alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                              EXHIBIT 23



                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference  of  our  report  included  in  this  quarterly  report  on
Form  10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996, of Southern
California Edison Company into the previously filed Registration
Statements which follow:

     Registration Form      File No.             Effective Date
     -----------------      --------             --------------
         Form S-3           33-53288            November 6, 1992
         Form S-3           33-50251            September 21, 1993
         Form S-3           33-59001            May 15, 1995
         Form S-3          333-00497            February 2, 1996




                                     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP   
                                     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Los Angeles, California
November 6, 1996
|                                                                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                               
|Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                               
|Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 981    | 590    | 3,133  | 1,465 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 285    | 3,173  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
M13003 CAS Name 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
44 Canal Cent er Pl aza

▪ Sui t e 310

▪ Al exandr i a, Vi r gi ni a 22314 ▪ Tel : (703) 684

- 0084 ▪ Fax: (703) 684

- 0427 VIA E

- MAIL and OVERNIGHT MAIL

July 14 , 2010

Mr. Jeffrey A. Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243

- 02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Mr. William Neuffer

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243

- 02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

RE: Submission of Existing Emissions Data

- Owens Corning

Dear Messrs. Telander and Neuffer:

The transmission of this data from the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

(“NAIMA”) to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is in fulfillment of Owens

Corning and NAIMA’s commitment to provide EPA existing emissions data identified in

NAIMA’s May 5, 2010 letter to EPA. Please note that this data is being provided by e

- mail and

on compact discs sent by overnight mail.

NAIMA is submitting .pdf versions via

- email and overnight mail of existing emissions data for

formaldeh yde, phenol, and methanol from Owens Corning’s various test reports. In addition,

existing emissions data for particulate matter are also included. This data was collected from

Owens Corning’s Eloy, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; Delmar, New York; Newark, Ohio;

Kansas City, Kansas; Fairburn, Georgia; Santa Clara, California; and Waxahachie, Texas

facilities.

Owens Corning has designated portions of this report as confidentia l business information

(“CBI”). The portions that are CBI have been marked as such and are b eing sent to:

Mr. Roberto Morales, Document Control Officer109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Chris Martin at (703) 684

- 0084.

We can also be contacted by e

- mail at acrane@naima.org or cmartin@naima.org

.

Sincerely,



## Angus E. Crane

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Ph: (703) 684

- 0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684

- 0427

Attachment
----

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2006/C 87/03)

Date of adoption of the decision: 

Member State: France (Alsace)

Aid No: N 68/2005

Title: Compensation for farmers in the Alsace region obliged to alter their crops due to measures for controlling and preventing the spread of western corn rootworm, for the loss of revenue caused by the change in crops

Objective: Preventative measure under the prevention plan against western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Le Conte)

Legal basis: Articles L 251-1 et suivants du Code rural

Budget: EUR 600 000

Aid intensity or amount: The aid is capped at EUR 160 per hectare of corn lost in the focus zone, i.e. around 60 % of loss, and EUR 80 per hectare of corn lost in the safety zone, i.e. around 50 % of the loss

Duration: 

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision: 

Member State: France

Aid No: N 273/2005

Title: Aid for diversification of the production of cut flowers (ONIFLHOR)

Objective: To support investment in horticultural holdings producing cut flowers, enabling them to diversify flower production and adapt supply to the new demands of consumers

Budget: EUR 4 million over four years

Aid intensity or amount: 50 % in a less favoured area, 40 % in other areas (55 % and 45 % for young farmers)

Duration: Maximum four years

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1155

In Re: ANTHONY EUGENE BROOKS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(5:09-cv-01547; 5:10-cv-00982)

Submitted: March 21, 2011 Decided: April 22, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Eugene Brooks, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Eugene Brooks petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing his immediate release or an order for 

“the Government to show cause why an evidentiary hearing should 

not be held immediately.” We conclude that Brooks is not 

entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 

mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a 

clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan 

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be 

used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Brooks is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 261   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 126    | 141    | 6,151  | 239    | 1,056  | 3,890  | 399    | 106    | 167    | 462   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 481    | 34     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Meeting with Duke Energy and Southern on Coal Combustion Residue Regulation

June 10, 2009

Pat Quinn, representing Duke Ener gy, identified two concerns Duke would like to talk about: (1) phasing out of wet basins, and (2) implicatio ns of rulemaking on bene ficial uses of coal

combustion residue.

John Pemberton of Southern began the discussion on beneficial use. He s uggested that the issue might better be addressed in an ANPR than a pro posal, given the broad co ncerns about potential effects on beneficial use, the lack of informa tion, and the potential interest of other federal agencies. On the disposal side, he and Bill T yndall of Duke supported a Subtitle D approach.

