alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

March 29, 2011

Mr. John A. Benedict, Director

Division of Air Quality

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

601 57th Street, SE

Charleston, West Virginia 25304

Dear Mr. Benedict:

On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the heathbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) by establishing 

a new 1-hour standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb). This new 1-hour standard will 

protect public health by reducing people’s exposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) 

concentrations of SO2. An area meets the new standard when the 3-year average of the 99th

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. 

Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) describes the process EPA follows for 

designating areas as meeting or not meeting a new or revised NAAQS. Within one year of 

establishing a new or revised standard, each governor must recommend a designation of 

attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable, with appropriate boundaries, for areas within their 

jurisdiction. Therefore, we ask that your state provide designation recommendations, including 

appropriate area boundaries, for all areas by June 3, 2011, with respect to the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

The enclosed memorandum provides guidance to state and local air pollution control 

agencies and tribes on the timeline and process for designating areas under the revised SO2

standard. We plan to announce our intended designations no later than 120 days prior to 

promulgating final designations. Following the announcement of intended designations, states 

and tribes will have the opportunity to comment on any modifications EPA proposes to their 

recommendations. EPA intends to complete designations by no later than June 3, 2012.
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

Establishing area designations is a key step in the process of providing the health 

protection intended by the CAA. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me 

or have your staff contact Ms. Irene Shandruk at (215) 814-2166 or Ms. Ruth Knapp at (215) 

814-2191.

Sincerely,

/s/

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Fred Durham, Assistant Director, Planning

 Division of Air Quality, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
### §7104. Certificates for medical doctors and nurses

A certificate of registry as a medical doctor or professional nurse may be issued only to an applicant who has a license as a medical doctor or registered nurse, respectively, issued by a State.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 540.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 7104 | 46:243 |

Section 7104 requires an applicant for a certificate of registry as a medical doctor or professional nurse to have, as a prerequisite, a license as a medical doctor or registered nurse issued by a State.
Exhibit 32.1


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 Annual Report of China Sun Group High-Tech Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bin Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: Septembe 14, 2010




/s/ Guosheng FuGuosheng Fu, Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Bruce D.Horn, Chief Financial Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:**1.**The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and**2.**The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly Report and results ofoperations of the Company for the periods covered by the Quarterly Report.**In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 9th day of February, 2007.   /s/ Bruce D. Horn   Bruce D. Horn  Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SECand is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Actof 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### § 1227.107 When will the ONRR Director decide whether to approve a State's delegation proposal?

The ONRR Director will decide whether to approve your delegation proposal within 90 days after your delegation proposal is considered complete under § 1227.104. ONRR may extend the 90-day period with your written consent.

[62 FR 43084, Aug. 12, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 61087, Oct. 4, 2010]
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


                     Commodore Separation Technologies, Inc.
                    Certification Of Chief Executive Officer
           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 Commodore Separation Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended June 30,
2004, Paul Hannesson 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 the
best of his knowledge:

         (1)  The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in
              all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of
              operations of the Company.

Date:    August 16, 2004


/s/ Paul Hannesson
------------------
Paul Hannesson
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
#### United Credit Corporation, as Assignee of Dikal Corp., et al., Respondents, v Le Roy Adventures, Inc., Doing Business as Tavern on the Green, et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 9, 1977, denying defendants’ motion for change of venue, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion granted. Plaintiff, bringing on an action to recover the cost of goods sold and delivered, is an assignee of the manufacturer who sold the goods. Plaintiff designated Nassau County for purposes of venue. In bringing on the motion, defendant claims that the manufacturer assignor’s principal office is located in Kings County and cites CPLR 503 (subd [c]) in support of this contention. Further, CPLR 503 (subd [e]) states that an assignee in an action for a sum of money only is deemed to have the same residence as the assignor at the time of assignment. All references to the presence of officers or offices in other counties are immaterial, and even though "no activities are carried on in the designated county, that county remains the residence of the corporation for venue purposes” (Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s *743Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 503, C503:3; citing *General Precision v Ametek,*45 Misc 2d 451, affd 24 AD2d 757). The statute is clear that venue is placed where one of the parties resided when the action was begun. In this case, the residence of the manufacturer being Kings County, the assignee is deemed to be a resident of the same county. Defendant is a resident of New York County and since there has been no move to change venue to Kings County, the only other county in which venue may be placed is New York County. CPLR 510 does permit a change of venue for the convenience of witnesses and promotion of the ends of justice; however, here the plaintiffs make such claim but fail to substantiate their position with the introduction of properly informative affidavits (see Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 510, C510:3). Moreover, they failed to make the requisite cross motion for retention of venue in Nassau County on that ground (CPLR 510, subd 3; see 2 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac, pars 510.05, 510.12). Concur—Birns, J. P., Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
----

