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

Moran, Nicole

From: Moran, Nicole

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 2:13 PM

To: William Bider; Christine Mennicke

Cc: Toensing, Don

Subject: RE: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan

Bill, 

My apologies for the mistake, the page numbers are actually 21,431 - 21,433 of the Federal Register. Please let me 

know if you have any additional questions. 

Thanks, 

Nicole 

Nicole Moran 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 

Air and Waste Management Division 

Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch 

11201 Renner Boulevard 

Lenexa, KS 66219 

913-551-7641 (phone) 

moran.nicole@epa.gov 

From: William Bider [mailto:wbider@kdheks.gov] 

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:55 AM 

To: Moran, Nicole; Christine Mennicke 

Cc: Toensing, Don 

Subject: RE: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan 

Nicole, 

In studying your comments I have a question. Your comments related to 256.26 that relate to a state having the 

authority to grant compliance schedule extensions include a recommendation that we look at pages 21,342 to 21,343 of 

the Federal Register. Are these correct page numbers. I did not see anything on these pages related to this subject? 

Bill Bider 

Director 

Bureau of Waste Management 

From: Moran, Nicole [mailto:moran.nicole@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 3:18 PM 

To: William Bider; Christine Mennicke 

Cc: Toensing, Don 

Subject: Comment Letter - KS' Draft CCR Part 256 Plan 

Bill, 
2

Enclosed is an electronic copy of EPA’s Comment Letter for the State of Kansas Draft Coal Combustion Residuals Part 256 

Plan submittal. The official letter is in the mail. Please make note that there were a few changes to the checklist that 

you received yesterday following OGC’s review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself or Don 

Toensing. 

Thanks, 

Nicole 

Nicole Moran 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 

Air and Waste Management Division 

Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch 

11201 Renner Boulevard 

Lenexa, KS 66219 

913-551-7641 (phone) 

moran.nicole@epa.gov
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 28, 1995 (122), Para 122.21 Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report on H.R. 1977]
[Page 1464]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.122.21  waiving points of order against the conference report on 
          h.r. 1977

  Ms. PRYCE, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 231):

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived.

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  On motion of Ms. PRYCE, the previous question was ordered on the 
resolution to its adoption or rejection and under the operation thereof.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to said resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, announced that the yeas had it.
  Mr. BEILENSON objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present and not voting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HEFLEY, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced that further proceedings on the resolution were postponed 
until after the consideration of House Resolution 232.
  The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                       Search R&D                  

#### Publications

              - Resource Bulletin(3)
              - Resource Update(2)

#### Location

              - Station(5) - Northern Research Station(5)
 

#### Year

              - 2018(1)
              - 2016(1)
              - 2014(1)
              - 2010(2)

# Site Search

## 									Michigan Timber Industry, 2014							

Ronald J. Piva

**timber****Michigan****industry**

## 									Michigan timber industry, 2010							

David E. Haugen

**timber****Michigan****industry**

## 									Michigan timber industry—an assessment of timber product output and use, 2008							

David E. HaugenBrian F. WaltersRonald J. Piva

**Michigan****industry****timber**

## 									Michigan timber industry: an assessment of timber product output and use, 2006							

Ronald J. Piva

**Michigan****industry****timber**

## 									Michigan timber industry: An assessment of timber product output and use, 2004							

David E. Haugen

**industry****Michigan****timber****industry**
#### Adam Miller (Incorporated), Plaintiff, *v.*Florida East Coast Railway Company, Defendant.

(City Court of the City of New York, Special Term,

September, 1910.)

Pleading — Motions relating to pleadings — Motion to strike out matter from pleading —- Grounds — Redundancy.

A separate defense in an action for damages -for breach of a certain agreement “ that th-e defendant duly performed all the conditions and covenants in said agreement contained on its part *74to be performed,” in addition to a general denial of the allegations of the complaint, will be stricken out .as irrelevant and redundant under section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Motion to strike out certain words in a defense as irrelevant and redundant.

Richard J. Donovan, for plaintiff.

George S. Scofield, for defendant.

Finelite, J.

