alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A NDREW M. C uoMo 

G ovERNOfl 

Ms. Judith A. Enck 

Regional Administrator 

STATE o r New Yo RK 

D EPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

A LBANY, NEw YoRK 12233-1010 

JUL - 2 2012 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 2 

290 Broadway 261

h Floor 

New York, NY 10007-I 8 6 

Dear ~ 

JoF MMnrNs 

C oMMISSIONER 

l am writing to y regarding your letter of May 30, 2012 requesting assistance in resolving 

technical issues identified by your agency in Nevv York's Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). 

On June 18, 2012, the New York State Depa1tment of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 

submitted coiTimcnts to both the federal docket (No. EPA-R02-0AR-20 12-0296) and 

Mr. Raymond Wemer concerning the April 17,2012 Federal Register notice. The DEC's 

comments provided an update on the efforts that the DEC has made to address EP !\ 's concems 

relative to the Regional Haze Program. · 

V.,!e have been working to resolve all outstanding issues raised by your agency regarding New 

York 's SIP submission in time to avoid the imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (PIP) 

for those portions of the program that EPA feels need to be addressed. As a result, I am 

submitting, for inclusion in New York State's SIP, the final permits for five of the facilities 

indicated in the April 17, 2012 Federal Register notice for which Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) requirements had not been finalized . These facilities arc the Bowline 

Generating Station, Owens Corning Delmar Plant, Oswego Harbor Power, Syracuse Energy 

Corporation, and Kodak Park Division. The pem1it for the Lehigh Northeast Cement Plant, 

which had already been issued by the DEC at the time of EPA's proposal, has been updated to 

include a new S02 limit of 1.50 lb/mmBtu to supplement the fuel sulfur limits that EP !\ 

proposed as BART. · 

Pcm1its (or the above-mentioned facilities were finalized on the !allowing elates: Owens 

Coming Delmar Plant, issued May 18, 20 12; Oswego Harbor Power, issued May 16, 20 12; 

Syracuse Energy Corporation, issued May 24, 20 12; Kodak Park Division, issued May 25, 2012 : 

Bowline, issued June 28, 20 12; and Lehigh Northeast Cement, issued July 2, 2012 
2. 

Permits for all other sources (excluding Roseton and Danskammer) have been submitted to EPA 

in final fonn and match the terms proposed by EPA. We expect the pcm1its to be approved as 

S lP revisions when EPA issues its final ruling. 

We look iorward to continued cooperation between our agencies to come to an agreement on any 

remaining issues that will satisfy the requirements of the Regional Haze Program. 

The enclosed CD contains copies of the approved pennits for the facilities discussed in this 

letter. 

Please call me at (518) 402-8540 if you have any questions. 

Enclosure 

cc: R. Werner, EPA
#### HIBNER v CARPENTER

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10300.

Decided November 11, 1929

■ Messrs. Ewing *Sc*Moon, Cleveland, for Hibner.

Messrs. Patterson, O’Brien *Sc*Holland, Cleveland, for Carpenter.

SULLIVAN, J.

The thing which is determinative is the instrument of writing called the waiver. From an examination thereof, it only signifies .that Hibner agreed that the claim of Carpenter should be paid prior to any account for monies due him from The Associated Laboratories Co., as of Feb. 6, 1924. In this instrument of writing we do_ not find any legal obligation which would entitle, because of its terms, the liability *13claimed by Carpenter against Hibner, in his cause of action and consequently there is no legal structure. for the judgment in favor of the plaintiff below.

It is a well settled proposition of law that when suit is based upon an instrument of writing, the same must be a foundation in law for the recovery of any judgment thereon, and if it is not impregnated with any obligation imposed upon the party executing the same there can be no recovery and we find that this is the situation in this case, and that therefore the question of the weight of the evidence is not material.

Therefore, it is our judgment that the court committed error of a prejudicial nature under the assignments of error. The motions to direct should have been sustained therefore it is our view that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed, and inasmuch as the instrument of writing in question, known as the w,aiver, does not create an obligation suable in _law. final judgment herein is rendered for the plaintiff in error, and an entry may be made accordingly.

Vickery, P. J. and Levine, J., concur.
#### § 2704.301 Filing and service of documents.

Any application for an award or other pleading or other document related to an application, including a petition for discretionary review, shall be filed and served on all parties in the same manner as pleadings in the underlying proceeding, except as provided in § 2704.202(b) for confidential financial information.
#### BARTA v TIMAR, et

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Oct. 25, 1929

Friedman & Rummell, Youngstown, for Barta.

Morgan & Maiden, Youngstown, for Timar, et.

*417POLLOCK, J.

It is a well known rule of law that courts will not enforce an illegal contract of any kind, that the court leaves the contracting parties where they are. Both plaintiff and deefndants appeal to this rule, plaintiff that the defendants can not set up this payment by liquor, — even if he received it, it would not pay this loan. The defendants appeal to the proposition that courts leave the parties where they find them, if it is an executory contract they can not recover; if the contract was an executed one, that he leaves 'them right there.

