alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PHILADELPHIA AREA

2009 banked emission credits

includes: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties

COUNTY COMPANY NAME

DEP PF 

ID

EPA 

FACILITY ID

PERMIT 

#

VOC 

TPY

NOX 

TPY

SOX 

TPY

CO 

TPY

PM10 

TPY

PM 2.5 

TPY

certified 

(transfer) expire

Bucks Rohm & Hass 245649 420170009 09-00015 1.47 2002 2010-11

Bucks Minnesota Mining (3M) 1177 420170056 09-00005 758.00 2002 2011

Bucks Waste Mgt Disposal Services 252449 420170408 09-00007 43.00 (2004) 2012

Bucks Waste Mgt Disposal Services 252449 420170408 09-00007 70.00 (2004) 2012

Chester Worthington Steel Co 516084 420290127 15-00016 10.00 2005 2013

Chester NVF Company 245076 15-000030 34.05 18.86 28.42 2009 2015

Delaware Foamex, LP 244059 23-00006 84.25 7.67 1.03 26.93 2009 2018

Delaware Norcross Safety Products 240824 23-00025 7.62 2009 2017

Delaware Sun Company, Inc/ Sunoco 292970 420450025 23-00001 147.93 2002 none

Delaware Congloeum Corp 240876 420450049 23-00021 0.90 5.20 1998 none

Delaware Sentry Paint 3476 420450039 3.56 2004 2013

Montgomery Harvard Industries 482549 420910059 8.70 28.25 2003 2011

Montgomery Glasgow Inc 294861 420910023 46-00043 0.73 9.26 2003 2010

Montgomery Allegro Microsystems 481603 420910070 46-00006 42.61 2003 2012

Montgomery Allegro Microsystems 481603 420910070 46-00006 2.90 1.30 2004 2013

Montgomery Penco Products 516229 420910005 29.48 3.11 2003 2011

Montgomery

Bluegrass Folding Carton 

(Smurfit Stone) 239549 420910017 46-00041 60.36 2015

Phila Philadelphia Baking Co 24.20 4.09 0.02 1.33 0.10 2008 2017

Phila Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) 6.54 47.86 0.16 22.48 0.56 0.56 2008 2015

Phila Kurtz Hastings Inc 4210101585 137.45 2001-2002 none

Phila Kurtz Hastings Inc 4210101585 64.55 8.01 2004 2013-14

Phila Avery Dennison 3.13 2003 2012

Phila Sea Gull Lighting Co 4210103294 12.50 2004 2013

Phila Exelon Generating Station 286.50 412.20 31.70 31.20 22.30 2005 2014

Phila Arbill Safety Products 4210103811 20.32 0.38 0.21 2006 2016

TOTAL ERCs Banked 1561.35 432.09 442.04 83.74 31.86 22.86

Saved in Phila SIP files 8/24/09 with updates
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 2013-1020

Pubs Warehouse

High-Resolution Geophysical Data Collected Aboard the U.S. Geological Survey Research Vessel *Rafael* to Supplement Existing Datasets From Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts

----

## Appendix  **�** Geospatial Data

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1020/html/ofr2013-1020_GIS_catalog.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Thursday, March 13, 2014, 02:41:57 PM
§ 13.54 Consent findings and order. ( a ) At any time prior to the receipt of evidence or, at the Administrative Law Judge's discretion prior to the issuance of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, the parties may enter into consent findings and an order disposing of the proceeding in whole or in part.
( b ) Any agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of a proceeding in whole or in part shall also provide: ( 1 ) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;
( 2 ) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the Administrator's findings letter and the agreement;
( 3 ) A waiver of any further procedural steps before the Administrative Law Judge and the Administrative Review Board regarding those matters which are the subject of the agreement; and
( 4 ) A waiver of any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement.
( c ) Within 30 calendar days after receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the Administrative Law Judge shall, if satisfied with its form and substance, accept such agreement by issuing a decision based upon the agreed findings and order. If such agreement disposes of only a part of the disputed matter, a hearing shall be conducted on the matters remaining in dispute.
#### Hardaman *v.*The State.

