alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
l~!~=~33 5~~~ If 

oUPONT 

May 3, 2011 I I MAY -t; AM ;0: 25 

Director, Chemical Control Division (7405M) 

Room 4146 EPA East 

U .S . Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-4760 

Attn: 

Re : 

DuPont Corporate Remediation Group 

Chestnut Run Plaza, Building 715 

4417 Lancaster Pike 

Wilmington, DE 19805 

Document Control Office 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East, Room 6428 

U .S . Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-564-8930 

EPA Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0113 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U .S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and E. 1 . DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for a 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program 

(November 3, 2005) 

Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington 

Works (May 3, 2011) 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

This Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase III - Future Work Plan is submitted in accordance 

with Section V.F.2 of the above-identified MOU . The status report includes a brief description of 

the implementation status of the Phase III Future Work Plan. In addition, this report includes 

West Virginia National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data and granular 

activated carbon (GAC) treatment monitoring data that were received by DuPont as of April 22, 

2011, that are not part of the Phase III MOU monitoring activities, but are provided by DuPont 

for completeness of study. An index of the specific documents included with this status report is 

provided as an Attachment to this letter . 

If you need any additional information or further clarification, please contact me (302-999-6197) 

or Jenny Liu (302-999-3628) . 

Very truly yours, 

Andrew S. Hartten 

Project Director 

Attachment: 

Enclosures : 

Index of report documents (1 page) 

l paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report # 1 Phase I I I - May 3, 2011 

1 digital copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report # 1 Phase III - May 3, 2011 

~ ® ~ i ~', r 6 ~° ' 

~. ` .. 

E.I . du Pont de Nemours and Company 
p. 2 

Docket No. OPPT-2004-0113 May 3, 2011 

EPA-DuPont MOU 

Index 

Final Analytical Sampling Results - Ouarterlv MOU Status Report #1 Phase III 

Document/Report Title-Paper Copy No. of Pages* 

1 paper copy of the Quarterly MOU Status Report # 1 197 pages 

Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington 

Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related 

Environmental Assessment Program) 

Document/Report Title-Electronic Copy No. of Pages 

CD 1 of 1 containing the Quarterly MOU Status Report #1, 195 pages 

Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works 

(OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental 

Assessment Program) as one PDF file titled, 

Quarterly MOU Status Report #1 Phase 111050311 .PDF 

* Page count does not include blank pages caused by double-sided printing of the tables . 

Page 2 of 2 OPPT-2004-01 13 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program
From: karl_schomburg@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:23:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Karl Schomburg

, 53227-1360
From: rury@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:09:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kile Rury

Federal Way, WA 98023
From: rnbar1@advantas.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:22:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nancy Oltmanns

Aztec, NM 87410
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos CHAVEZ-MONAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50319

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*346Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Chavez-Monarez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**First National Lincoln Corporation Increases Dividend**

 

DAMARISCOTTA, Maine – (BUSINESS WIRE) – December 20, 2007 – The Board of Directors of First National Lincoln Corporation (NASDAQ: FNLC), today declared a quarterly dividend of 18.0 cents per share. This fourth-quarter dividend, which is payable January 31, 2008, to shareholders of record as of January 7, 2008, represents an increase of 12.5% or 2.0 cents per share over the fourth-quarter dividend declared in 2006 of 16.0 cents per share.

“The Company has raised its regular cash dividend for 14 consecutive years and for 49 consecutive quarters,” noted Daniel R. Daigneault, FNLC’s President & Chief Executive Officer. “The quarterly dividend of 18.0 cents per share translates into an annual dividend of 72.0 cents per share, and based on yesterday’s closing price of $14.59 per share, this results in a very attractive current annual dividend yield of 4.93%.

“Two factors have positively impacted our operating results this year,” President Daigneault went on. “The lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve over the past several months has been positive for FNLC and has contributed to an improvement in our net interest margin. At the same time, we have experienced very good growth in earning assets this year in both the loan and investment portfolios. Because of these factors and the resulting increase in earnings, the Board of Directors voted to continue to increase our quarterly dividend payout, which, as we have noted before, is important to the majority of our shareholders.”