Motion to strike out certain words in the second defense of the admitted .answer, on the ground that the same is irrelevant and redundant, under section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts alleged in the complaint are denied by the answer and. in addition thereto defendant sets up a separate defense “that the defendant duly performed all the conditions and covenants in said agreement contained (the agreement described in the complaint) on its part to be performed.” This defense, so set forth, should be stricken out. Rogers v. Morton, 46 Misc. Rep. 494; Stieffel v. Tolhurst, 55 App. Div. 532. In Blaut v. Blaut, 41 Misc. Rep. 572, the court held: “ Denials can be proven under the first nine paragraphs of the complaint, and their repetition does not strengthen the plaintiff’s pleading. They are not a necessary or proper part of the separate defenses. The very theory of an affirmative defense is that without denials of the allegations of the complaint the defendant can defeat the plaintiff by new matter pleaded. Besides, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the presence of these denials. A defense which contains a general denial is not demurrable, even though the matter pleaded does not constitute a defense.” In Rogers v. Morton, *supra,*the court held: “ If the plaintiff cannot with safety demur to a pleading containing an immaterial allegation or denial of fact, he has his remedy under the Code and should first move to strike out said allegation or denial.” In Stieffel v. Tolhurst, *supra,*the court held: “ETo part of a pleading will be stricken out as irrelevant or redundant unless the court can see that the moving party is aggrieved *75by it and that striking it out will do no harm to tbe pleader. In tbe case of redundant denials which seriously affected tbe moving party’s right to demur to an affirmative defense coupled witb them, tbe court considered that as the denials added nothing to tbe affirmative defense, and were already set up in tbe earlier portions of tbe answer, they should be stricken out.” State of South Dakota v. McChesney, 87 Hun, 293; Fletcher v. Jones, 64 id. 274. Tbe motion is, therefore; granted, witb leave to defendant to serve an amended answer on payment of ten dollars costs.

Motion granted.
§ 214.349 Training and qualification of watchmen/lookouts. ( a ) The training and qualification for roadway workers assigned the duties of watchmen/lookouts shall include, as a minimum, consideration of the following factors: ( 1 ) Detection and recognition of approaching trains.
( 2 ) Effective warning of roadway workers of the approach of trains.
( 3 ) Determination of the distance along the track at which trains must be visible in order to provide the prescribed warning time.
( 4 ) Rules and procedures of the railroad to be used for train approach warning.
( b ) Initial and periodic (as specified by § 243.201 of this chapter) qualification of a watchman/lookout shall be evidenced by demonstrated proficiency.
[61 FR 65976, Dec. 16, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 37890, June 10, 2016]
CAUSE NO. 04 -13 -00757- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH DISTRICT AT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS



### Michael Tatsch, Appellant,

v. Chrysler Group LLC and Infinity County Mutual Insurance Company,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the
216 th Judicial District Court of Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12977



### NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE OF APPELLEE CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective December 15, 2014, Appellee previously known as

Chrysler Group LLC is now known as FCA US LLC, pursuant the Certificate of Amendment attached

hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein for all purposes.

Respectfully submitted,

B EATTY B ANGLE S TRAMA PC

400 West 15 th Street, Suite #1450 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 879-5050 ; (512) 879-5040 (FAX)

By: /s/ Matthew R. Beatty Matthew R. Beatty

State Bar No. 24001169 mbeatty@bbsfirm.com

David A. Polsinelli

State Bar No. 24088238 dpolsinelli@bbsfirm.co ACCEPTED 04-13-00757-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 2/9/2015 4:45:43 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK- 2

- ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

, NOW KNOWN AS FCA US LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served on the following counsel by fax in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and

this Court’s Local Rules on February 9 , 2015:

Craig M. Patrick

Patrick L aw Firm, PC 3333 Lee Parkway, Suite #600 Dallas, TX 75219 (214) 665

- 9510 (214) 665

- 9511 (FAX)

Sharla J. Frost Gwendolyn S. Frost

Shawn D. Golden

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

Two Houston Center 909 Fannin, Suite 3300
Houston, Texas 77010 (7 13) 353

- 2000 (713) 785

- 7780 (FAX)

/s/ Matthew R. Beatty Matthew R. Beatty

David A. Posinelli
January 10, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting with the Congressional Research Service 

FROM: Kimberly Cochran 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

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

A conference call was held on December 7, 2010 between the Congressional Research Service 

and EPA to discuss how the proposed rule, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials that are Solid Wastes (NHSM),” would characterize used oil and how that definition, 

subsequently, would affect space heaters using used oil for fuel. EPA explained that the 

definition of solid waste hinges on whether the material has been discarded and generally 

discussed how “on-spec” and “off-spec” used oil is affected using the proposed and alternative 

approaches. 