| (a) | the Registration Statement (Form      S-3/A Amendment No. 3 No. 333-141098) and related prospectus of OccuLogix,      Inc. for the registration of 9,441,749 shares of common      stock; |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | the      Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-157269) and related prospectus of      OccuLogix, Inc.; |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (c) | the Registration Statement (Form      S-8 No. 333-124505) pertaining to the Employees’ Stock Option Plan of      OccuLogix, Inc.; and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (d) | the Registration Statement (Form      S-8 No. 333-155163) pertaining to Options Granted Under the OcuSense, Inc.      2003 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan and Assumed by OccuLogix, Inc., and      Options Granted Under a Certain Option Agreement between OccuLogix, Inc.      and Stephen Parks. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      25, 2009  | /s/      Ernst & Young LLP   |
|----------------------|----------------------------------|
| Toronto,      Canada | Chartered      Accountants       |
|                 | Licensed      Public Accountants |

----
Pyrethrins Joint Venture, Pyrethrins Stewardship Program

– Update to EPA February 12, 2013

Meeting Notes

Attendees

EPA : Aaron Niman, Bayazid Sarkar, David Miller, Elizabeth Evans, Eric Miederhoff, James Nguyen, Joel Wolf, Garland Waleko, Dana Friedman

PJV : Rick Kingston (Safety Call), Tom Osimitz (Science Strategies), Jessica Bartlow (CSPA), Jan Sharp (MGK), Janelle Kaye (Prentiss LLC, call

- in )

The PJV provided an update on the progress of the Pyrethrin Stewardship Program. The PSP is bein g conducted as a condition of registration outlined in the 2006 RED, which suggested a possible connection between use of pyrethrins and allergic and respiratory reactions in susceptible people. The meeting focused on questions and recommendations that were rais ed in EPA’s mid

- point review of the PSP’s second

- year report providing data on incidents reported to member companies and their follow

- up results.

Discussion items included :

• T. Osimitz reported on the findings of the industry literature review and analysis of

cases

.

• MGK’s delayed response time is due to incident reporting being made initially to MGK’s supplemental distributors, who have their own poison control hotlines. To enter the PSP, these incidents must be forwarded to MGK, who then forward t hem to Safety Call for screening and possible follow

- up.

• PJV provided a revised interview script and increased the financial incentive for callers to undergo the questionnaire. So far, the incentive has increased response rates 30%.

• Going forward, the PJV will provide the report data to EPA in SAS format

• Proposed follow through:

o The PJV must redouble efforts to improve to more quickly move qualified cases to SafetyCall for rapid follow

- up. The PJV must work to gain greater participa tion by members and customers.

o One of the goals of the PSP is to follow up with reporting consumers and conduct patch testing for PY sensitivity

. The SafetyCall script includes an offer to provide a sample and guidance for a diagnostic patch test. PY PS P agreed to increase outreach efforts on this issue.• MGK will look at:

o W hether there appears to be an effect from mitigation on incident reports

o W hether there is a ny commonality between reports

o EPA will review the upcoming PSP report submission and may subsequently require sales information for certain product(s)
United Stat es Steel Corporation

– Keetac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request April 24, 2012
**Item 14** For the period from January 1, 2002, to the date of receipt of this letter, provide NO X emissions data from each indurating furnace for each day , and also for a thirty

- day rolling average. **Person(s): that provided information used or considered i n responding to the question or**  **were consulted in the preparation of the response:** Stephani Campbell **Answer:** As per our conference call on April 12, 2012 a spreadsheet has been included in this submittal provi di ng emissions data by day and as a thirty day

rolling average since the CEMS units were certified. Also please note the facilit y was idled in December 2008 until December 2009 so there is no data to provide during that timeframe . This is noted in the spreadsheet as well
.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn improved model of the Earth's gravitational field: GEM-T1Goddard Earth Model T1 (GEM-T1), which was developed from an analysis of direct satellite tracking observations, is the first in a new series of such models. GEM-T1 is complete to degree and order 36. It was developed using consistent reference parameters and extensive earth and ocean tidal models. It was simultaneously solved for gravitational and tidal terms, earth orientation parameters, and the orbital parameters of 580 individual satellite arcs. The solution used only satellite tracking data acquired on 17 different satellites and is predominantly based upon the precise laser data taken by third generation systems. In all, 800,000 observations were used. A major improvement in field accuracy was obtained. For marine geodetic applications, long wavelength geoidal modeling is twice as good as in earlier satellite-only GEM models. Orbit determination accuracy has also been substantially advanced over a wide range of satellites that have been tested.Document ID19870020534Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMarsh, J. G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Lerch, F. J.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Christodoulidis, D. C.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Putney, B. H.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Felsentreger, T. L.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Sanchez, B. V.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Smith, D. E.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Klosko, S. M.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Martin, T. V.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Pavlis, E. C.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1987Subject CategoryGeophysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4019REPT-87B0451NASA-TM-4019Accession Number87N29967Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870020534.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### MOSER, Respondent, v. BANKERS’ SURETY CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 17, 1905.)

