alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Ch andana_L._Achanta@ omb.eop.gov>

To: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Mora n/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <Neil.Eisner@dot.gov>,

<rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, Maur een Delaney/ DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/17/2010 01:46 PM

Subject: Meeting to discuss joint notice of intent

You may remember from the last call that CEQ was interested in making sure changes in final

rule do not impact the notice of intent. I got a specific request for a face to face meeting with

you all on just this topic this week (instead of a conference call or a document). I will include

CEQ and OECC for this meeting. Looks like 12 noon tomorrow and 4PM tomorrow are the only

available times on our end. Would those work for you?

Thanks

Chandana
E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Dr., Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919) 484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

TO: Project File

FROM: Jeff Harris, Beth Friedman, EC/R Inc.

DATE: January 3, 2012

SUBJECT: Estimation of airflow for ferroalloys facility building ventilation baghouses

__________________________________________________________________________

This memo was prepared in response to a question regarding “any calculations or other 

documentation that support the selection of 150,000 cfm sizing for the baghouses that EPA 

assumes would be needed to provide total building capture ventilation.” The questioner noted 

that the Ferroalloys proposal stated “For each facility, we estimated the square footage of shop 

building air that would need to be evacuated and the size of control device that would be 

required” [page 72536 of FR Notice Preamble 23 November 2011]. 

The building ventilation cost estimates associated with the proposed regulation were 

developed by Mikropul Inc., using parameters based on information from another ferroalloy 

plant which is not regulated by the proposed NESHAP. This facility is CC Metals and Alloys, 

LLC (CCMA), located in Calvert City, KY. We had become aware that CCMA employs a 

system which captures emissions from the roof vents of one of their furnace shops, and routes 

them to a control device (a baghouse.) 

Although the ducts for the ventilation system are visible in satellite photos, details of 

CCMA’s system were unclear from available information, so plant representatives were 

contacted for additional detail. On June 10, 2011, EC/R participated in a phone call with CCMA 

contractors. They informed us that a single baghouse had formerly been used to control 

emissions from both the #6 and #9 furnaces, but that when the #9 furnace was shut down, they 

were left with approximately 100,000 cfm of excess baghouse capacity. This excess capacity 

was later used to draw air from the roof monitors of the building housing furnaces #15 & 16. 

They informed us that the main furnace hoods for furnaces #15 & 16 draw significant ambient 

building airflow, in addition to capture of furnace and tapping emissions. The exact amount of 

ambient airflow captured was not quantified, but assumed to be less than the airflow into the roof 

vents. For the purpose of our estimate, we assumed 50,000 cfm. 

Using Google Earth to approximate building dimensions, we estimated the volume of the 

buildings to be evacuated at Eramet and Felman, and determined that they were roughly 

comparable to the #15/16 building at CCMA. This allowed the assumption that a baghouse 

providing approximately 150,000 cfm of airflow would provide a similar level of control to that 

being achieved at CCMA.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Michael Ceccon, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Kitcher Resources Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kitcher Resources Inc. for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Kitcher Resources Inc.





Date: March 19, 2012
 
 /s/ "Michael Ceccon"Michael CecconPresident, Chief Executive Officer
 
  /s/ "Michael Ceccon"Michael CecconChief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kitcher Resources Inc. and will be retained by American Resources Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION

Exhibit 24.1 - POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOWN ALL ME BY THESE PRESENT - that each person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Joseph E. O'Dell and David R. Tomb,
Jr., and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents,
with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name,
place and power of substitution and resubstitution, for  him and in his
name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all
amendments (including post-effective amendments) to this Form 10-K, and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to
do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to do
done, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents or either of them, or their or his substitutes, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, this report
has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated.

SIGNATURE AND CAPACITY                                            DATE

/S/JOSEPH E. O'DELL                                           March 12, 1996
Joseph E. O'Dell, President and CEO and Director

/S/DAVID R. TOMB, JR.                                         March 12, 1996
David R. Tomb, Jr., Senior Vice President, Secretary 
and Treasurer and Director

/S/JOHN J. DOLAN                                              March 12, 1996
John J. Dolan, Sr. Vice President and Comptroller & CFO (1)  

/S/A. B. HALLSTROM                                            March 13, 1996
A. B. Hallstrom,Director
 
/S/E. H. BRUBAKER                                             March 15, 1996
E. H. Brubaker, Director

/S/RONALD C. GEISER                                           March 12, 1996
Ronald C. Geiser, Director