In the case of Thomas v. Cronise, 16 O., 54, and in the opinion on page 57, the court says:

> “It is a universal principle both in law and in equity that where an agreement is founded upon a consideration illegal, immoral or against public policy, a court will leave the parties where it finds them. If executed, the court will not rescind it. If executory the court will not aid in its execution.”

And it refers to the case of Raguet v. Cowles 14 O., 55, and that case says:

> “To reverse this judgment a writ of error was sued out and the case came on for hearing at the aforesaid December term of this court, 1831. By the decision of the court the judgment of the court of common pleas was reversed upon the principle that whenever an agreement appears to be illegal, immoral or .against public policy, a court of justice leaves the parties as it finds them. If the agreement be executed the court will not rescind it. If executory the court will not aid in its execution.”

This contract to pay this loan by the manufacture and delivery of intoxicating liquors is an executed contract. It was all carried out, according to the defendants’ testimony, and-the court will not aid this man who has received the payment of his claim through illegal property or under an illegal contract, but will leave him just where he is.

The judgment of the court bélow is affirmed, Exceptions.

Roberts and Farr, JJ. concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000538

05-NOV-2014

09:33 AM
#### BLUE VALLEY CREAMERY CO v GREENBERG etc

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Go

No. 10206.

Decided December 23, 1929

Mr. Hugh A. McNamee, Cleveland, for Creamery Co.

Mr. Wm. M- Rosenzweig, Cleveland, for Greenberg etc.

*60LEVINE, J.

In the case of Cleveland Produce Co. vs. Dennert, 105 OS. 149, it was held that this duty of the trial court to make such finding in accordance with the statute, is mandatory and that a failure to comply with the request constitutes reversible error.

It is claimed that in the case at. bar the failure of the court to make such separate findings was not set forth as a ground in support of the motion for a new trial filed by plaintiff in error and that he therefore waived this assignment of error.

We -.hold that this position is incorrect for the reason that errors of law may be urged before the reviewing court even though no motion for a new trial was ever filed.

The Municipal Court, in our opinion, committed reversible error in failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of the statute and for that reason the judgment of the Municipal Court is ordered reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings according to law.

Vickery, PJ., and Sullivan, J., concur.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 969 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the definition of 

supervisor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2007 

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the 

definition of supervisor. 

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 ‘‘Re-empowerment of 

5 Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction 

6 Tradesworkers Act’’ or the ‘‘RESPECT Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 

8 ACT. 

9 Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act 

10 (29 U.S.C. 152(11)) is amended— 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 969 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘and for a majority of the indi2 vidual’s worktime’’ after ‘‘interest of the employer’’; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘assign,’’; and 

4 (3) by striking ‘‘or responsibly to direct them,’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12766]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Public Information Collections Approved by Office of Management 
and Budget

May 15, 2000.
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public 
information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Pub. L. 96-511. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection 
of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Not 
withstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to 
any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a 
valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and 
expiration dates should be directed to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, (202) 418-0214.

Federal Communications Commission

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0926.
    Expiration Date: 05/31/2003.
    Title: Transfer of the 4.9 GHz from Federal Government Use to the 
Private Sector--NPRM.
    Form No.: FCC 601-605.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 11,300 burden hours annually, 19 hours per 
response; 600 responses.
    Description: The various information reporting and verification 
requirements, and the prospective coordination requirement will be used 
by the Commission to verify licensee compliance with Commission rules 
and regulations, and to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their 
statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 
1934. Such information has been used in the past and will continue to 
be used to minimize interference, verify that applicants are legally 
and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance 
with Commission rules.
    OMB Control No.: 3060-0809.
    Expiration Date: 04/30/2003.
    Title: Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, Report 
and Order and Order on Reconsideration.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 36,000 burden hours annually, 
approximately 6 hours per response; 6,000 responses.
    Description: The information submitted to the Commission will be 
used to determine whether or not telecommunications carriers are in 
conformance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 
requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12766 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
§ 2704.107 Rulemaking on maximum rates for attorney's fees. ( a ) If warranted by an increase in the cost of living or by special circumstances (such as limited availability of attorneys qualified to handle certain types of proceedings), attorney's fees may be awarded at a rate higher than $125 per hour. Any such increase in the rate for attorney's fees will be made only upon a petition submitted by the applicant, pursuant to § 2704.201, and only if the administrative law judge determines, in his or her discretion, that it is justified. Any such adjustment in fees is subject to Commission review as specified in § 2704.308.
( b ) Any person may file with the Commission a petition for rulemaking to increase the maximum rate for attorney fees. The petition should identify the rate the petitioner believes the Commission should establish and the types of proceedings in which the rate should be used. It should also explain fully the reasons why the higher rate is warranted. The Commission will respond to the petition within 60 days after it is filed, by initiating an informal rulemaking proceeding, denying the petition, or taking other appropriate action.
[47 FR 10001, Mar. 9, 1982, as amended at 63 FR 63176, Nov. 12, 1998]
###### 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.

