alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3M Environmental, Health and 

Safety Operations 

3M Center, Building 0224-05-W-03 

St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 

RECEIVED 

OPPT CBIC 

201~ SEP 30 A~lll: 50 

September 18,2014 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA Docket Center 

Docket AR-226, Mail Code 28221 T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attention: OPPT Docket No. AR-226 

Federal Express 

Subject: Environmental Assessment of Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates at the 

3M Decatur, Alabama Manufacturing Site 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

CBIC Control Number 

362022 

On October 24, 2004, U.S. EPA and the 3M Company entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to execute a Screening Level Human Exposure Assessment for 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). This program required that various environmental 

media on and off the 3M Decatur, Alabama manufacturing site be sampled and 

analyzed as defined by an extensive work plan. The last phase of this study was 

completed and summarized in a repott submitted last year to U.S. EPA entitled 

"Addendum to the Data Assessment Report". Accordingly, all commitments under this 

program have been fulfilled and the entire program is documented in the Electronic 

Docket OPPT 2004 0112. 

Since the 3M Decatur site also was used for the manufacture ofperfluoroalkyl 

sulfonates, 3M voluntarily conducted a separate enviromnental monitoring program of 

substances that had been or were being manufactured at the site. The substances that 

were included in this envirorunental monitoring program were perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS) and perfluorobutane sulfonate 

(PFBS). Enclosed is a report entitled "Addendum to the Perfluorinated Sulfonates Data 

Report" that presents the perfluorinated sulfonates results for samples collected under 

the aforementioned final phase of the MOU program. The analytical data and 

environmental assessment of this monitoring effort are being submitted to the AR-226 

Docket to augment information pertaining to fluorochemicals at this location. The 

report is being submitted in hard copy and electronic (CD) formats. 

It should be noted that 3M has entered into an agreement with the Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management to execute a project of capping the former sludge 

incorporation fields on the plant site. This project includes the installation of a 

protective liner over the fields that is then covered with two feet of clean soils to 
U.S. EPA Docket Center 

September 18,2014 

Page 2 

support growth of natural vegetation. Significant progress has been made on this multiyear effort. Several additional mitigation measures have also either been completed or 

undertaken to reduce potential releases to the environment. 

If there are any questions or comments concerning this matter, please contact me at 

(651) 737-3570 or gahohenstein@mmm.com. 

Regards, 

1(1 ·f Xltt?; t . 

I 

Gary l. Hohenstein 

Manager of Environmental and Regulatory Afiairs 

3M Center, Building 224-5W-03 

St. Paul, MN 55133 

Enclosure 

cc: Toni Krasnic- Mail Code 7405M (with enclosures)
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.550 [Reserved]
49–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–492 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5522, FOREIGN 

OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 

JUNE 7, 2006.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. LINCOLN-DIAZ-BALART of Florida, from the Committee on 

Rules, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 851] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 851, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R 5522, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2007, under an open rule. The rule provides one hour 

of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. 

Under the rules of the House the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI 

(prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions 

in an appropriations bill), except as specified in the resolution. The 

rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 

Record. 

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

includes a waiver of clause 4(c) of rule XIII (requiring the threeday availability of printed hearings on a general appropriation bill). 

The waiver of clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized approVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:49 Jun 08, 2006 Jkt 049008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR492.XXX HR492

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

priations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) is necessary because there are numerous legislative provisions included 

in the bill. 

The exemptions specified in the resolution to the waiver of clause 

2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) against provisions in H.R. 

5522 are as follows: 

1. The number ‘‘5’’ on page 60, line 4; 

2. Section 526; 

3. Beginning with ‘‘Of’ on page 86, line 1 through ‘‘That’’ on 

line 16; 

4. Section 538; 

5. Beginning with the semicolon in section 565(a)(2) through 

‘‘501)’’ in section 565(a)(3); 

6. Section 570; 

7. Section 579. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
#### The State ex rel. Burchfield, Appellant, *v.*Printech Corporation; Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Burchfield v. Printech Corp.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 169.]

