alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Meeting Minutes Memorandum

1

TO: EPA Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0895

FROM: Conrad Chin

DATE S : November 21 , 2012 and November 26, 2012

SUBJECT: Conference Calls with Representatives of the Ferroalloys Pr oduction Industry

I. Introduction:

Steve Fruh chaired a conference call on No vember 21

, 2012 to discuss technical implementation issues regarding collecting process fugitive emissions data from the two manganese facilities (Eramet and Felman) as part of the Information Collection Request. A
follow

- up call was also chaired by Steve Fruh on November 26, 2012.

II. Participants :

November 21, 2012

Eramet Marietta Inc. : Jeff McKinney Beveridge & D i amond : Laura McAfee Jones Day : John Rego Policy Navigation Group : Troy Hillier
EPA/ OAQPS : Steve Fruh, Conrad Chin

, Rochelle Boyd, Brian Shrager , Steffan Johnson,
Colin Boswell

November 26, 2012

Eramet Marietta Inc. : John Willoughby, Jeff McKinney Felman Production, Inc. : John Konrady Beveridge & Diamond : Laura McAfee Jones Day : John Rego Policy Navigation Group : Troy Hillier
EPA/ OAQPS : Steve F ruh, Chuck French, Conrad Chin, Rochelle Boyd, Brian Sh rager , Colin Boswell

## Meeting Minutes Memorandum

2

III. Summary of Discussion s :

The purpose of the call was to discuss technical feasibility to collect process fugitive emissions data from the two manganese facilities (Eramet and Felman) as part of the Information Collection Request. EPA suggested there could be two approaches:

 Set up temporary hooding systems to quantify fugitive emissions from major fugitive sources, such as tapping and casting.

 Perform measurements at the roof vents of the building to quantify fugitives escaping the building

EPA suggested that the second approach may be more feasible in terms of costs. The industry discussed the feasibility and safety issues concerning measurements at the roof vents. They
also wanted EPA to clarify how EPA intends to use the data collected.

It was agreed that there will be a site visit at Felman to evaluate the technical feasibility of such measurements, and Eramet will send observers to participate in the discussions.
#### § 780.724 Work exempt under another section of the Act.

Where an employee's employment during part of his workweek would qualify for exemption under section 13(b)(14) if it continued throughout the workweek, and the remainder of his workweek is spent in employment which, if it continued throughout the workweek, would qualify for exemption under another section or sections of the Act, the exemptions may be combined (see *Remington* v. *Shaw* (W.D. Mich.) 2 WH Cases 262). The employee, however, qualifies for exemption only to the extent of the exemption which is more limited in scope (see *Mitchell* v. *Hunt,* 263 F. 2d 913). For example, if part of the work is exempt from both minimum wage and overtime compensation under one section of the Act and the rest is exempt only from the overtime pay provisions under another section, the employee is exempt that week from the overtime provisions, but not from the minimum wage requirements. In this connection, attention is directed to another exemption in the Act which relates to work in grain elevators, which may apply in appropriate circumstances, either in combination with section 13(b)(14) or to employees for whom the requirements of section 13(b)(14) cannot be met. This other exemption is that provided by section 7(c). Section 7(c), which is discussed in part 526 of this chapter, provides a limited overtime exemption for employees employed in the seasonal industry of storing grain in country grain elevators, public terminal and sub-terminal elevators, wheat flour mills, nonelevator bulk storing establishments and flat warehouses, § 526.10(b)(14) of this chapter.
(78 South. 991)

#### McGREGOR v. STATE.

(3 div. 310.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

No bill of exceptions, and no error of record.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit (23)



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-52543, Form S-8 No. 33-52545, Form S-8 No. 33-54229, Form S-8
No. 33-56857, Form S-8 No. 33-56861, Form S-8 No. 33-61399 and Form S-8 No.
33-20431) pertaining to the Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, Management
Incentive Program, LTV Steel Group Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Non-Employee
Directors' Equity Compensation Plan, The Hourly Employee Stock Payment
Alternative Plan, Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Certain Key Executives of
Continental Emsco Company and Salaried Employee Stock Option Plan, respectively,
of The LTV Corporation of our report dated January 23, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The LTV Corporation incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
February 28, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the nine month period ended September 30, 2000,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,485
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,435)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,050)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,050)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,874)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,924)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Elizabeth Barresi, Appellant, v Norbert Kapr, Respondent.

Submitted September 3, 1996;

decided September 12, 1996

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Economic Development Administration (EDA).
    Title: Revolving Loan Fund Reporting and Compliance Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 0610-0095.
    Form Number(s): ED-209, ED-209I.
    Type of Request: Regular submission (revision of a currently 
approved information collection).
    Number of Respondents: 617.
    Average Hours per Response: 2 hours for ED-209; and 45 minutes for 
ED-209I.
    Burden Hours: 2,699.
    Needs and Uses: The collected information will be used by EDA 
personnel to monitor the compliance of Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) 
grantees with legal and programmatic requirements, and to ensure that 
EDA exercises adequate fiduciary responsibility over its portfolio. The 
revision involves a change in reporting including 100% electronic 
collection, elimination of two paper forms and combining into one 
electronic form, and other refinements to ease the burden of reporting.
    Affected Public: Recipients of EDA RLF grants.
    Frequency: Semi-annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas Fraser, (202) 395-5887.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16725e6f78737d5672797538717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43270b3a2d262803272c206d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Nicholas Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-5167, or via 
the Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e5ab8c868d8a898496baa4cbbaa39784968097a58a8887cb808a95cb828a93"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c12353f3433303d2f031d72031a2e3d2f392e1c33313e7239332c723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-20095 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-34-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(78 South. 991)

#### STANDARD OIL CO. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

(6 Div. 473.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 18, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John H. Miller, Judge.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. A. Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### § 793.2 General explanatory statement.

Some employees of radio and television stations perform work which may be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under section 13(a)(1) of the Act. This 13(a)(1) exemption applies to employees employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity, or in the capacity of outside salesman, as these terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary. This exemption continues to be available for employees of radio and television stations who meet the requirements for exemption specified in part 541 of this chapter. The section 13(b) (9) exemption, which is an exemption from the overtime provisions of the Act, but not from the minimum wage requirements, applies to a limited classification of employees employed by small market radio and television stations whose employment meets the requirements for the exemption. These requirements and their meaning and application are discussed in this bulletin.
SERVED: January 28, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ARCTIC AIR ALASKA, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-0316 

(Civil Penalty Action). 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

,-·., ... 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") filed a Complaint 

dated May 22, 2014. Arctic Air Alaska, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") filed a Response dated 

September 8, 2014. 

Complainant withdrew the Complaint on January 21, 2015. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent ofthe administrative law judge. Ifari. agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice.'' 

WHEREFORE, Complainant having withdrawn the Complaint, it be and is hereby 

ORDERED as follows: 

This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice . 

.. -·r·" ··(' ri " ' <: ·' ./. . I ' .... \{;.'(.\.~--- (!" ... ( .·-··-~··"t·t::7't;if..-tt .. \. ,) 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE 

COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, 

S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

James I. Hamilton, President /CEO 

Arctic Air Alaska, Inc., Respondent 

3540 University Ave. South 

Fairbanks, AK 99709 

Peter Lynch, Complainant's Counsel 

Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Enforcement 

Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7728 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0316 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 St:trvice was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wrig_ht Building-Suite 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

3
#### § 36.305 Preference in admission.

A recipient to which §§ 36.300 through 36.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 36.300 through 36.310.
#### § 780.313 Piece rate basis.

