alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com [mailto:Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com] 

Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:33 PM 

To: richardparkerdc@gmail.com 

Cc: Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; adelaski@standardsasap.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org; Aris 

Marantan; artrosenfeld@gmail.com; august.esch@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com; Brian 

Coffey; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Caitlin Johnson; 

carlos.gaytan@ge.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com; 

charlied@uss.org; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; Cla_Silcox@nema.org; cstephens@neea.org; 

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; dave.millure@metglas.com; DYoung@energy-solution.com; 

eduardorobles@eaton.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov; 

greg.coulter405@gmail.com; James.Lass@cleco.com; Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.com; 

Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; 

jhodge@howard-ind.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org; Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org; 

Joh_Caskey@nema.org; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; jrossetti@mlgw.org; kcoughlin@lbl.gov; 

kwinder@mleainc.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com; Matthew 

Nardotti; mhyland@appanet.org; Michael Rivest; mwaltner@nrdc.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com; 

phil@pjharter.com; phopkinson@hvolt.com; pkumar@publicpower.org; 

Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; rick.anderson@faypwc.com; 

robert.saint@nreca.coop; rroy@nrdc.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com; snadel@aceee.org; 

srosenstock@eei.org; tballo@earthjustice.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; thomas.patzner@us.schneiderelectric.com; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; Zhimei Luo; Jerry_W_Schoen@aksteel.com 

Subject: Projected US Demand for Core Materials 

Mr. Parker, 

Please find attached a report that addresses our concerns regarding the DOE's projection of the US 

distribution transformer market. Our concern is that the market will be driven by the need for replacement 

transformers, as our model forecasted 2008-2011 transformer replacements comprised 75-80% of total 

deliveries and that beyond 2015, replacements will comprise over 50% of total deliveries. 

As we have stated within committee meetings, transformer replacements is a real issue and needs to be 

considered as it has the potential to substantially diminish life cycle, energy savings, and environmental 

benefits of higher efficiency standards. 

Regards, 

Eric Petersen Director Customer Technical Services and Research AK Steel Corporation 

Confidentiality Notice 

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, 

proprietary, or otherwise private information. 

If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized 

to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or 

any part of it. If you have received this message in error, 

please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete 

all copies of the message.
§ 573.2 Purposes. The purposes of this part are: ( a ) To facilitate the notification of owners of defective and noncomplying motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, and the remedy of such defects and noncompliances, by equitably apportioning the responsibility for safety-related defects and noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards among manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment; and
( b ) To inform NHTSA of defective and noncomplying motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, and to obtain information for NHTSA on the adequacy of manufacturers' defect and noncompliance notification campaigns, on corrective action, on owner response, and to compare the defect incidence rate among different groups of vehicles.
[67 FR 45872, July 10, 2002]
February 2023 Month in Review: The Defeat ISIS Mission in Iraq and Syria
 
  March 3, 2023 Release Number 20230303-01 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **TAMPA, Fla.**– During the month of February 2023, U.S. Central Command, along with coalition and other partners, conducted a total of 48 D-ISIS operations, resulting in 22 ISIS operatives killed and 25 detained. These operations showcase our enduring commitment to the lasting defeat of ISIS and the continued need for targeted military efforts to prevent ISIS members from conducting attacks and regaining a foothold. Without continued counterterrorism pressure, ISIS efforts to recruit and reconstitute would regain momentum, and the group would reconstitute its ability to plot attacks against the region, our allies, and American interests abroad. We remain focused on building local partner forces’ capabilities to prevent ISIS resurgence. The following is a breakdown of D-ISIS operations for February 2023 by country: **In Iraq**
   **In Syria**33 partnered operations
   15 partnered operations0 US-only operations
   2 US-only operations17 ISIS operatives killed
   5 ISIS operatives killed14 ISIS operatives detained
   11 ISIS operatives detained  In Iraq, CENTCOM troops advise, assist, and enable Iraqi Security Forces, including the Kurdish Peshmerga, who lead our shared fight against ISIS in Iraq. In Syria, CENTCOM relies heavily on local forces, including the Syrian Democratic Forces, to put pressure on ISIS in Syria. These operations were conducted under the authority of the CENTCOM commander who retains authority for operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and under the command of Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve. Four U.S. troops and one working dog were injured in these operations. All four troops and the working dog are recovering from their injuries. No U.S. troops were killed in these operations. “We are focused on ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS,” said Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, CENTCOM commander. “We continue to work with our partners to take the fight to ISIS in both countries.” “We commend the competence, professionalism, and dedication of our Iraqi Security Forces and Syrian Democratic Forces partners,” Kurilla continued. “The fight against ISIS continues. While we have significantly degraded the group’s capability, it retains the ability to direct, inspire, organize, and lead attacks in the region and abroad. Further, the group’s vile ideology remains uncontained and unconstrained.” In the first week of each month, CENTCOM will publish an accounting of operations against ISIS from the previous month.  -30-
#### § 551.62 Where should a foreign manufacturer mail the designation?