First National Lincoln Corporation, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is the bank holding company for The First, N.A. The First is an independent community bank serving Midcoast and Downeast Maine with fourteen offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock and Washington Counties that provide consumer and commercial banking products and services. It also provides investment advisory and trust services though First Advisors, a division of the Bank.

Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this release may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These 

statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, as discussed in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

For additional information contact F. Stephen Ward, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, at 207.563.3272.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Spinnet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2008 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: March 30, 2009
No. 67532.

#### Finnfoods, Inc., and C. H. Timm & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/24453, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 CCPA 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: shaunagee@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:55:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

shauna Gee

Salt Lake City, UT 84115
From: macs@metrocast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:49:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

James MacMillan

Meredith, NH 03253
Before the Third Division,

April 6, 1964

No. 68416.

protests 60/7321, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Carson M. Simon & Co. *v.*United States,

*308Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of artificial teeth similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Maher-App & Company*v. *United States*(44 CCPA 22, C.A.D. 630), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained, except as to entry 6439, covered by protest 61/9103, which was abandoned.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
 



 

	
	








 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall
be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

															
	 TEN COM
	  	–	  	as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	–	  	 	  	Custodian	  	 
	 TEN ENT
	  	–	  	as tenants by the entireties	  		 		  	(Cust)	  		  	(Minor)
	 JT TEN
	  	–	  	as joint tenants with right	  		 		  	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
		  		  	of survivorship and not as	  		 		  	Act	  	 	  	
		  		  	tenants in common	  		 		  		  	(State)	  	

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For value received,
                                         
                                    hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 

        IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE         

 

					
	 	
	 	  	 
	
	 
	
	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE
	
	 
		
	 	  	Shares
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably
	constitute and appoint	  	 
	
	 
	Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

 Dated,
                                 

 

			
		
		 	 
	NOTICE:	 	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.


  

	
	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:
	
	   

	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO
S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Direct Final Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

Rule 102, Definitions

Prepared by: Cynthia G. Allen

Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel

October 31, 2012
pp

Adopted — 01/20/11

Submitted — 06/21/11

EPA Approved — May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26448)

Subject of this TSD: Rule 102 — Definitions

Amended — June 21, 2012

Submitted — September 21, 2012

RULE SUMMARY - SBCAPCD Rule 102, Definitions, defines terms used in their districtrule book.

Rule 102 submitted on June 21, 2011, is amended by adding and revising definitions toimprove rule clarity. The District added and modified several solvent-related and

surface-coating definitions that are used in various parts of the rulebook. The definition

of reactive organic comound was updated to include most of the exempt compounds

listed in 40 CFR 50.100(s) and an exempt compound definition was added.

Rule 102, submitted September 21, 2012, was amended by adding and/or modifying

several definitions that are used in various parts of the rulebook to improve rule clarity.

Revised definitions include the following:

• Reactive Organic Compound -

New definitions include the following:

• Aerosol Product

• Avionic Equipment

• Capture Efficiency• Carbon Adsorber• Catalytic Incinerator

• Control Device• Control Device Efficiency

• Electronic Components• Electrostatic Spray• Enclosed Cleaning System

• Exempt Compound
• Photoresist Coating• Reactive Organic Compound Composite Partial Pressure

• Scientific Instrument• South Coast Air Quality Management District Method 303-91, Determination of

Exempt Compounds, August 1996

• South Coast Air Quality Management District Method 313-91, Determination of

Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrométry, June

1993

• Space Vehicle

• Temporary Total Enclosure

• Thermal Incinerator

• Total Enclosure

• Transfer Efficiency

• Waste Solvent Residue

The Santa Barbara County APCD does not anticipate any emission changes or any

significant impacts to regulated sources or the APCD resulting from the amendments to

Rule 102.

EPA Evaluation

There will be no effect on air pollution emissions from Rule 102 since the changes are

mostly administrative.EPA is recommending approval of Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 102 under section

110(k) as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and Part D of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990.

Attachments

1. Submitted Rule 102, Definitions (amended June 21, 2012).

2. SIP Approved Rule 102 (adopted January 20, 2011).3. Strikeout/underline version of Rule 102 (amended June 21, 2012).