alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Steel Corporation – Keetac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 6

Provide an electronic Excel workbook with the complete nitrogen oxide (NOX) and

sulfur dioxide (SO2) facility-wide potential to emit calculations. Include in the

response a written description of how each column in the Excel workbook is

generated.

Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response: Stephani Campbell

Answer: 

An Excel spreadsheet is attached in the Item 6 Subfolder with the PTE calculations for NOx and 

SO2 for the induration furnace. The spreadsheet does not include items identified as 

insignificant activities in the Title V permit renewal application.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7439

DARYL K. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

CAPTAIN MCHEE, employed of Odom Correctional

Institution; SERGEANT ASKEW, employed at Odom

Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

BLYTHE, employed at Odom Correctional Institution; OFFICER WIGGINS, Correctional officer

employed at Odom Correctional Institution;

MOSLEY, Correctional Officer employed at Odom

Correctional Institution; DEBERRY, Nurse,

employed at Odom Correctional Institution;

BERTHA THOMPSON, Nurse, employed at Odom Correctional Institution; DOCTOR ANDERSON, Medical Physician employed at Odom Correctional

Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-96-968-5-CT-F2)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryl K. Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Associate

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Daryl K. Freeman appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. 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. See Freeman v. North Carolina Department of

Corrections, No. CA-96-968-5-CT-F2 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 1998). 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
3.103-1 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price

Determination, in solicitations when a firm-fixed-price contract or fixed-price contract with economic

price adjustment is contemplated, unless-

(a) The acquisition is to be made under the simplified acquisition procedures in part 13;

(b) [Reserved]

(c) The solicitation is a request for technical proposals under two-step sealed bidding procedures; or

(d) The solicitation is for utility services for which rates are set by law or regulation.

Parent topic: 3.103 Independent pricing.
4.1402 Procedures.       (a)                    						            Agencies shall ensure that contractors comply with the reporting requirements of 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards. Agencies shall review contractor reports on a quarterly basis to ensure the information is consistent with contract information. The agency is not required to address data for which the agency would not normally have supporting information, such as the compensation information required of contractors and first-tier subcontractors. However, the agency shall inform the contractor of any inconsistencies with the contract information and require that the contractor correct the report, or provide a reasonable explanation as to why it believes the information is correct. Agencies may review the reports at http://www.fsrs.gov.                                          (b)                    						            When contracting officers report the contract action to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) in accordance with FAR subpart  4.6, certain data will then pre-populate from FPDS, to assist contractors in completing and submitting their reports. If data originating from FPDS is found by the contractor to be in error when the contractor completes the subcontract report, the contractor should notify the Government contracting officer, who is responsible for correcting the data in FPDS. Contracts reported using the generic entity identifier allowed at FAR 4.605(c)(2) will interfere with the contractor’s ability to comply with this reporting requirement, because the data will not pre-populate from FPDS.                                          (c)                    						            If the contractor fails to comply with the reporting requirements, the contracting officer shall exercise appropriate contractual remedies. In addition, the contracting officer shall make the contractor’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements a part of the contractor’s performance information under subpart  42.15.                                          (d)                    						            There is a reporting exception in 52.204-10(g) for contractors and subcontractors who had gross income in the previous tax year under $300,000.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 4.14 - Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 589 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 1 89 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
p.1 

OAR Box 1413 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

102)11-1-103 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/9/2008 3:11:25 PM Sheet 102 of 114 
A-S4-5Z 

ff-1-103 

HANDBOOK OF 

COMPOSITES 

SECOND EDITION 

Edited by 

ST. Peters 

Process Research, Mountain View, California, USA 

^ 

CHAPMAN & HALL 

London Weinheim • New York - Tokyo - Melbourne • Madras 
•

lH'ir*'-iii;

f

tnTr-*i?r"-~~ ^.v-...-.^.-^^— . ^ 

P.3 

Published by Chapman & Hall, an imprint of Thomson Science, 2-6 Boundary 

Row, London SEI 8HN, UK 

Thomson Science, 2-6 Boundary Row, London SEI 8HN, UK 

Thomson Science, 115 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003, USA 

Thomson Science, Suite 750,400 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, USA 

Thomson Science, Pappelallee 3, 69469 Weinheim, Germany 

C( 

First edition 1982 

Second edition 1998 

© 1998 Chapman & Hall 

Thomson Science is a division of International Thomson Publishing 

Typeset in 10/12 pt Palatino by GreenGate Publishing Services, Tonbridge, England 

Printed in Great Britain by Cambridge University Press 

ISBN 0 412 54020 7 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a 

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, 

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the 

publishers. Applications for permission should be addressed to the rights manager 

at the London address of the publisher. 

The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the 

accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal 

responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. 

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library 

Con 

Pref 

Abe 

Fon 

Ack 

PA] 

Pol 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Re 

7
<PAGE>   1
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-41279) pertaining to the Eateries, Inc. Omnibus Equity
Compensation Plan of our report dated March 26, 1997, except for the last
paragraph of Note 5, as to which the date is April 9, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Eateries, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 29, 1996.

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 10, 1997
(November 20, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert Dixon, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County, rendered August 20,1979, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of robbery in the third degree. Judgment affirmed *(see People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829). Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, John F. Passalaqua, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dolce Ventures Inc.;

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

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and I have  indicated  in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                         Date: May 15, 2006

                                         /s/ John F. Passalaqua______________
                                         John F. Passalaqua, Secretary/Treasurer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
Case 1:02-cr-00043-MP-GRJ Document 580 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:02-cr-00043-MP-GRJ Document 580 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2
----

Ex

|   | (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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Richard W. McCullough         |   | August 14, 2009 |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
| Richard W. McCullough             |   |            |
| Chief Executive Officer           |   |            |
| Petroleum Development Corporation |   |
| Managing General Partner          |   |            |
|                              |   |            |
|                              |   |            |
| /s/ Gysle R. Shellum              |   | August 14, 2009 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                  |   |            |
| Chief Financial Officer           |   |            |
| Petroleum Development Corporation |   |
| Managing General Partner          |   |            |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Hernandez, True Name, Carlos Fernandez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on March 28, 1977, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to GPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sandler, Ross and Markewich, JJ.
§ 42.130 Description and qualifications. ( a ) In many instances, food containers are loaded directly into carriers immediately after final packaging. This situation makes stationary lot sampling and inspection impractical. For such circumstances, the optional procedure for on-line sampling and inspection using cumulative sum sampling plans is provided. On-line sampling and inspection is a procedure in which subgroups of sampling units are selected randomly from predesignated portions of production. The acceptability of the portions of production is determined by inspecting, at the time of the sampling, the subgroups which represent these portions. On-line sampling and inspection contrasts with stationary lot procedures in which sample units are selected randomly and inspected and lot acceptability determinations are made only after lot production is completed.
( b ) On-line sampling and inspection procedures may be instituted only when all of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) When authorized by the Administrator and acceptable to the user and producer, if different from the user.
( 2 ) When inspection is origin inspection (see § 42.102).
( 3 ) When previous production lots from the producer are currently on, or eligible to be on, either normal or reduced inspection. (When shifting from stationary lot sampling and inspection to on-line sampling and inspection, normal on-line inspection shall be initially used.)
( 4 ) When inspection of the containers is performed at a point after which all condition of container related characteristics are fixed and will not be subject to change during final handling.
EXHIBIT 32.2



May 1, 2009

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/    Michael J. Castellano
|Michael J. Castellano       
|Chief Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.