alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 38.45 Confidentiality responsibilities of grant applicants, recipients, and the Department.

Grant applicants, recipients and the Department must keep confidential to the extent possible, consistent with a fair determination of the issues, the identity of any individual who furnishes information relating to, or assists in, an investigation or a compliance review, including the identity of any individual who files a complaint. An individual whose identity is disclosed must be protected from retaliation (*See* § 38.19).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<CASH>                                143
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      41,200
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,428
<INVENTORY>                        90,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  129,467
<PP&E>                            245,624
<DEPRECIATION>                    124,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    331,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              67,466
<BONDS>                           107,889
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                            83
<COMMON>                               41
<OTHER-SE>                         17,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      331,110
<SALES>                           335,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  335,381
<CGS>                             318,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     326,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   14,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       83
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 11,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (16,239)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (6,254)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (9,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (2.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (2.50)


</TABLE>
SUBSIDIARIES OF LCS INDUSTRIES, INC.


                 Set forth below are the names of all  subsidiaries of LCS as of
November  29,  1996  required  to be listed on Exhibit  22 to LCS's 1996  Annual
Report on Form 10-K.  Indented companies are direct  subsidiaries of the company
under which they are indented.

                                    Percentage Owned by              State of
                                    Immediate Parent               Incorporation
                                    ----------------               -------------

LCS INDUSTRIES, INC.
           (Parent)                         N/A                       Delaware

        LCS Canada, Inc.                    100%                      Delaware

        LCS Industries, XXX                 100%                      EEC

        Spec Holdings, Inc.                 100%                      New York

             The SpeciaLISTS Ltd.           100% - Class A            New York
                                             80% - Class B

             Computer Marketing
             Systems, Inc.                   51%                      New York

        Catalog Resources, Inc.             100%                      Delaware

        Catalog Liquidators, Inc.           100%                      Delaware
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site. 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the 
Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, June 7, 2000: 6:30 p.m.-9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Amargosa Valley Community Center, 821 E. Farm Road, Amargosa 
Valley, NV 89020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Rohrer, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, 
Nevada 89193-8513, phone: 702-295-0197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Advisory Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental 
restoration, waste management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda:
    1. Discussion and review of additional underground water test area 
funding. Copies of the final agenda will be available at the meeting. 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Kevin Rohrer, at the telephone number 
listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct 
the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Kevin Rohrer at 
the address listed above.

    Issued at Washington, DC on May 16, 2000.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12762 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 39 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of remembrance for road 

crash victims. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2007 

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Mr. LEVIN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of 

remembrance for road crash victims. 

Whereas 40,000 people in the United States, and 1,200,000 

people globally, die in road crashes each year; 

Whereas another 20,000,000 to 50,000,000 people globally 

are injured each year as a result of speeding motor vehicles, the increasing use of motor vehicles, and rapid urbanization; 

Whereas the World Health Organization has predicted that 

by the year 2020 the annual number of deaths from 

motor vehicle crashes is likely to surpass the annual 

number of deaths from AIDS; 

Whereas the current estimated cost of motor vehicle crashes 

worldwide is $518,000,000,000 annually, representing bemstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•SCON 39 IS 

tween 3 and 5 percent of the gross domestic product of 

each nation; 

Whereas over 90 percent of motor vehicle-related deaths 

occur in low- and middle-income countries; 

Whereas, according to the World Health Organization, motor 

vehicle-related deaths and costs continue to rise in these 

countries due to a lack of appropriate road engineering 

and injury prevention programs in public health sectors; 

and 

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designating the third Sunday of November as a 

day of remembrance for road crash victims and their 

families, and called on nations globally to improve road 

safety: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) supports the goals and ideals of a world day 

4 of remembrance for road crash victims; and 

5 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

6 to commemorate a world day of remembrance for 

7 road crash victims with appropriate ceremonies, pro8 grams, and other activities. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### Emil Hauser, Appellant, *v.*Augusta M. Bartow, Respondent.

Submitted April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 273 N. Y. 370.)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-284-000]

Take notice that on May 12, 2000, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective July 1, 2000: 

Third Revised Sheet No. 114

Third Revised Sheet No. 115 

Southern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise Section 6.2 of the General Terms and Conditions to its tariff by expanding the rights of delivery point operators to consolidate multiple measurement stations into one delivery point.

Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon its shippers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the  Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12725  Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Order filed September 3, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00609-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF X.E.A., A Child

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-40160

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed July 6, 2015. To date, the filing 

fee of $195.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established 

indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the 

following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $195.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before September 18, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If 

appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal 

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
#### David Flanel et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v Maglione Italian Ices et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[698 NYS2d 711]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs David Flanel and Deborah Flanel appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated October 8, 1998, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants Maglione Italian Ices and Rafael Valle.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

Once the proponent of a motion for summary judgment makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the parties opposing the motion to rebut the movant’s case by presenting evidentiary facts in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of any material issue of fact *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320). “[M]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient” to raise a triable issue of fact *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562).

The appellants made out a prima facie case for summary judgment by establishing that the defendant Rafael Valle was negligent in the operation of his employer’s golf cart and that this negligence was the sole cause of the collision with the injured plaintiff who was walking in a pedestrian area. The *506defendants’ conclusory assertion that the injured plaintiff could have taken measures to avoid the collision is unsupported by the record and, in any event, the purported error in judgment would not constitute negligence under the emergency with which he was confronted. Emergency circumstances were demonstrated by the sudden and unexpected intrusion of the golf cart into a pedestrian area, the short distance it traveled before hitting the injured plaintiff, and the brief period of time in which he had to react (see, *Pressner v Serrano,*460 AD2d 458; *Borst v Sunnydale Farms,*258 AD2d 488).

Therefore, the appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted (see, *Barba v Best Sec. Corp.,*235 AD2d 381). Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
UN I T ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE NCY WASH I NGTON , D

. C

. 20460

VIA EMAIL Bruce A. Grahame Product Safety and NPS Director Next Generation 230 Industrial Drive Lexington , OH 44904
Dear Mr. Grahame: 

## OCT 2 8 

## 2014 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION

. PREVENTION

This letter serves as a response to your request (June 2014) to add the Next Generation TIF film (DNMULCH) , 1 .25 mil thickne ss, to the EPA soil fum igant tarp credit website. The EPA h as reviewed the laboratory t arp testing data for the Next Generation film (MRID 49409001) submitted by Pacific Ag Group on behalf ofNext Generation. Based on the calculated mass tran sfer coefficients (MTCs) and the corresponding cut p o ints determined by EPA as a basis for as s igning buffer zone credits (DP Barcode 385314. Dawson, Smith and Shelat. " Second Update to Health Effects Division Recommendations for Good Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits. " January 11, 2011), the tarp qualifies for the fo ll owing buffer zo ne reduction credits: 60% for methyl bromide , 40% for chloropicrin , and 40% for ch lorop icrin and I , 3 -dichloropropene. Thi s tarp is also a pproved with use of dimethyl disulfide. The tarp will be listed on the following E PA websites , http://www2.epa.gov/soil-fumigants/tarps and http://www2 .epa .gov/soil-fum iga nts/ta rps-a pproved-use-d imethyl-d isu lfide-d mds-prod ucts , as " Next Generation DNMULCH film, 2: 1.25 mil "
. Please contact me at (703) 308 -2961 or at schroeder.carolynfa{epa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely,



# c~~~J- Chemicai Review Manager Risk Management & Implementation Branch IV Pesticide Re-evaluation DivisionEnclosures: DP Barcode s 420912. Biological and Economic Analy s is Division. "Tarp Credit Request for Soil Fumigants, MRID 49409000, 49409001. ACB Project #B I4- 43. " September 11 , 2014. DP Barcode 422866. Health Effec ts Divi sion. " Concurrence on BEAD Analytical Chemistry Branch Review of Permeability Data for 1 .2 5mil DN Mulch by Next Generation Films and Classifi cat ion of Re s ults for Tarp Credit Purposes. " October 28, 20 14.
#### Empire State Ice Company, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Rochester and Lake Ontario Water Service Corporation, Appellant.

Argued March 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*187*Clarence P. Moser*and *Lathrop D. Marsland*for appellant.

The plaintiff was a trespasser upon the defendant’s easement. The only duty which the defendant owed was to refrain from inflicting wanton or willful injury or from knowingly creating a hidden danger. The defendant did not fail in that duty. *(Mendelowitz*v. *Neisner,*258 N. Y. 181; *Fox*v. *Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co.,*204 N. Y. 240; *Sterger*v. *Van Sicklen,*132 N. Y. 499; *Cusick*v. *Adams,*115 N. Y. 55; *Greenwood Lake & Port Jervis R. R. Co.*v. *N. Y. & Greenwood Lake R. R. Co.,*134 N. Y. 435; *Nellis*v. *Munson,*108 N. Y. 453; *O’ Neill*v. *O’Hare,*254 N. Y. 186.) There was no evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was negligent. *(Lebright*v. *Gentzlinger,*232 App. Div. 274; *Magid*v. *City of New York,*234 App. Div. 38; 259 N. Y. 618; *Cunningham*v. *Dady,*191 N. Y. 152; *Murray*v. *Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,*236 App. Div. 477.)