Murder.

(Decided January 11, 1916.

70 South. 961.)

Homicide; Record; Setting Down for Trial. — The statutes requiring a capital felony to be set down specially for trial and the entry of an order directing the sheriff to serve a copy of the indictment and venire upon the defendant are mandatory, and the record must affirmatively show compliance therewith; and while, under practice rule 27, Supreme Court, the special venire itself need not be set out in the record unless some question is raised thereon, yet this does not obviate the necessity of showing in the minutes of the court a compliance with the statute.

Appeal from Bessemer City Court.-

Heard before Hon. J. C. B. GwiN.

Bob Hardaman was indicted for murder in the first degree, and convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Pinckney Scott, and William Jackson, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

The statutes require, in the trial of felonies punishable capitally, that the case be specially set for trial, and that an order be entered directing the sheriff to serve a copy of the indictment and jury lists upon the defendant. The indictment on which the defendant was tried charges murder in the first degree, and the record proper does not show a compliance with the statutes requiring the case to be specially set for the *28day upon which a trial was had, or that an order was entered requiring the sheriff to serve a copy of the indictment on the defendant, or that service of the venire upon which he was tried was had upon defendant. The defendant objected to being put upon trial, and moved to quash the venire because of a failure to comply with these statutory requirements, and the Attorney General confesses that, because of the failure of the record to properly show these matters, the judgment of conviction should be reversed. It has been uniformly and repeatedly held that these statutes are mandatory, and that the record, to sustain a conviction, must affirmatively show a compliance with them. See *Harper v. State,*13 Ala. App. 47, 69 South. 302, and authorities there cited. These mandatory statutes referred to, a compliance therewith being necessary to be affirmatively shown by the record to sustain the judgment of conviction, are not obviated, or the error cured, by practice rule 27 (175 Ala. xx, 61 South, vii). These are matters, when necessary to be shown, that can only be shown by the minutes of the court. — Cases, supra.

The act approved September 22, 1915 (Acts 1915, pp. 708, 709), amending section 6256 of the Code of 1907, was subsequent to the trial, judgment of conviction, appeal, and preparation of the transcript and docketing of the case in this court, and can have no bearing on the case presented by this record.

Other questions do not require consideration, as they are not of a nature likely to occur on another trial.

For the reason pointed out, the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.
#### § 102.155 Payment of award.

To obtain payment of an award made by the Board, the applicant must submit to the Director of the Division of Administration, a copy of the Board's final decision granting the award, accompanied by a statement that the applicant will not seek court review of the decision. If such statement is filed, the Agency will pay the amount of the award within 60 days, unless judicial review of the award or of the underlying decision has been sought.

[82 FR 11783, Feb. 24, 2017]
#### § 26.41 Definitions.

*Affects (or Affected)* means structure has been physically repaired, altered, or modified, or the structural loads acting on the structure have been increased or redistributed.

*Baseline structure* means structure that is designed under the original type certificate or amended type certificate for that airplane model.

*Damage Tolerance Evaluation (DTE)* means a process that leads to a determination of maintenance actions necessary to detect or preclude fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure. As applied to repairs and alterations, a DTE includes the evaluation both of the repair or alteration and of the fatigue critical structure affected by the repair or alteration.

*Damage Tolerance Inspection (DTI)* means the inspection developed as a result of a DTE. A DTI includes the areas to be inspected, the inspection method, the inspection procedures, including acceptance and rejection criteria, the threshold, and any repeat intervals associated with those inspections. The DTI may specify a time limit when a repair or alteration needs to be replaced or modified. If the DTE concludes that DT-based supplemental structural inspections are not necessary, the DTI contains a statement to that effect.

*DT data* mean DTE documentation and the DTI.