#### § 1926.431 Maintenance of equipment.

The employer shall ensure that all wiring components and utilization equipment in hazardous locations are maintained in a dust-tight, dust-ignition-proof, or explosion-proof condition, as appropriate. There shall be no loose or missing screws, gaskets, threaded connections, seals, or other impairments to a tight condition.
Exhibit 32.1

                                Certification Of
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, the undersigned, Samir N. Masri, who is the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Lincoln International
Corporation (the "company"), hereby certifies that the company's Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2007, (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of ss.13(a) or ss.15(d) as applicable, of the Securities
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
company.



                                                  /s/Samir N. Masri
                                              __________________________
                                              Name:  Samir N. Masri
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                     & Chief Financial Officer
                                              Date:  October 9, 2007
#### § 2520.104-47 Limited exemption and alternative method of compliance for filing of insurance company financial reports.

An administrator of an employee benefit plan to which section 103(e)(2) of the Act applies shall be deemed in compliance with the requirement to include with its annual report a copy of the financial report of the insurance company, insurance service or similar organization, provided that the administrator files a copy of such report within 45 days of receipt of a written request for such report by the Secretary of Labor.

[45 FR 14034, Mar. 4, 1980]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JUN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                        (127,641)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               273,068
<PP&E>                                         582,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                 113,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 944,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          773,565
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,157
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,724,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   944,099
<SALES>                                         60,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,110
<CGS>                                           61,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               383,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (385,665)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (385,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (385,665)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.01)



</TABLE>
----

----

I Meddelelser

Kommissionen

----

Euroens vekselkurs (1)

20. juli 2004

(2004/C 186/01)

1 Euro= 

----

(1)

Kilde: Referencekurs offentliggjort af Den Europæiske Centralbank.

----

----

Meddelelse vedrørende licitationen om tilskud til forsendelse af afskallet langkornet ris B til Réunion

(2004/C 186/02)

Forordning (EF) nr. 1275/2004 (EUT L 241 af 13.7.2004, s. 8) har forlænget licitationen om tilskud til forsendelse af afskallet langkornet ris B til Réunion, der blev åbnet ved forordning (EF) nr. 1878/2003 (EUT L 275 af 25.10.2003, s. 23).

Af tekniske grunde har det imidlertid ikke været muligt i tide at offentliggøre ændringen af bekendtgørelsen om licitationen (EUT C 257 af 25.10.2003, s. 8), der angiver datoer for indgivelse af bud. Under disse omstændigheder kan forlængelsen af licitationen ikke anvendes.

----

Berigtigelser

----

Berigtigelse til Ingen indsigelse mod en anmeldt fusion (Sag COMP/M.3392 — Westlb/Klöckner)

(Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 170 af 30. juni 2004)

(2004/C 186/03)

På side 2, første afsnit, tredje punktum:

i stedet for:

»Beslutningens fulde ordlyd foreligger kun på engelsk og vil blive offentliggjort, efter at eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder er udeladt«

læses:

»Beslutningens fulde ordlyd foreligger kun på tysk og vil blive offentliggjort, efter at eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder er udeladt«.

----

----

Berigtigelse til Den Europæiske Centralbanks udtalelse af 16. april 2004 efter anmodning fra Rådet for Den Europæiske Union om et forslag til Rådets forordning om medaljer og møntefterligninger, der ligner euromønter (KOM(2004) 39 endelig udg.)

(CON/2004/13)

(2004/C 186/04)

(Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 134 af 12. maj 2004)

På side 11, punkt 3, første punktum:

i stedet for:

»Ifølge Kommissionens begrundelse regulerer den foreslåede forordning anvendelsen af udtrykkene »euro« og »eurocent« samt af eurosymbolet ... «

læses:

»Ifølge Kommissionens begrundelse regulerer den foreslåede forordning anvendelsen af udtrykkene »euro« og »eurocent« samt af eurosymbolet (€) ...... «.

----
§ 1983.113 Judicial enforcement. Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement, or a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement, issued under CPSIA, the Secretary or a person on whose behalf the order was issued may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred. The Secretary also may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the District of Columbia. In civil actions under this section, the district court will have jurisdiction to grant all appropriate relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and compensatory damages, including: ( a ) Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discharge or retaliation;
( b ) The amount of back pay, with interest; and
( c ) Compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discharge or retaliation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney's fees.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
hereby constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful
agent and attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution
and authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period
ended December 31, 1997, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.
pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; hereby ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent
and attorney-in-fact as herein authorized.

Dated:  March 23, 1998                              /s/ John H. Sununu
                                                    John H. Sununu