Foreign manufacturers must mail their designations to the Office of the Executive Secretariat, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5221, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. No other NHTSA office is authorized to accept designation documents. To avoid delays, the agency suggests using express mail services.
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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.
(PNBC) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Todd D.
Fanning, Executive Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer of PNBC,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|    |                                                                                                                                                 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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 represents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of PNBC.

|/s/ Todd D. Fanning                                 | 
|--------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                    | 
|Todd D. Fanning                                     | 
|Executive Vice-President
 & Chief Financial Officer | 
|                                                    | 
|October 30, 2009                                    | 

40

---
EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRINCETON NATIONAL BANCORP,
INC. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2010 (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   
| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | (2) | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                      |                              
| | -------------------- | -----------------------------
| | /s/ Thomas D. Ogaard
| | Name:                | Thomas D.
 Ogaard            
| | Title:               | President
 and               
| |                      | Chief
 Executive Officer     
| |                      |                              
| | Date:                | November 5,
 2010            
| |                      |                              
| | /s/ Todd D. Fanning 
| | Name:                | Todd D.
 Fanning             
| | Title:               | Executive
 Vice President and
| |                      | Chief
 Financial Officer     
| |                      |                              
| | Date:                | November 5,
 2010            

---
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2014-0016

Fiduciary - Conflict of Interest Exemptions

Comment On: EBSA-2014-0016-0013

Comment on FR Doc # N/A

General Comment

I have become aware of new regulations in ZRIN 1210-ZA25 that will impact the assets I hold in my 

retirement account (IRA). Specifically, I'm concerned that I may be limited in the type of assets I hold in 

my IRA due to the definition of assets in the proposed Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE).

I have invested in OTC securities which I independently selected through my retirement account and am 

concerned that I will not be able to have those securities in my account in the future should my broker 

need to invoke BICE to continue servicing my account. My retirement account is my hard earned money 

which I believe I should be able to invest in any type of asset which supports my needs. I don't want my 

freedom restricted by this new rule.

I request that you change BICE such that all assets are allowed in retirement accounts as they currently 

are in an IRA. Specifically, I want to make sure that OTC securities are allowed in BICE as they have 

proven to be a good area for me to invest my retirement funds.
Editorial Note on Part 572
Editorial Notes: 1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 572.184 Shoulder assembly. ( a ) The shoulder (175-3000) is part of the body assembly shown in drawing 175-0000. When subjected to impact tests specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the shoulder assembly shall meet performance requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Test procedure.* ( 1 ) Soak the dummy assembly, without suit and shoulder foam pad (175-3010), in a test environment as specified in § 572.189(n);
( 2 ) The dummy is seated, as shown in Figure U3 in appendix A to this subpart, on a flat, horizontal, rigid surface covered by two overlaid 2 mm thick Teflon sheets and with no back support of the dummy's torso. The dummy's torso spine backplate is vertical within ±2 degrees and the midsagittal plane of the thorax is positioned perpendicular to the direction of the plane of motion of the impactor at contact with the shoulder. The arms are oriented forward at 50±2 degrees from the horizontal, pointing downward. The dummy's legs are horizontal and symmetrical about the midsaggital plane with the distance between the innermost point on the opposite ankle at 100 ±5 mm. The length of the elastic shoulder cord (175-3015) shall be adjusted so that a force between and including 27.5 and 32.5 N applied in a forward direction at 4 ±1 mm from the outer edge of the clavicle in the same plane as the clavicle movement, is required to initiate a forward motion of 1 to 5 mm;
( 3 ) The impactor is the same as defined in § 572.189(a);
( 4 ) The impactor is guided, if needed, so that at contact with the shoulder, its longitudinal axis is within ±0.5 degrees of a horizontal plane and perpendicular (±0.5 degrees) to the midsagittal plane of the dummy and the centerpoint on the impactor's face is within 5 mm of the center of the upper arm pivot bolt (5000040) at contact with the test dummy, as shown in Figure U3 in appendix A to this subpart;
( 5 ) The impactor impacts the dummy's shoulder at 4.3±0.1 m/s.
( c ) *Performance criteria.* The peak acceleration of the impactor is between 7.5 g's and 10.5 g's during the pendulum's contact with the dummy.
#### § 585.44 Response to inquiries.

During the production years ending August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008, and August 31, 2009, each manufacturer shall, upon request from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide information identifying the vehicles (by make, model, and vehicle identification number) that have been certified as complying with the requirements of S6.2(b) of Standard No. 301. The manufacturer's designation of a vehicle as a certified vehicle is irrevocable.
----

(2004/C 84 E/0215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/04

by Ioannis Marinos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   The ‘Bob Programme’ and road accidents

According to the Community's Financial Report for 2002, the foreword to which was written by the Commissioner responsible for the budget, Michaele Schreyer, 40 000 people died and 1,7 million were injured in road accidents in the European Union in the year 2000 (pages 57 and 58 of the document). The Commission supports the ‘Bob Programme’, the aim of which is to encourage car users to designate a person among their group who will not consume alcoholic drinks during their outing so as to be able to drive the others back safely after the event. On page 58 of the document it is stated that the ‘Bob programme’ was first implemented in Belgium in 1995, to be copied subsequently by other Member States adopting different names (e.g. ‘Lince’ in Spain, ‘Joker’ in Portugal etc.), while in Greece and the Netherlands the programme was introduced under the name of ‘Bob’.