List of Meeting Attendees:

Linda Luther, Congressional Research Service 

Jim McCarthy, Congressional Research Service 

Kimberly Cochran, EPA/OSWER 

Randy Dietz, EPA/OSWER 

George Faison, EPA/OSWER

Mike Galbraith, EPA/OSWER 

Lyn Luben, EPA/OSWER 

Marc Thomas, EPA/OSWER
exv10w6



 






Exhibit 10.6




March 14, 2006




Peter Edison



Dear Peter:




     [Introductory language regarding 2005 results, omitted. The Company undertakes to furnish a
supplemental copy of such language to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.]



     The bonus plan for 2006 is based on the profit after-tax using a standard corporate tax rate.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	22.5%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	4,000,000	 
	30%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	5,500,000	 
	45%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	6,955,000	 
	65%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	8,375,000	 
	82%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	9,700,000	 
	100%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	11,000,000	 






     In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in the opinion of the
Compensation Committee, you have met the criteria outlined on the attached.



     The bonus period will be the fiscal months of February 2006 through January 2007. You must be
an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time bonuses are paid to be eligible to receive
your bonus.



     We are excited about our business in the coming year. We hope it is profitable for all of our
shareholders and us.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	Sincerely,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Peter Edison
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Peter Edison






ss



[Attachment, regarding 2006 goals and objectives, omitted. The Company undertakes to furnish a
supplemental copy of such attachment to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.]
#### § 236.561 [Reserved]
-----Original Message----- 

From: abccoll@newnorth.net [mailto:abccoll@newnorth.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:13 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew DeLaat 

4223 North View Drive 

RHINELANDER, WI 54501
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2292

To preserve and protect the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To preserve and protect the Hanford Reach of the Columbia

River, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Hanford Reach Preser5 vation Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 100–605.

7 Section 2 of Public Law 100–605 is amended as

8 follows:

9 (1) By striking ‘‘Interim’’ in the section

10 heading.
2

•HR 2292 IH

1 (2) By striking ‘‘For a period of eight years

2 after’’ and inserting ‘‘After’’ in subsection (a).

3 (3) By striking in subsection (b) ‘‘During the

4 eight year interim protection period, provided by this

5 section, all’’ and inserting ‘‘All’’.

Æ
§ 224.3 Applicability. This part applies to all railroad freight cars and locomotives that operate over a public or private highway-rail grade crossing and are used for revenue or work train service, except: ( a ) Freight rolling stock that operates only on track inside an installation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation;
( b ) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation;
( c ) Locomotives and passenger cars used exclusively in passenger service; or
( d ) Freight rolling stock that is subject to a reflectorization requirement promulgated by another Federal agency.
#### § 229.45 General condition.

All systems and components on a locomotive shall be free of conditions that endanger the safety of the crew, locomotive or train. These conditions include: insecure attachment of components, including third rail shoes or beams, traction motors and motor gear cases, and fuel tanks; fuel, oil, water, steam, and other leaks and accumulations of oil on electrical equipment that create a personal injury hazard; improper functioning of components, including slack adjusters, pantograph operating cylinders, circuit breakers, contactors, relays, switches, and fuses; and cracks, breaks, excessive wear and other structural infirmities of components, including quill drives, axles, gears, pinions, pantograph shoes and horns, third rail beams, traction motor gear cases, and fuel tanks.
-----Original Message----- 

From: jtdenton@earthlink.net [mailto:jtdenton@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:49 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

No less burdening in our nation's overall healthcare is the mental 

healthcare coverage of all its citizens. Let's not do the shortsighted 

cuts of coverages upfront, but find the wastes in the long-term, 

follow-up processes of coverages to all healthcare. 

Trim the fat. Don't starve the needy. 