Bill Tyndall of Duke summarized concerns wi th a requirement that surface impoundments be phased out. He stated that a pha se-out would raise wastewater tr eatment issues, as well as cost concerns. He cited storm water ponds of 8000 acres that had received coal ash; closing these out could raise problems with wastewater manageme nt. FGD wastewater ponds were needed for evaporation, and treatment of chlorides, sulfates, and boron.

Industry representatives also reported that retr ofitting plants for dry-handling could involve huge equipments costs, and they had concern about the availability of equipment needed for alternative handling approaches. The report th at state permitting processes for alternative management approaches, in their expe rience, would take 5 to 8 years.

They also argued that phasing out wet impoundme nts would particularly be challenging for smaller plants, and they might have to shut down because they weren’t cost effective. As an alternative, they suggested that EPA develop, un der subtitle D, performa nce-based criteria that would allow older impoundments to remain in us e (if they met criteria on such elements as stability and groundw ater protection).

Finally, industry representative s stated that a hazardous wa ste designation would impose a stigma on beneficial use of coal combustion re sidue, which would likely eliminate beneficial uses. They also cited liability concern, and referred to potential customers (e.g., CalTrans) who indicated to them they would not pursue bene ficial uses in the face of a hazardous waste

determination.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 190 (Friday, September 29, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25138]


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

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2200


Rules of Procedure

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; elimination of expiration date.

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

SUMMARY: On February 19, 1999 the Occupational Safety and Health Review 
Commission issued a final rule amending its rules of procedure to add a 
new Subpart H to part 2200 consisting of Sec. 2200.120 64 FR 8243. In 
that section the Commission established a mandatory settlement process 
known as the Settlement Part as a pilot program for a one-year trial 
period.
    In order to more effectively evaluate the Settlement Part the 
Commission, on February 15, 2000, extended the pilot program through 
September 30, 2000. 65 FR 7434. While the evaluation was based on 
limited data, it showed generally positive results, including 
substantial satisfaction among the program's users. Accordingly, the 
Commission has determined to eliminate the expiration date and make the 
Settlement Part a permanent part of its Rules of Procedure. The 
Chairman will continue to monitor the program and to assess its 
effectiveness.

EFFECTIVE DATE: As of September 29, 2000 the expiration date for 
Subpart H consisting of Sec. 2200.120 is removed and the subpart 
becomes a permanent part of 29 CFR part 2200.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl R. Ohman, Jr., General Counsel, 
One Lafayette Centre, 1120 20th St., NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 
20036-3419, phone (202) 606-5410.

    Dated: September 26, 2000.
Thomasina V. Rogers,
Chairman.
Gary L. Visscher,
Commissioner.
Stuart E. Weisberg,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 00-25138 Filed 9-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7600-01-M
#### LEWELLEN et ux. v. STATE.

No. 2552.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Oct. 11, 1946.

Letcher D. King, of Abilene, for appellants.

Grover Sellers, Atty. Gen., and Ney Sheridan, Jr., of Sweetwater, for appellee.

GRISSOM, Chief Justice.

Upon a trial to the court judgment was rendered enjoining William Lewellen and his wife and others from violating the liquor laws in Nolan County and specifically from violating said laws at their place of business known as the Rock Inn, and from operating the Rock Inn as a common nuisance. The Rock Inn was ordered padlocked for a period of one year. From said judgment William Lewellen and wife have appealed.

The State’s petition was filed November 15, 1945, and the case went to trial on January 14, 1946. The substance of appellants’ contentions is that the court erred in rendering said judgment because the undisputed evidence showed that appellants stopped violating the law on September 1, 1945. Lewellen testified that there had been no violations of the liquor laws at the Rock Inn since September 1, 1945. One of his employees testified to the effect that he had not observed any since said time. The testimony of the sheriff of Nolan County was to the effect that he and other peace officers, since September 1, 1945, had arrested twenty persons in defendants’ place of business or immediately after they had left said place for drunkenness. He also testified to finding two persons in possession of whisky under circumstances that indicated they had probably recently purchased the whisky at the Rock Inn. Said evidence, together with proof of the long continued violation of the liquor law at appellants’ place of business prior to September 1, 1945, was sufficient, in our opinion, to support the trial court’s conclusion that appellants had not stopped violating said law and to support the judgment rendered.

The judgment is affirmed.
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 13     | 17     | 22     | 38     | 25     | 30     | 37     | W      | 66    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 52     | 43     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4190 — Autostrade/SIAS/Costanera)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 75/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----