What data does the Commission have on the results of implementing the programme in Greece? Has there been a decrease, and by what percentage, in road accidents in Greece, the country with the most fatal accidents in proportion to its population in the whole of the Union? What funding did the Greek authorities receive to implement the programme and how was that funding used?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Between 2001 and 2003, the Commission supported ‘designated driver’ road-safety campaigns in Greece and several other Member States, encouraging people not to drink and drive.

The maximum grants allocated to Greece were EUR 174 000, EUR 163 000 and EUR 72 000 respectively, which is between 22 % and 7 % of total grants.

This funding was used to adapt the Belgian ‘BOB’ campaign to Greek culture. Specifically, this involved producing posters, TV and radio spots, advertising inserts in the press, and an educational video, developing a website, and, in collaboration with driving schools, organising a training course for young drivers.

One of the objectives of the Greek campaign was to reduce the number of alcohol-related road accidents by 15 % in three years. The provisional statistics for 2003 show that the total number of fatalities fell by 22 percentage points between 2000 and 2003.

On 27 May 2003, the Commission held a public seminar in Brussels to assess the effectiveness of these campaigns with all the organisers. Information on the presentations that were made, including the presentation of the Greek campaign, can be found on the website for the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (1).

----

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/road/roadsafety/behaviour/alcohol/conf_designated_drivers_en.htm

----
#### § 551.33 Address of communications.

Unless otherwise specified, communications shall be addressed to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Communications may not be addressed to a staff member's private address.

[36 FR 1147, Jan. 23, 1971; 38 FR 20086, July 27, 1973]
#### § 511.13 Amendments and supplemental pleadings.

Whenever determination of a controversy on the merits will be facilitated thereby, the Presiding Officer upon motion, may allow appropriate amendments and supplemental pleadings which do not unduly broaden the issues in the proceeding or cause undue delay.
#### § 570.3 Applicability.

This part does not in itself impose requirements on any person. It is intended to be implemented by States through the highway safety program standards issued under the Highway Safety Act (23 U.S.C. 402) with respect to inspection of motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except motorcycles or trailers.
From: Tim Weller [mailto:wellertim@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:51 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

You want to solicit views from plan participants? I'm sure you don't really, but I'll 

speak for every one of us anyway. 

 

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY MONEY 

 

Seriously, this is a terrible, probably criminal, idea. And you'll find a way to do it, to 

keep stealing from the citizens to finance the deficit. But you asked, so I'll respond. 

Stop the madness. Please. You are destroying the middle class, and my future, not 

to mention my children's. 

 

This can not be allowed to pass. Period. 

 

Tim Weller 

Minneapolis, MN
#### § 368.2 Definitions.

*Interstate transportation* means transportation described at 49 U.S.C. 13501, and transportation in the United States otherwise exempt from the Secretary's jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. 13506(b)(1).

*Mexico-domiciled motor carrier* means a motor carrier of property whose principal place of business is located in Mexico.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LORETTA M. FRYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CARR-LOWREY GLASS COMPANY; No. 95-3096 GLASS, MOLDERS, POTTERY, PLASTICS & ALLIED WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO, CLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-1561) Argued: March 6, 1997 Decided: May 16, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: W. Michel Pierson, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Clifford Bernard Geiger, KOLLMAN & SHEEHAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Carr-Lowrey; Carl Steffen Yaller, Media, Pennsylvania, for Appellee Union. ON BRIEF: Peter S. Saucier, KOLLMAN & SHEEHAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Carr-Lowrey.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: When Carr-Lowrey Glass Company received the opinion from Dr. Neal Aronson that Loretta Fryson, one of Carr-Lowrey's employees, would not be able to return to her job as a selector-packer because of a back condition, Carr-Lowrey removed her from the payroll. On behalf of Fryson, her union unsuccessfully prosecuted her request tohave her assigned to light duty through four steps of a five-step grievance procedure. Ultimately, however, the union withdrew the grievance. Fryson thereafter sued both her employer and her union under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185,alleging that her employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation in itstreatment of her grievance. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Fryson had not presented evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that either the employeror the union violated its duties. "To prevail against either the company or the Union, . . . [Fryson] must not only show that [her] discharge was contrary to the contract but must also carry the burden ofdemonstrating breach of duty by the Union." DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , 462 U.S. 151, 165 (1983) (quoting United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell , 451 U.S. 56, 66-67 (1981)). Having considered the record and the arguments of counsel, advanced both in their briefs and at oral argument, we affirm for the reasons given by the district court in its thorough opinion. Fryson v. Carr-Lowrey Glass Company, et al ., Civil Action No. HAR 94-1561 (D. Md., Apr. 25, 1995).
AFFIRMED
2