The exemption provides that the employee must be paid on a piece-rate basis. To be exempt the employee must be compensated solely on piece rates during the workweek. The exemption does not apply in any workweek in which the employee is compensated on any other basis. For example, if an employee is compensated on an hourly rate for part of the week and on a piece rate for part of the week, the exemption would not be available. Also, if any pieceworker who is otherwise subject to the minimum wage provisions of the Act does not meet all the requirements set forth in this section he must be paid at least the minimum wage for each hour worked in a particular workweek, regardless of the fact he is paid on piece rate unless he is exempted by some other provision of the Act.
§ 553.220 “Tour of duty” defined. ( a ) The term “tour of duty” is a unique concept applicable only to employees for whom the section 7(k) exemption is claimed. This term, as used in section 7(k), means the period of time during which an employee is considered to be on duty for purposes of determining compensable hours. It may be a scheduled or unscheduled period. Such periods include “shifts” assigned to employees often days in advance of the performance of the work. Scheduled periods also include time spent in work outside the “shift” which the public agency employer assigns. For example, a police officer may be assigned to crowd control during a parade or other special event outside of his or her shift.
( b ) Unscheduled periods include time spent in court by police officers, time spent handling emergency situations, and time spent working after a shift to complete an assignment. Such time must be included in the compensable tour of duty even though the specific work performed may not have been assigned in advance.
( c ) The tour of duty does not include time spent working for a separate and independent employer in certain types of special details as provided in § 553.227. The tour of duty does not include time spent working on an occasional or sporadic and part-time basis in a different capacity from the regular work as provided in § 553.30. The tour of duty does not include time spent substituting for other employees by mutual agreement as specified in § 553.31.
( d ) The tour of duty does not include time spent in volunteer firefighting or law enforcement activities performed for a different jurisdiction, even where such activities take place under the terms of a mutual aid agreement in the jurisdiction in which the employee is employed. (See § 553.105.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1697
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    30000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (30000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  123006
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     93006
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
§ 4901.6 Filing rules; computation of time. ( a ) *Place, method, and date of filing.* ( 1 ) For rules about where to file a submission under this part with PBGC, see § 4000.4 of this chapter.
( 2 ) For rules about permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this part, see § 4000.3 of this chapter.
( 3 ) For rules about the date that a submission under this part was filed with PBGC, see subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter.
( b ) *Computation of time.* For rules about any time period under this part, see subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter.
[87 FR 43995, July 25, 2022]
#### § 779.214 “Business” purpose.

The activities described in section 3(r) are included in an enterprise only when they are performed for a “business” purpose. Activities of eleemosynary, religious, or educational organization may be performed for a business purpose. Thus, where such organizations engage in ordinary commercial activities, such as operating a printing and publishing plant, the business activities will be treated under the Act the same as when they are performed by the ordinary business enterprise. (See *Mitchell* v. *Pilgrims Holiness Church Corp.,* 210 F. 2d 879 (CA-7); cert. den. 347 U.S. 1013.) However, the nonprofit educational, religious, and eleemosynary activities will not be included in the enterprise unless they are of the types which the last sentence of section 3(r), as amended in 1966, declares shall be deemed to be performed for a business purpose. Such activities were not regarded as performed for a business purpose under the prior Act and are not so considered under the Act as it was amended in 1966 except for those activities listed in the last sentence of amended section 3(r). (See § 779.21.)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 105 (Wednesday, May 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13514]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Renewal Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: This notice is to announce the renewal of the Advisory 
Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) for a period of two years.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
has determined that the renewal of the charter for the Advisory 
Committee on Nuclear Waste for the two year period commencing on May 
24, 2000, is in the public interest, in connection with duties imposed 
on the Commission by law. This action is being taken in accordance with 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, after consultation with the 
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
    The purpose of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste is to report 
to and advise the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on nuclear 
waste management and other related activities, as directed by the 
Commission. This includes 10 CFR parts 60 and 61 and other applicable 
regulations and legislative mandates. In performing its work, the 
Committee will examine and report on those areas of concern referred to 
it by the Commission and may undertake studies and activities on its 
own initiative, as appropriate. Emphasis will be on protecting the 
public health and safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. The 
Committee will interact with representatives of NRC, ACRS, other 
federal agencies, state and local agencies, Indian Tribes, and private, 
international and other organizations as appropriate to fulfill its 
responsibilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John T. Larkins, Executive Director of 
the Committee, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone (301) 415-7360.

    Dated: May 24, 2000.
Andrew L. Bates,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-13514 Filed 5-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P