*DTE documentation* means data that identify the evaluated fatigue critical structure, the basic assumptions applied in a DTE, and the results of a DTE.

*Fatigue critical structure* means airplane structure that is susceptible to fatigue cracking that could contribute to a catastrophic failure, as determined in accordance with § 25.571 of this chapter. Fatigue critical structure includes structure, which, if repaired or altered, could be susceptible to fatigue cracking and contribute to a catastrophic failure. Such structure may be part of the baseline structure or part of an alteration.

*Implementation schedule* consists of documentation that establishes the timing for accomplishing the necessary actions for developing DT data for repairs and alterations, and for incorporating those data into an operator's continuing airworthiness maintenance program. The documentation must identify times when actions must be taken as specific numbers of airplane flight hours, flight cycles, or both.

*Published repair data* mean instructions for accomplishing repairs, which are published for general use in structural repair manuals and service bulletins (or equivalent types of documents).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

TIMOTHY HANNAH,

Petitioner

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA 

SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 218 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
§ 89.401 Applicability. This subpart prescribes— ( a ) Requirements for means of compliance with subpart D of this part.
( b ) Procedural requirements for the submission and acceptance of means of compliance used in the design and production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules to ensure they meet the minimum performance requirements of this part.
( c ) Rules governing persons submitting means of compliance for FAA acceptance.
Filed 7/28/14 P. v. Kang CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SAMNANG KANG,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B249354

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA093628)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Raul A 

Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed. 

Jeffrey Lewis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

___________________________
2

Samnang Kang was charged in an information with possession of 

methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11377, subdivision (a) 

after he admitted to police officers the bindle of methamphetamine they saw him discard 

belonged to him. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. 

The trial court granted Kang’s motion for discovery of police personnel records 

(Evid. Code, § 1045; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531), reviewed the 

records at an in camera hearing and found discoverable information, which was provided 

to Kang.

A jury found Kang guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Kang to the lower 

term of 16 months in state prison. The court awarded Kang presentence custody credit of 

186 days and imposed statutory fees fines and assessments. 

We appointed counsel to represent Kang on appeal. After examination of the 

record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. In an 

accompanying declaration, appellate counsel stated he was unable to notify Kang of his 

right to file a supplemental brief because Kang had been released from custody and 

counsel did not have Kang’s current address. On March 12, 2014, we advised Kang by 

mail at county jail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions 

or issues he wished us to consider. On April 1, 2014, the notice was returned by the 

county jail and marked “unable to identify.” After resending the notice, it was again 

returned on May 19, 2014, marked “released, unable to forward.” 

We have examined the entire record, including the transcript of the in camera 

hearing, and are satisfied Kang’s counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities and 

no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 

145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436, 441.)
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

ZELON, J. 

We concur: 

WOODS, Acting P. J. 

SEGAL, J.*

*

Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
§ 89.420 Record retention. A person who submits a means of compliance that is accepted by the Administrator under this subpart must retain the following information for as long as the means of compliance is accepted plus an additional 24 calendar months, and must make available for inspection by the Administrator the following: ( a ) All documentation and substantiating data submitted to the FAA for acceptance of the means of compliance.
( b ) Records of all test procedures, methodology, and other procedures, as applicable.
( c ) Any other information necessary to justify and substantiate how the means of compliance enables compliance with the remote identification requirements of this part.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF JAMES A. RICHMAN 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 WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James A. Richman, certify, 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; 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: March 30, 2005



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES A.
RICHMAN                 
|James A. Richman Chief Financial Officer
January 7, 2016

Mr. Stewart Hamel

SkyRunner, LLC

2929 Baird Road

Shreveport, LA 71118

Dear Mr. Hamel:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your December 29, 2015, exemption request on behalf of SkyRunner, LLC into 

the public docket (No. FAA-2015-8564), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following

additional information:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days of the date of this letter. We will consider the docket on 

your request open during this period. Please note that § 11.63(d) (copy enclosed) requires you 

to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will close the docket 

without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may 

call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

James M. Crotty

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure

Code of Federal Regulation § 11.63 

Code of Federal Regulation § 11.81
3

Project No.: AXX-xx-xxx-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-104:TAdams:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol]

[Insert Stylewriter Score Here]

[INSERT ENVELOPE ADDRESS HERE]
#### W. R. Palmer, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. James M. Jackson, Jr., *Defendant in Error.*

In an action for damages where it is alleged that the defendant, a physician, “undertook the treatment of” the plaintiff, and that “it was the duty of the defendant as physician to *250properly and skillfully treat tbe plaintiff, but tbe defendant did so carelessly, negligently and unskillfully treat tbe plaintiff that be was thereby injured,” tbe cause of action is upon an “obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing,” and is barred in three years under sub-division 5 of Section 1725, of tbe General Statutes of 1906.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Dade County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*R. B. Gautier}*for Plaintiff in Error.

■Whitfield, C. J.

— On February 11th, 1910, W. R. Palmer commenced an action against James M. Jackson, Jr., a physician, to recover damages for injuries caused by the defendant’s Careless, negligent and unskillful medical treatment of the plaintiff whom he had undertaken to treat on June 25th, 1906.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and also that the cause of action did not accrue within three years before the action was commenced. A demurrer to the latter plea was overruled, and the plaintiff not desiring to amend his declaration, final judgment for the defendant was entered. Plaintiff took a writ of error which was duly recorded thereby giving this court jurisdiction of the defendant in error who is not represented by counsel here.

The declaration alleges that the defendant did “undertake the treatment of” the plaintiff; and that “It was the duty of the defendant as physician to properly and skillfully treat the plaintiff;” but the defendant did so carelessly, negligently and unskillfully treat the plaintiff that *251he was thereby injured. These allegations are applicable to a tort growing out of a contract and they do not exclude the existence of an express or implied verbal contract relation between the parties which is usual in such cases.

Thus considered the action was upon a “obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing,” and was barred in three years. Sec. 1725, subdivision 5 Gen. Stats.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur.

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
§ 102.135 Postal Reorganization Act. ( a ) *Employment-management agreements.* All matters within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act (chapter 12 of title 39, U.S. Code, as revised) are governed by the provisions of subparts A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, O, and P of this part, insofar as applicable.
( b ) *Inconsistencies.* To the extent that any provision of this subpart is inconsistent with any provision of title 39, United States Code, the provision of title 39 governs.
( c ) *Exceptions.* For the purposes of this subpart, references in the subparts cited in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to: ( 1 ) *Employer* is deemed to include the Postal Service;
( 2 ) *Act* will in the appropriate context mean *Postal Reorganization Act;*
( 3 ) *Section 9(c) of the Act* and cited paragraphs will mean *39 U.S.C. 1203(c) and 1204 ;* and
( 4 ) *Section 9(b) of the Act* will mean *39 U.S.C. 1202 .*
[82 FR 11779, Feb. 24, 2017]
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0254 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0254

**96/254/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1996 amending Decision 94/448/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in New Zealand (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 086 , 04/04/1996 P. 0075 - 0080 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 26 March 1996 amending Decision 94/448/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in New Zealand (Text with EEA relevance) (96/254/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,

Whereas the list of establishments and factory ships approved by New Zealand importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 94/448/EC (2), as last amended by Decision 96/31/EC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in New Zealand;

Whereas the competent authority in New Zealand has communicated a new list of 164 establishments and 205 factory vessels;

Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments and factory vessels;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex B of Decision 94/448/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15.

(2) OJ No L 184, 20. 7. 1994, p. 16.

(3) OJ No L 9, 12. 1. 1996, p. 6.

(4) OJ No L 8, 11. 1. 1990, p. 70.

ANNEX

'ANNEX B

LIST OF APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS AND FACTORY VESSELS

I. Establishments

>TABLE>

II. Factory Vessels

>TABLE>