(No. 95-2505

Submitted June 24, 1998

Decided September 23, 1998.)

*170
      *Daniel D. Connor Co., L.P.A., Daniel D. Connor*and *Kenneth S. Hafenstein,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Miltina A. Gavia,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

A specific safety requirement must prescribe “specific and definite requirements or standards of conduct * * * which are of a character plainly to apprise an employer of his legal obligation towards his employees.” *State ex rel. Trydle v. Indus. Comm.*(1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 257, 61 O.O.2d 488, 291 N.E.2d 748, paragraph one of the syllabus. Moreover, because a VSSR is an employer penalty, the specific safety requirement “must be strictly construed, and all reasonable doubts concerning the interpretation of the safety standard are to be construed against its applicability to the employer.” *State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm.*(1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 170, 172, 545 N.E.2d 1216,1219.

The commission found that claimant’s job did not present a clear foot hazard, rendering Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-17(E) inapplicable. Claimant “does not dispute that, in and of itself, the operation of a binding machine does not present a clear foot hazard.” She nevertheless argues that there were other potential foot hazards that mandated compliance with the safety requirement. This argument is unpersuasive.

Claimant’s proposed foot hazards are too nebulous. It is not that they are not possible. To the contrary, using claimant’s examples, they exist everywhere. That claimant could drop a book on her foot or that something else conceivably could fall on it is assuredly not the type of hazard envisioned by the Administrative Code’s authors as requiring protection. If it were, *every*employer would be required to supply its employees with safety shoes should a drawer fall from a desk or a desk chair roll over toes.

*171Turning to *Trydle,*we cannot envision how an employer would be plainly apprised that the possibility of a foot injury that exists as a part of everyday life — both at and away from work — imposed upon it the legal obligation to provide safety shoes. Coupled with *Burton’s*underlying strict construction directive, we hold that the commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-17(E) was not violated.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., coneur.
Editorial Note on Part 1956
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1956.67 Debts which the debtor is able to pay in full but refuses to do so. Debts which the debtor may have the ability to pay in full but has refused to do so may be compromised or adjusted in the following situations on Form FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 1956-1: ( a ) When the full amount cannot be collected because of the refusal of the debtor to pay the debt in full and the OGC advises that the Government is unable to enforce collection in full within a reasonable time by enforced collection proceedings, the debt may be compromised. In determining inability to collect, the following factors will be considered: ( 1 ) Availability of assets or income which may be realized by enforced collection proceedings, considering the applicable exemptions available to the debtor under State and Federal law.
( 2 ) Inheritance prospects within 5 years.
( 3 ) Likelihood of debtor obtaining nonexempt property or income within 5 years, out of which there could be collected a substantially larger sum than the amount of the present offer.
( 4 ) Uncertainty as to price the security or other property will bring at forced sale.
( b ) The debt may be compromised or adjusted when the OGC has advised in writing that: ( 1 ) There is a real doubt concerning the Government's ability to prove its case in court for the full amount of the debt, and
( 2 ) The amount offered represents a reasonable settlement considering: ( i ) The probability of prevailing on the legal issues involved.
( ii ) The probability of proving facts to establish full or partial recovery, with due regard to the availability of witnesses and other pertinent factors.
( iii ) The probable amount of court costs and attorney's fees which may be assessed against the Government if it is unsuccessful in litigation.
( c ) When the cost of collecting the debt does not justify enforced collection of the full amount, the amount accepted in compromise or adjustment may reflect an appropriate discount for administrative and litigation costs of collection. Such discount will not exceed $2,000 unless the OGC advises that in the particular case a larger discount is appropriate. The cost of collecting may be a substantial factor in settling small debts but normally will not carry great weight in settling large debts.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CANDELA CORPORATION**

 

**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 theAnnual Report of Candela Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert E. Quinn, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Robert E. Quinn          |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Robert  E. Quinn             |
| Principal  Financial Officer |
| October 27,  2008       |

 

----
Estimated Net Reserves(1)
    