/S/DALE P. LATIMER                                            March 12, 1996
Dale P. Latimer, Director

/S/HARVEY H. HEILMAN, JR.                                     March 12, 1996
Harvey H. Heilman, Jr., Director

/S/CHARLES J. SZEWCZYK                                        March 12, 1996
Charles J. Szewczyk, Director

/S/SUMNER E. BRUMBAUGH                                        March 12, 1996
Sumner E. Brumbaugh, Director

/S/JOHNSTON A. GLASS                                          March 12, 1996
Johnston A. Glass, Director

/S/JOSEPH E. PROSKE                                           March 13, 1996
Joseph E. Proske, Director

(1) Also Chief Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

I, Stephen M. Siedow, certifythat:

1.      I have reviewed this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Petrocorp Inc.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.      The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            a.           Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

            b.            Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

            c.            Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; 

5.      The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

      a.           All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

      b.          Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May20, 2010

/s/ Stephen M. Siedow 

     Stephen M. Siedow

     CFO
NULL-LAIRSON






Securities  and  Exchanges  Commission
Washington,  D.C.  20549

Gentlemen:

We  were  previously  principal  accountants for ESCO Transportation, Co. and we
have  reviewed  the  disclosure contained in Form 10-KSB for year ended December
31,  1998  including  Item  8,  regarding  changes  in  and  disagreements  with
accountants  on  accounting  and financial disclosure regarding the Registrant's
certifying  accountant  and  we  agree  with  the  statements  made  therein.

Very  truly  yours,


/S/  Null-Lairson,  P.C.
------------------------
Null-Lairson,  P.C.
Certified  Public  Accountants


<PAGE>
# Official Journal L 239/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 239 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6515 September 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 239

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6515 September 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 149 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

149

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7006

DAVID L. HENDERSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in 05-0090, Chief Judge William P. Greene, Jr.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' motion for leave to file a

corrected brief,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

MAR 2 5 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Date FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

MAR 2 5 2009

CLERK

cc:	Thomas W. Stoever, Jr., Esq.

Todd M. Hughes, Esq.

s8
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350 The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004 of Phelps Dodge Corporation (the Company) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ J. Steven WhislerName:
    
    J. Steven WhislerTitle:
    
    Chairman and
Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    March 7, 2005
 The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2004 of Phelps Dodge Corporation (the Company) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Ramiro G. PeruName:
    
    Ramiro G. PeruTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    March 7, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1222

HILTON LAWRENCE BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA98-4149-CCB) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hilton Lawrence Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Hilton Lawrence Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994). Because Brown may be able to save this action by amending his complaint, the district court’s order is not an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (a dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects). We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)


OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND


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 on Form 10-Q of Consolidation Services,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the three month period ended March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Johnny R. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(a)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




(b)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.






Dated:
May 12, 2009


CONSOLIDATION
SERVICES, INC.






By: /s/ Johnny R. Thomas


Johnny R.
Thomas


Chief
Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Consolidation Services, Inc. and will be
retained by Consolidation Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0334 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-001-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs: 

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Repair 1.0 $ 85.00 $50 $ 135.00

Replacement 4.0 $ 340.00 $200 $ 540.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs 

table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3467

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jose Cruz Hermosillo-Banuelos, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 25, 2004

 Filed: June 1, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Cruz Hermosillo-Banuelos appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture

or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Hermosillo-Banuelos argues the district court clearly erred in denying him a minorparticipant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Lopez-Arce, 267

F.3d 775, 784 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). 
-2-

We find no clear error, because Hermosillo-Banuelos knew that he was

transporting drugs, the transaction involved a significant quantity, and he was to

receive $1,000 for his role in the transaction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5)

(minor participant means “a defendant . . . who is less culpable than most other

participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal”); United States v.

Santos-Garcia, 313 F.3d 1073, 1081 (8th Cir. 2002) (role as courier does not

automatically entitle defendant to downward adjustment); cf. United States v. Ortiz,

236 F.3d 420, 422 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming denial of minor-participant reduction

where defendant drove car used for transporting drugs and seemed quite aware of

what was happening during drug sale); United States v. Alverez, 235 F. 3d 1086,

1090-91 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirming denial of minor-participant reduction where

defendant was aware of substantial quantity of narcotics in spare tire, and even

though defendant may have only acted as courier, his sentence was based solely on

quantity of drugs found in his vehicle), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1031 (2001).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
| (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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 5, 2010 | /s/Ronald N. Tutor                   |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                 | Ronald N. Tutor                      |
|                 | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |