alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" < Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov >
Date: 05/30/2012 07:47 AM Subject: Fw: memo to docket

Cortney

- here's the memo you wanted to see

- I'm copying the preamble paragraph where it was
referenced.

Sharon V. Nizich Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG) Sector Policies and Programs Division
OAQPS

- US EPA

RTP NC 27711 919/541

- 2825

----- Forwarded by Sharon Nizich/RTP

Commenters identified another factor contributing to the difficulty of meeting PS 11 correlation requirements and that would be low PM concentrations with a corresponding low applicable emissions limit. We have recently reevaluated the capabilities of the EPA Method 5 for measuring low
concentrations of PM (see memo to docket) and have determined a Method 5 method detection limit
of about for a 1

- hour test run of approximately 2 mg/dscm. The uncertainty of a measurement at this PM concentration would be from 50 to 100 percent (i.e., ±1 to 2 mg/dscm). We can determine a practical quantitation limit (PQL) using~3 x method detection limit to reduce that Method 5 measurement uncertainty to ±10 to 20 percent. That means that the PQL for a 1 hour test run with Method 5 would be approximately 6 mg/dscm. The Portland cement MACT PM emissions limit 0.02 lb/ton of clinker equates to 6 to 10 mg/dscm, depending on production rate (assuming a typical total gas flow rate per clinker production rate). As noted above, PS 11 specifies acceptable criteria for a correlation directly related to the applicable emissions limit. For example, inherent uncertainty associated with the Method 5 measurement alone would readily approach ±25 percent of the applicable limit acceptance threshold. Factoring in the inheren t PM CEMS response variability, we agree with commenters that trying to satisfy PS 11 at such low concentrations would be problematic. This condition applies regardless of the type of PM CEMS technology used.

Sharon V. Nizich Minerals and Manufacturing G roup (MMG) Sector Policies and Programs Division
OAQPS

- US EPA

RTP NC 27711 919/541

- 2825

(See attached file: 014_mdl clcltns 040512_8 cln.pdf)
2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-18-2011 

# C B S C or p or a t ion v

. F C C

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 06-3575

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C B S C or por a t ion v

. F C C " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 132. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/132

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06

- 3575

___________ CBS CORPORATION; CBS BROADCASTING INC.; CBS TELEVISIONSTATIONS INC.; CBS STATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS L.P.; and KUTV HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioners

v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents

_______________________ Petition for Review of Orders of the Federal Communications Commission FCC Nos. 06

- 19 and 06

- 68

______________ Argued September 11, 2007 Decided July 21, 2008 Certiorari Granted, Judgment Vacated and Remanded from the Supreme Court of the United States

May 4, 2009 Argued on Remand February 23, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION
During the course of the litigation Mr. Jerome Shesta ck co - counsel for CBS joined the law firm of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, but did not file a change of address with the Clerk. Mr. Shestack has since passed away.

### At the direction of the Court it is hereby O R D E R E D that t he opinion shall be

amended to reflect the change as follows: Jerome J. Shestack, Esq. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 1600 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk Date: November 18, 2011
# C_2005006EN.01002002.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-164/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/17/EC - Reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 6/39)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-164/04: action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 31 March 2004, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Shotter) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. Jackson) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | By not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-2-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-1-2000
<CASH>                                           7,388
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,949
<INVENTORY>                                     34,519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,424
<PP&E>                                          18,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,282
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,405
<SALES>                                         42,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,697
<CGS>                                           38,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                       956
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,560
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,560
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM November 2022

Firebreak (394)

D.1 (+) 

Surface 

erosion, 

runoff, and 

sediment 

D.8 (+/-) Wildlife 

movement (species 

specific)

C.1 (+/-) Income 

and income 

stability 

(individuals and 

community)

I.6 (+/-) Wild animal 

stress (speciesspecific)

I.2 (+) 

Recreation 

business 

and support 

infrastructure

C.3 (+) Health and safety for humans and 

domestic animals; (+/-) health and safety for 

wild animals

Initial setting: Areas with fuel loadings or flammable conditions that 

pose a risk of wildfire or sites that are planned for prescribed burning. 

Sites are or can be grazed by wildlife or livestock.

D.3 (+) 

Contractor 

income

2. Breaks in 

canopy and 

ground 

vegetation

D.11 (-) Fire 

hazard and 

fire frequency

I.11 (-) 

Greenhouse 

gases

I.10 (-) Emissions: embers, 

particulate matter, 

CO/CO2, volatile organics, 

nitrogen oxide

C.2 (+/-) Air 

quality of the 

airshed

I.1 (+) Quality 

of receiving 

waters 

D.7 (+) Cost of installation 

and maintenance I.7 (-) 

Landowner 

liability

Critical Area Planting 

(342)

Sediment Basin (350)

Use Exclusion (472)

I.3 (+) Local 

business 

support 

infrastructure

D.5 (+) Airborne 

particulate matter

I.8 (-) 

Wildfire 

suppression 

activities 

and costs

D.4 (+) Potential 

for noxious and 

invasive plants

Pest Management 

Conservation System 

(595)

I.4 (-) Air quality 

(short term) 

D.2 (+) 

Recreational 

access

1. Exposed soil on 

non-vegetated lanes

I.5 (+/-) Net 

landowner return

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

I.9 (+) Air quality 

(long term) 

D.6 (+) Livestock 

access and distribution

Start

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

D.9 

(+)Travel 

routes, 

vectors, for 

insects, 

diseases 

C.4 (+/-) 

Health and 

diversity of 

vegetative 

communities

D.10 (+) Habitat 

for edge-adapted 

wildlife species 

Prescribed Grazing (528)

Prescribed Burning (338
# Utah State Office

125 South State Street, Room 4010Salt Lake CityUT84138

801-524-4550

125 South State Street, Room 4010Salt Lake CityUT84138

Utah

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  Utah 
-  Utah State Office 

Utah NRCS provides voluntary, cost-effective program and technical assistance to landowners to conserve, protect and improve soil, water, air, plants and animals, and enable farmers and landowners to manage their property and remain economically viable.

## **Welcome to NRCS in Utah!**

### ***Emily Fife, State Conservationist***

At the Natural Resources Conservation Service, we proudly serve Utah's agricultural community. Led by our State Conservationist we provide both financial and technical assistance to help our farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners conserve natural resources and meet their unique conservation needs.

----

## Key Contacts

### Media Inquiries/Community Outreach

                -    385-478-0972 
                -    Sarah.Welliver@usda.gov 

### Snow Survey & Water Supply Questions

                -    385-285-3118 
                -    Jordan.Clayton@usda.gov 

----

##   NRCS Utah State Office
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-01-1997
<CASH>                                       4,150,670               5,009,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 98,068,920              80,552,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                      18,882,121              13,028,428
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,905,162               2,394,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             229,678,269             200,604,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       170,260             149,323,527
<OTHER-SE>                                 135,401,233             (9,281,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               229,678,269             200,604,081
<SALES>                                    196,034,252             169,427,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           196,034,252             169,427,241
<CGS>                                       60,025,129              43,316,498
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              167,567,961             139,792,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            35,867,096              25,458,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,531,835               1,602,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,271,167)               3,712,893
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,997,705)               2,688,331
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,273,462)               1,024,562
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0               (213,835)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,273,462)               1,238,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.55)                     .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)                     .07
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,715
<SECURITIES>                                         7
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                       156
<INVENTORY>                                      6,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,580
<PP&E>                                           4,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,340
<SALES>                                          4,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,062
<CGS>                                            1,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,271)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
# C_2005059EN.01000601.xml

| 9.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3694 — Hochtief/ABB/JV)

(2005/C 59/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3694. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3694. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
HomeSite Help

# NRC Site Search: Event Reports

### Filter by Document Type

 All                   - All
                  - Event Notifications
                  - Power Reactor Status
                  - Part 21 Reports
                  - Prelim Notifications
                  - Morning Reports

### Sort Documents by

Sort by                  - Relevance
                  - Date

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, December 28, 2023

#### Related Information

                - Event Reports

Section Navigation

#### Site Help

          - Search All Sites
          - Main Site
          - News Releases
          - Public Documents (ADAMS)
          - Agency Correspondence
          - Commission Documents
          - Commission Papers
          - Commission Speeches
          - Contracts
          - Enforcement
          - Event Reports
          - Facility Locator
          - FOIA
          - Generic Communications
          - Glossary
          - Images
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Reports
          - NSTS Blog
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - Reactor Oversight
          - Regulations (10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan
# C_2005019EN.01003201.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/32

---

Action brought on 5 November 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-443/04)

(2005/C 19/66)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 November 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission's memoranda of 27 August 2004 (DOCUP Abruzzo), 3 September 2004 (DOCUP Lazio), 15 September 2004 (POR Molise), 17 September 2004 (PON Sviluppo Imprenditoriale Locale (local business development)), 17 September 2004 (DOCUP Veneto), 20 September 2004 (POR Calabria) and 22 September 2004 (DOCUP Liguria), all of which make the implementation of the procedures for the payment of advances under the aid schemes subject to obligations which are not laid down in the relevant rules, with the effect of unlawfully restricting the admissibility of the operating costs of the Structural Funds to which they relate; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission's memoranda of 27 August 2004 (DOCUP Abruzzo), 3 September 2004 (DOCUP Lazio), 15 September 2004 (POR Molise), 17 September 2004 (PON Sviluppo Imprenditoriale Locale (local business development)), 17 September 2004 (DOCUP Veneto), 20 September 2004 (POR Calabria) and 22 September 2004 (DOCUP Liguria), all of which make the implementation of the procedures for the payment of advances under the aid schemes subject to obligations which are not laid down in the relevant rules, with the effect of unlawfully restricting the admissibility of the operating costs of the Structural Funds to which they relate;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.

1

---