Action by Lena Moser against the Bankers’ Surety Company. No opinion. Motion to correct return granted.
Universal Airlines, Inc. 207 Storehouse Dr. 

Victoria, TX 77904 

c:: 

XT 

> 

UJ 

sr 

-:y:..^.rv; 

rn-3-;rr) 

ooo 

c/:> 

July 2,2011 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor, 

RoomW12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Exemption No. 9413 

Dear Sirs, 

Universal Airlines, Inc. would like to request an extension of Exemption No. 9413 from 

14 CFR (FAR Section) - 91.9 (a), docket number FAA-2002-12171. Our current 

exemption expires 7/31/11. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Smith 

President 

Universal Airlines, Inc.
### §51907. Provision of decorations, medals, and replacements

The Secretary of Transportation may provide—

(1) the decorations and medals authorized by this chapter and replacements for those decorations and medals; and

(2) replacements for decorations and medals issued under a prior law.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(b), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1585; Pub. L. 109–163, div. C, title XXXV, §3510, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3557; Pub. L. 110–181, div. C, title XXXV, §3523(a)(5)(A), (b), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 599, 600.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 51907 | 46 App.:2004(c). | Pub. L. 100–324, §5(c), May 30, 1988, 102 Stat. 577. |

Section

The Secretary's authority to provide decorations and medals at cost, or to authorize the sale of decorations and medals at reasonable prices, is restated to apply only to replacement awards because Congress probably did not intend that recipients being honored would pay for their decorations and medals.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–181, §3523(b), repealed Pub. L. 109–163, §3510. See 2006 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 110–181, §3523(a)(5)(A), incorporated the substance of the amendment by Pub. L. 109–163, §3510, into this section by amending section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Secretary of Transportation may—

"(1) authorize private persons to manufacture decorations and medals authorized under this chapter or a prior law; and

"(2) provide at cost, or authorize private persons to sell at reasonable prices, replacements for those decorations and medals."

See 2006 Amendment note below and section 18(a) of Pub. L. 109–304, set out as a Legislative Purpose and Construction note preceding section 101 of this title.

2006—Pub. L. 109–163, §3510, which directed the amendment of section 2004(c) of the former Appendix to this title from which this section was derived, was repealed by Pub. L. 110–181, §3523(b). See 2008 Amendment notes and Historical and Revision notes above.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.1474 May I seek judicial review of the decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals?

Under 30 U.S.C. 1719(j), you may seek judicial review of the decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals. A suit for judicial review in the District Court will be barred unless filed within 90 days after the final order.
#### § 1202.557 Must I pay royalty on insurance compensation for unavoidably lost gas?

If you receive insurance compensation for unavoidably lost gas, you must pay royalties on the amount of that compensation. This paragraph does not apply to compensation through self-insurance.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.700 What operations and equipment does this subpart cover?

This subpart covers operations and equipment associated with drilling, completion, workover, and decommissioning activities. This subpart includes regulations applicable to drilling, completion, workover, and decommissioning activities in addition to applicable regulations contained in subparts D, E, F, and Q of this part unless explicitly stated otherwise.
# TITLE 47—TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Chap.
Sec.
1.
Telegraphs
1
2.
Submarine Cables
21
3.
Radiotelegraphs [Repealed]
51
4.
Radio Act of 1927 [Repealed or Omitted]
81
5.
Wire or Radio Communication
151
6.
Communications Satellite System
701
7.
Campaign Communications [Repealed]
801
8.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
901
9.
Interception of Digital and Other Communications
1001
10.
Satellite Carrier Retransmission Eligibility [Reserved]
1101
11.
Commercial Mobile Service Alerts
1201
12.
Broadband
1301
13.
Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions
1401
14.
Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless
1501
15.
Secure and Trusted Communications Networks
1601
16.
Broadband Access
1701