alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:23 PM
To: Lorang, Phil; Werner, Christopher
Cc: Beaver, Melinda Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 a nd 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55)
Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E0135 63_Regional Haze_2060- AS55_NPRM.docx

Categories: Regional Haze

Phil,

Please see attached for an updated revised version of the summary of interagency comments that incorpo rates some additional interagency comments as well as the revi sion to the comment below.

Thank you very much and please let me know if you h ave any questions.

From: Lorang, Phil [mailto:Lorang.Phil@epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:07 PM

To: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>; Werner, Christopher <Werner.Christopher@epa.gov>
Cc: Beaver, Melinda <Beaver.Melinda@epa.gov> Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 206 0-AS55)

Aaron,

We greatly appreciate your speed in getting these t o us.

Specific edit #30 appears to be cut off.



### 1) Page 102, §51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) – Reviewer

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS
919-541-5463

From: Szabo, Aaron [ mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 7:11 PM

To: Werner, Christopher < Werner.Christopher@epa.gov > Cc: Lorang, Phil < Lorang.Phil@epa.gov >; Beaver, Melinda < Beaver.Melinda@epa.gov > Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 206 0-AS55)

Attached please find the summary of interagency com ments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft propos ed rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55).2 Thank you and please let me know if you have any co mments or questions.

Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
#### REED v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided March 15, 1929

D F Rendinell and Ed Powell, both of Youngstown, for Reed.

R L Thomas, Youngstown, for State.

*330ROBERTS, J.

It is claimed that these two girls testifying to other offenses similar were not competent witnesses, and that error occurred by reason of the court, over objection of counsel for plaintiff in error, permitting them to testify. Upon this proposition attention is directed to the ease of Whiteman vs. State, which may be found in the Ohio Law Bulletin and Reporter of December 31, 1928.

In the opinion in this case the case of Boyd v. State, 81 Ohio St. 239, is cited.

The court also cites the similar case of State v. Reineke, 89 Ohio St., 390.

To substantially the same effect is Patterson v. State, 96 Ohio St., 90.

In the recent case of Barnett v. State, 104 Ohio St. 289, the syllabus reads:

(Here follows quotation;

These authorities quite conclusively establish the proposition that the evidence complained of was not improperly admitted, and no error occurred in this respect.

It is further claimed that there was a failure upon the part of the court, when the defendant below was sentenced, to inquire of. him before judgment if he had anything to say why the judgment of the law should not be imposed upon him, as provided in 13694 GC. The journal entry m this case in this respect is simply silent as to whether any inquiry was made, m the case of Bartlett v. State, 28 O. S., 669, the fifth paragraph of the syllabus reads:

(Here follows quotation;

To the same effect see 23 O. S., 349; 25 CC. N. S. 255; 27 O. S. 572.

These authorities are closely in point and clearly indicate also that there was no reversible error in this respect.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Pollock and Farr, JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IASIS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                    33,812
<INVENTORY>                                     18,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               209,685
<PP&E>                                         639,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                 207,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 898,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,941
<BONDS>                                        551,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          176,024
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   898,796
<SALES>                                        403,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               403,032
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  362,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                29,367
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,853
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: November 24, 2014 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants ; Docket Id: OAR

–2013 - 0602 FROM: Region 7 , EPA SUBJECT: October 2 , 2014 , Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing

Power Plants **SUMMARY** Karl Brooks and Mark A. Smith of EPA gave a summary presentation on October 2 , 2014, during the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities annual Energy Conference . The majority of the presentation centered on highlighting the four major building blocks in the Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants . The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014 . **ATTENDEES** EPA Region 7: Karl Brooks Mark A. Smith Other Attendees included members of the Io wa Association of Municipal Utilities - attendee list not available.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 60848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24024]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9917-65-OARM; EPA-HQ-OA-2014-0113]

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives notice of a public 
teleconference of the National Advisory Council for Environmental 
Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to the EPA 
Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and 
management issues. NACEPT members represent academia, industry, non-
governmental organizations, and local, state, and tribal governments. 
The purpose of this committee meeting is for NACEPT to continue 
developing sustainability strategies to strengthen the Agency's core 
business principles and practices outlined in the FY2014-2018 EPA 
Strategic Plan. A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/nacept.

DATES: NACEPT will hold a public teleconference on Monday, November 3, 
2014, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA, William Jefferson 
Clinton Federal Building East, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 1132, 
Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Green, Acting Designated 
Federal Officer, green.eugene@epa.gov, (202) 564-2432, U.S. EPA, Office 
of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (1601M), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public with 
limited seating and requests to provide oral and/or written comments to 
NACEPT should be sent directly to Eugene Green by Monday, October 27, 
2014.
    In addition, members of the public wishing to participate in-person 
or via teleconference should follow the same procedure as noted above.
    Accessibility/Accommodations: Individuals with disabilities 
requesting reasonable accommodations should submit requests to Eugene 
Green at least 10 days in advance of the scheduled meeting.

    Dated: September 29, 2014.
Eugene Green,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-24024 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PULAK K. BARUA, A/K/A PULAK

KUMAR BARUA, ET AL.

,

Appellant s

,

v.

MABANK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT, ET AL.

,

Appelle e s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 216

- CV

Appeal from the

422nd District Court

of Kaufman County, Texas

(TC# 102225

- 422 )

O R D E R

The Court received and filed the entry of appearance of Okechukwu Okorogi as requested

in its order issued December 8, 202 0 . The appeal is therefore reinstated, and the Appellant's brief

is now due February 6, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of January , 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley JJ.
§ 93.129 Additional operations. ( a ) *IFR.* The operator of an aircraft may take off or land the aircraft under IFR at a designated high density traffic airport without regard to the maximum number of operations allocated for that airport if the operation is not a scheduled operation to or from a high density airport and he obtains a departure or arrival reservation, as appropriate, from ATC. The reservation is granted by ATC whenever the aircraft may be accommodated without significant additional delay to the operations allocated for the airport for which the reservations is requested.
( b ) *VFR.* The operator of an aircraft may take off and land the aircraft under VFR at a designated high density traffic airport without regard to the maximum number of operations allocated for that airport if the operation is not a scheduled operation to or from a high density airport and he obtains a departure or arrival reservation, as appropriate, from ATC. The reservation is granted by ATC whenever the aircraft may be accommodated without significant additional delay to the operations allocated for the airport for which the reservation is requested and the ceiling reported at the airport is at least 1,000 feet and the ground visibility reported at the airport is at least 3 miles.
( c ) For the purpose of this section a *scheduled operation to or from the high* density airport is any operation regularly conducted by an air carrier or commuter between a high density airport and another point regularly served by that operator unless the service is conducted pursuant to irregular charter or hiring of aircraft or is a nonpassenger flight.
( d ) An aircraft operator must obtain an IFR reservation in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator. For IFR flights to or from a high density airport, reservations for takeoff and arrival shall be obtained prior to takeoff.
[Doc. No. 9113, 34 FR 2603, Feb. 26, 1969, as amended by Amdt. 93-25, 37 FR 22794, Oct. 25, 1972; Amdt. 93-44, 46 FR 58049, Nov. 27, 1981; Amdt. 93-46, 49 FR 8244, Mar. 6, 1984]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1926

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1443 Severability.

Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of subpart CC to be invalid, such action shall not affect any other provision of the subpart.

[75 FR 48135, Aug. 9, 2010. Redesignated at 85 FR 57122, Sept. 15, 2020]
MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 9-13-11 Meeting with Barnes & Thornburg LLP and RMA on the 2011 NHSM 

Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

 

On September 13, 2011, EPA met with members of the Rubber Manufacturers Association 

(RMA) and Barnes & Thornburg LLP to discuss their issues and concerns with the final rule 

entitled, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste,” which 

was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is referred to as 

the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. 

During that meeting, Susan Bodine and Tracey Norberg discussed the use of off-specification 

tires which were not covered in the final rule. They expressed concern about the regulatory 

status of these tires. EPA asked clarifying questions regarding the current management of offspecification scrap tires. 

Meeting Attendees

Susan Bodine, Barnes & Thornburg LLP 

Tracey Norberg, RMA 

Sarah Amick, RMA 

Suzanne Rudzinski, EPA, ORCR Director 

James Berlow, EPA, ORCR, Division Director 

George Faison, EPA, ORCR 

Tab Tesnau, EPA, ORCR 

Other EPA staff may have attended
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sarah J. Marks, Appellant and Respondent, against Edward J. Grenier, Respondent and Appellant.

Argued May 21, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*615
      *Oswald Vischi*and *Robert Dam*for relator, appellant and respondent.

*Harold I. Gold*and *Edward J. Grenier*for defendant, respondent and appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1273 

KA 14-00297 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WHITE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

EASTON THOMPSON KASPEREK SHIFFRIN LLP, ROCHESTER (DONALD M. THOMPSON

OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

DAVID W. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (ANDREW M. MOLITOR OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John T.