    
    Estimated Future Net RevenueOil and
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Discounted atCondensate
    
    
    Gas
    
    
    NGL
    
    
    Undiscounted
    
    
    10% Per Year(5)Proved Reserve Category
    
    (MBbl)(2)
    
    
    (MMcf)(3)
    
    
    (MBbl)(2)
    
    
    (M$)(4)
    
    
    (M$)(4)DevelopedProducing
    
    
    30.1
    
    
    
    155
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    583
    
    
    $
    572Non-Producing
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Undeveloped
    
    
    104.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4,962
    
    
    
    3,913Total Proved(6)
    
    
    134.1
    
    
    
    155
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    5,545
    
    
    $
    4,485
 
 (1)
    
    The definitions for all reserves incorporated in this study have been set forth
immediately following this letter.(2)
    
    MBbl = thousands of barrels.(3)
    
    MMcf = millions of cubic feet.(4)
    
    M$ = thousands of dollars.(5)
    
    The discounted future net revenue is not represented to be the fair market value of these
reserves.(6)
    
    The reserves and revenue in the summary table were estimated using the Aries economics
program. Due to the rounding procedures used in this program, there may be slight
differences in the calculated and summed values.




---



##### 








---



##### 



William J. Driscoll
Geologist/s/ William J. DriscollWilliam J. DriscollGeologist




---



##### 



Professional Qualifications of Primary Technical Person
###### Editorial Note on Part 1948

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1948 appear at 80 FR 9888, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1948.58 [Reserved]
- I --2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10--II--12--13--14--15--16--17-00-0"''"'"'-26--27--28--29--30--lAppendixl--2Appendixl--1Appendix2--2Appendix2--3Appendix2--4Appendix2--1Appendix3--2Appendix3--3Appendix3--4Appendix3-Appendixfigure3-2-3HPLCchromatogramatstartofexposure.-5Appendix3--6Appendix3-- 7Appendix3-Appendixfigure3-3-3HPLCchromatogramat39daysafterexposure.-8Appendix3-- 1Additionaldata--2Additionaldata--3Additionaldata--4Additionaldata--5Additionaldata-
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2079 

To provide for a three-year extension of the authority of the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to provide for the conduct of medical disability 

examinations by contract physicians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2013 

Mr. RADEL (for himself and Mr. SALMON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a three-year extension of the authority of 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide for the conduct of medical disability examinations by contract physicians. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expediting Veteran’s 

5 Benefits Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2079 IH

1 SEC. 2. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE 

2 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PRO3 VIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF MEDICAL DIS4 ABILITY EXAMINATIONS BY CONTRACT PHY5 SICIANS. 

6 Section 704(c) of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 

7 (Public Law 108–183; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem9 ber 31, 2016’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.20



Sales and Purchase Contract on Pelletizing Iron Concentrate



The Seller:Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co., Ltd.             Contract No.:FSK13-01

The Buyer:Wuhu Fuxin Steel Co., Ltd.



Based on friendly consultations, the seller and the buyer reached to the following agreement on the sales of iron concentrates:



1.

The seller provided the appropriate monthly quantity of products to the buyer and the price was based on monthly negotiation, i.e marketing price.

2.

The place of delivery was in the pounds room of Yangchong yard. The sold quantity was settled based on the weighing list of the seller, and the buyer could send its representative to supervise the weighing.

3.

The seller together with the buyer took the samples from the yard of the seller. The sample was triplicate, one for each party and another for arbitration. The test results would be subjected to the seller. If there was any discrepancy, the buyer could put forward to arbitration. The arbitration was Maanshan Mining Research Institute.

4.

Payment was in advance and then delivery. The price was based on 65% of Total Fe(TFe). If TFe65% rose 1%, the price was plus CNY30/T, while declining 1%, the price reduced CNY30/T.

5.

The seller should ensure that Tfe was equal 65%, sulfur(“S”) was less than or equal 1.0%, silica(“SiO2”) was less than or equal 3.5%, phosphorus(“P”) was less than or equal 0.1%, and 200 mesh was more than or equal 68%. If S≤1.0% rose 0.01, the price reduced CNY0.1/T. If 200 mesh ≥68% declined 1%, the price reduced CNY5/T

6.

The seller provided 17% value-added-tax invoice to the buyer and the settlement was on a month basis.

7.

The outstanding issues not set out in the contract was settled based on the two parties negotiation.

8.

The terms of the contract was from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.



The Buyer

Names of The Buyer: Wuhu Fuxin Steel Co., Ltd.

Legal Representative:

A/C with Bank: Anhui Fanchang Rural Cooperative Bank Xingang Branch

A/C no:

Tax ID no.:

Zip Code:

Tel: (0553) 7915693/7915811

Address: Xingang Industrial Park, Fanchang ,Wuhu



The Seller

Names of The Seller: Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co., Ltd.

Legal Representative:

A/C with Bank: ICBC Fanchang Branch

A/C no:

Tax ID no:

Zip Code: 241202

Tel: (0553) 7337509

Address: Xiaokeshan, Xingang , Fanchang ,Wuhu



Signature Date: January 1, 2013
#### Lake County Bar Association *v.*Cimaglio.

[Cite as *Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cimaglio*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 323.]

(No. 98-782

Submitted June 10, 1998

Decided September 30, 1998.)

*325
      *Michael P. Germano,*for relator.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Prior to respondent’s reinstatement as an active member of the bar, he shall provide evidence to relator that he has made restitution to the grievants Knazek, Watson, Simon, Ritchey, and Heckman in the total amount of $4,800, with statutory interest from the time he received the retainers from them. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated:


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements (No. 33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623,
333-34163, 333-80575, 333-63374 and 333-106754) on Form S-8
and (No. 333-133858, 333-40369,333-115052 and 333-65219) on
Form S-3 of Research Frontiers Incorporated and subsidiary
of our reports dated March 11, 2008, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule and the effectiveness of Research Frontiers
Incorporated's internal control over financial reporting,
which appear in this Form 10-K.


                              /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                  BDO Seidman, LLP

  Melville, New York
  March 13, 2008
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 97-9198

Non-Argument Calendar.

Charles A. KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, DefendantAppellee.

Aug. 4, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (No. 1:97-CV231-TWT), Thomas W. Thrash, Judge.

Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Kent, pro se, appeals the dismissal of his petition for mandamus, 28 U.S.C. §

1361.

On appeal, Kent essentially argues that the district court should have granted his petition for

mandamus and ordered the Secretary of Labor to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1) by conducting

an investigation of the Georgia Department of Labor.

 Whether a district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an action is a question of law

that we review de novo. Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, 999 F.2d

503, 506 (11th Cir.1993).

Upon review of the petition, the Secretary's motion to dismiss, and the district court's order,

and consideration of parties' briefs, we find no reversible error.
2

 The language of 42 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1), which is the statute upon which Kent relies, shows

that the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant his petition for mandamus. This statute

provides that whenever the Secretary finds, after a hearing, that the state agency has effected "a

denial, in a substantial number of cases, of unemployment compensation to individuals entitled

thereto," by a state agency, the Secretary "shall notify such State agency that further payments will

not be made to the State until the [Secretary] is satisfied that there is no longer any such denial of

failure to comply." 42 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). Thus, the Secretary's decision whether to invoke this

statute is discretionary. Moreover, the statute authorizes the Secretary to act on behalf of all those

who were denied unemployment compensation, and not individuals who were denied such benefits.

See id.

We conclude that because mandamus was not an appropriate means of relief here, the district

court lacked jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

PAUL DONOVAN WALDE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20-cv-12-AW-GRJ

OFFICER JOSHUA MEURER,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s Amended Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 23, to which there have been no objections. The Report 

and Recommendation is now adopted and incorporated into this order. 

The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED, and the First Amended 

Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The magistrate judge will conduct 

further appropriate proceedings.

SO ORDERED on December 7, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00012-AW-GRJ Document 26 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 1