

No. 570A97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 751

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals denied 5 February 1998.
#### Chic-Mint Gum Company, appellee, v. Hecht Nielsen, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,327.

Action to recover balance due for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Asa G. Adams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

Meyer Shapiro, for appellant.

Moss & King, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
Alcoa East and West Plants in Massena, NY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,499,390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  876,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               340,006
<PP&E>                                       2,340,110
<DEPRECIATION>                               (892,753)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,163,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,892,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    439,742
<COMMON>                                       365,876
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,464,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,163,444
<SALES>                                     10,086,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,086,881
<CGS>                                        5,580,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,580,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,176,519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             331,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,001,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,001,492)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,001,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.71)
        

</TABLE>