*Charles S. Wilcox*for respondent. The relationship was not that of owner and licensee.

Appellant’s conduct went beyond mere passive negligence. *(Ferrari*v. *N.*Y. *Central R. R. Co.,*224 App. Div. 182; 250 N. Y. 527; *Buell*v. *Utica G. & E. Corp.,*259 N. Y. 443; *Fritcher*v. *Anthony,*20 Hun, 495; *Wittleder*v. *Citizens’ El. Ill. Co.,*50 App. Div. 478; *Skzypek*v. *Long Island R. R.,*245 App. Div. 309; *Ehret*v. *Village of Scarsdale,*269 N. Y. 198; *Beck*v. *Carter,*68 N. Y. 283; *Constantino*v. *Watson Contracting Co.,*219 N. Y. 443.) The defendant was negligent in laying the pipe and in failing to inspect it. *(Silverberg*v. *City of New York,*59 Misc. Rep. 492; *Armbruster*v. *Auburn Gas Light Co.,*18 App. Div. 447; 162 N. Y. 655; *Haas*v. *City of New York,*107 Misc. Rep. 427; 190 App. Div. 939; *Halligan*v. *Fitzpatrick,*243 App. Div. 252.)

*188*Per Curiam.*

We find in the record no evidence of negligence, even though the duty of the defendant is not *to*be measured as if the relationship between the parties were that of owner and licensee.

The judgments should be reversed and' a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. ■ '

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Hubbs and Rippey, JJ.; dissent.

Judgments reversed, etc.
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF

COURIER CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM, 

AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2009


 


A.                                   The Terms and
Conditions of the Courier Corporation Deferred Compensation Program, as amended
and restated as of January 1, 2009, are hereby amended as follows:


 


1.               Paragraph 1 is
hereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof:


 


“Effective
January 1, 2010, Rajeev Balakrishna, Vice President and General Counsel of
the Corporation, shall also be a Participant.”


 


2.     Paragraph
3(d) is hereby added as follows:


 


“Special Award to Mr. Rajeev
Balakrishna.  In the case of the
Participant Mr. Rajeev Balakrishna, he shall be eligible for an annual
award under Section 3(b) for calendar year 2009 and each year
thereafter subject to the terms of the Program as if he had been participating
in the Program effective as of January 1, 2009.”


 


3.               The effective date of this
First Amendment shall be January 1, 2010.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, This First Amendment has been signed and sealed for and on
behalf of the Company by its duly authorized officer this 23rd day of November, 2009.


 


 


	
   

  	
  COURIER
  CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  s/Diana L. Sawyer

  
	
   

  	
  Name:
  

  	
  Diana
  L. Sawyer

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
  

  	
  Vice
  President
§ 4043.35 Insolvency or similar settlement. ( a ) *Reportable event.* A reportable event occurs for a plan when any member of the plan's controlled group— ( 1 ) Commences or has commenced against it any insolvency proceeding (including, but not limited to, the appointment of a receiver) other than a bankruptcy case under the Bankruptcy Code;
( 2 ) Commences, or has commenced against it, a proceeding to effect a composition, extension, or settlement with creditors;
( 3 ) Executes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or
( 4 ) Undertakes to effect any other nonjudicial composition, extension, or settlement with substantially all its creditors.
( b ) *Waivers* — ( 1 ) *De minimis 10-percent segment.* Notice under this section is waived if the person described in paragraph (a) of this section is not a contributing sponsor of the plan and represents a *de minimis* 10-percent segment of the plan's controlled group for the most recent fiscal year(s) ending on or before the date the reportable event occurs.
( 2 ) *Foreign entity.* Notice under this section is waived if the person described in paragraph (a) of this section is a foreign entity other than a foreign parent.
( 3 ) *Liquidation event.* Notice under paragraph (a)(3) or (4) of this section is waived if reporting is also required under § 4043.30 and notice has been provided timely to PBGC for the same event under that section.
[80 FR 55002, Sept. 11, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 6064, Feb. 4, 2020]