Sincerely, 

John T. Denton 

325 Via Montanosa 

Encinitas, CA 92024
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0059 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-9629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Edward Haaz 

Address: 

2500 York Road 

Suite 110 

Jamison, PA, 18929 

Email: ehaaz@comcast.net 

Phone: 215-343-8987 

Organization: Mental Health Consultants, Inc. 

General Comment 

I am writing as a 30+ year MH/SA consultant to individuals, employers and 

Unions. I have been a special consultant regarding workplace issues to CSAP 

(SAHMSA) for more than 15 years. 

I have very serious concerns about unintended consequences of this Bill. 

Employers who are attempting to do the "right thing" by covering mental health 

and substance abuse prevent some degree of misuse of services by placing "outof- network" limits as well as annual limits. Some, as in the case of UFCW Local 

1776 (Philadelphia) have very generous benefits. 

However, due to some "un-evolved" providers, lack of "objective" data (such as xrays, blood tests, etc.) some experiences leads to unnecessary and inappropriate 

treatment, at a very high cost. Also, individual who are "desperate" for ANY type 

of treatment fall victim to providers who prey on these prospective patients with 

exotic locations and air fare. 

While some payers have placed unrealistic burdens on their coverage, some 

have "tried to do the right thing". These will be "caught up in the same net" as 

those restricting care. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 22, 2009 

Received: May 18, 2009 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 8099db48 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009

Submission Type: Web
The 2% increase limit will be too much for some benefits to bear. The result will 

be an elimination of coverage, an unintended consequence of this well meaning 

initiative. 

I urge you to consider the employer/union who is underwriting this very important 

care. Parity can be achieved without placing the severe restrictions on the payer. 

For example, continue to allow incentivized use of a network that has been found 

to eliminate fraud. Help continue to place limits on how many times an active 

addict can go to detox without receiving any other treatment. 

Do not return us to the 1980s when all who went for in-patient treatment were 

there for 30 days! It will cause employers to eliminate coverage. 

I can be reached for further discussion at 215-343-8987 #1205 

Thank you, 

Edward Haaz, M.Ed., LPC, CAC-D
#### § 22.59 Loan modifications.

Any modification to the terms of the DOT OSDBU guarantee agreement must have prior written approval of the Director, and executed in writing as an Addendum to the original guarantee agreement.
-----Original Message----- 

From: monica@dpde.com [mailto:monica@dpde.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:36 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Monica Sexty 

4925 Americana Drive #103 

Annandale, VA 22003
#### § 10.75 Fee schedule.

| (a) Copies of documents by photocopy or similar method: | |
| --- | --- |
| Each page not larger than 11 × 17 inches: | |
| First page | $.25 |
| Each page | .05 |
| (b) Copies of documents by typewriter: Each page | 2.00 |
| (c) Certified copies of documents: | |
| (1) With Department of Transportation seal | 3.00 |
| (2) True copy, without seal | 1.00 |
| (d) Photographs: | |
| (1) Black and white print (from negative) | 1.25 |
| (2) Black and white print (from print) | 3.15 |
| (3) Color print (from negative) | 3.50 |
| (4) Color print (from print) | 6.25 |
| (e) Duplicate data tapes—each reel of tape or fraction thereof | 36.00 |

The applicant must furnish the necessary number of blank magnetic tapes. The tapes must be compatible for use in the supplier's computer system, 1⁄2 inch wide and 2,400 feet long, and must be capable of recording data at a density of 556 or 800 characters per inch. Unless otherwise designated, the tapes will be recorded at 556 CPI density. The Department of Transportation is not responsible for damaged tape. However, if the applicant furnishes a replacement for a damaged tape, the duplication process is completed at no additional charge.

1

2

| (f) Microreproduction fees are as follows: | |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Microfilm copies, each 100 foot roll or less | $3.75 |
| (2) Microfiche copies, each standard size sheet (4′′ × 6′′ containing up to 65 frames) | .15 |
| (3) Apertune card to hard copy, each copy | .50 |
| (4) 16mm microfilm to hard copy: | |
| First | .25 |
| Additional | .07 |
| (g) Computerline printer output, each 1,000 lines or fraction thereof | 1.00 |
-----Original Message----- 

From: WSTEWART@CSUCHICO.EDU [mailto:WSTEWART@CSUCHICO.EDU] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:20 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

William Stewart 

1636 Meadow Rd. 

Chico, CA 95926