Ward, J.), rendered January 27, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a

class D felony (two counts), and aggravated unlicensed operation of a

motor vehicle in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is

reserved and the matter is remitted to Chautauqua County Court for a

determination of the motion following further proceedings if

necessary. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her,

following a nonjury trial, of two counts of driving while intoxicated

as class D felonies (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [2], [3]; 1193

[1] [c] [ii]) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle

in the first degree (§ 511 [3] [a] [i]). At the close of the People’s

case, defense counsel moved for a trial order of dismissal on the

ground that the arresting officers, who were employed by the Town of

Ellicott (Town), exceeded their jurisdictional authority when they

arrested defendant in the City of Jamestown (City). Defendant also

requested that County Court take judicial notice of the location of

the arrest and the boundaries of the City and Town. The proof had not

closed at that point, and the court reserved decision on the motion to

allow the parties to make written submissions. The court never ruled

on the motion, but issued a written verdict finding defendant guilty

of the charges and noting that it had reviewed the parties’

submissions.

Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to take

judicial notice of the relevant geographical facts and in denying her

motion to dismiss the charges. We do not address that contention

because, in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198)
-2- 1273 

KA 14-00297 

and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474, rearg denied 93 NY2d 849),

“we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a

denial thereof” (People v Spratley, 96 AD3d 1420, 1421). We therefore

hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court

for a ruling on the motion following such further proceedings as may

be necessary.

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00284

- CV

JOEL H. DOWNS

, Appellant

v.

FIRST BANK & TRUST

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- C

- 3239

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joel H. Downs appeals from a judgment rendered against him and issued on Ju ne

1, 2016. By letter dated September 12 , 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified Downs that

his original filing fee for the appeal was past due. Downs was warned in the same letter

that failure to pay the filing fee within 10 days from the date of the letter would result in

the appeal being dis missed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(c). More than 10 days have passed,

and Downs has failed to pay his original filing fee.Downs v. First Bank & Trust Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Id

.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

J ustice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 2 8 , 2016

[CV06]
§ 1985.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo on the record. ALJs have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
[81 FR 14383, Mar. 17, 2016, as amended at 86 FR 1793, Jan. 11, 2021]
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT of 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
   /s/ James J. AbelJames J. AbelExecutive Vice President, Secretary,Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
§ 1920.2 Variances. ( a ) Variances from standards in parts 1915 through 1918 of this chapter may be granted in the same circumstances in which variances may be granted under sections 6(b) (6)(A) or 6(d) of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655). The procedures for the granting of variances from Parts 1915-1918 of this chapter are those published in Part 1905 of this chapter.
( b ) Any requests for variances shall also be considered requests for variances under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and any variance from §§ 1910.13 through 1910.16 of this chapter which adopt parts 1915-1918 of this chapter, shall be deemed a variance from the standard under both the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
[37 FR 10800, May 31, 1972]
EXHIBIT 21

                      KEYSTONE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                 AND SUBSIDIARIES


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT




                                    Jurisdiction of            Percent of
                                      Incorporation          Voting Securities
      Name of Corporation           or Organization               Held (1)


Sherman Wire of Caldwell, Inc.           Nevada                   100.0%

Fox Valley Steel and Wire Company      Wisconsin                  100.0%
(formerly Wire Products Company)

DeSoto, Inc.                           Delaware                  100.0%
  J.L. Prescott Company                New Jersey                100.0%
  DeSoto Environmental
    Management, Inc.                   Delaware                  100.0%
  DeSoto Subsidiary Two Corporation    New Jersey                100.0%


(1)  Held by the Registrant or the indicated subsidiary of the Registrant.
<PAGE>
                                 Exhibit 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

                            KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
             Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                               December 31, 1999


The undersigned directors of KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY, a Kentucky corporation (the
"Company"),  do hereby  constitute and appoint E. LINN DRAPER,  JR.,  ARMANDO A.
PENA and HENRY W. FAYNE, and each of them, their  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,
to execute for them, and in their names, and in any and all of their capacities,
the Annual  Report of the  Company on Form 10-K,  pursuant  to Section 13 of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 1999,
and any and all  amendments  thereto,  and to file the same,  with all  exhibits
thereto and other  documents in connection  therewith,  with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission,  granting unto said  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each
of them, full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing required
or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned
might or could do in  person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or any of them,  may  lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  have signed these presents this 2nd
day of March, 2000.


      /s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.             /s/ Armando A. Pena
E. Linn Draper, Jr.                       Armando A. Pena


      /s/ Henry W. Fayne                        /s/ J. H. Vipperman
Henry W. Fayne                            J. H. Vipperman


      /s/ Wm. J. Lhota
Wm. J. Lhota