alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

BECKHAM, LISA

From: Michael F. Goldman <goldmanm@sbcapcd.org>

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:08 AM

To: BECKHAM, LISA

Subject: RE: Interpretation of PSD Rule - Rule 810

Attachments: removed.txt

Lisa, 

Yes, the Santa Barbara County APCD confirms our interpretation that the version of 40 CFR 52.21 incorporated by 

reference into Rule 810 did not include the PM2.5 SILs and SMC because those provisions were no longer in effect on 

June 20, 2013. 

Sincerely, 

Mike 

Michael Goldman, Manager 

Engineering Division 

Santa Barbara County APCD 

(805) 961-8821 

www.sbcapcd.org

twitter.com/OurAirSBC

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to 

the correct file and location.

From: BECKHAM, LISA [mailto:BECKHAM.LISA@EPA.GOV] 

Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 4:40 PM 

To: Michael F. Goldman 

Subject: Interpretation of PSD Rule - Rule 810 

Hi MikeI am in the process of conducting our final review of Santa Barbara’s PSD rule and wanted to make sure we are in 

agreement on the interpretation of the “in effect” date of your PSD rule - Rule 810. 

Section 3 of Rule 810 adopts the provisions in 40 CFR 52.21 “in effect June 20, 2013.” On January 22, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Court) issued a decision to vacate the PM2.5 SILs and PM2.5 SMC in Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458. Subsequently, on March 19, 2013, the Court issued its mandate vacating the PM2.5 SILs and 

SMC. EPA interprets that once the Court issued its mandate, the PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions at 52.21 were no longer 

in effect. 

Can you confirm whether you agree with this interpretation? That is, do you agree that the version of 40 CFR 52.21 

incorporated by reference into Rule 810 did not include the PM2.5 SILs and SMC because those provisions were no 

longer in effect on June 20, 2013? 

I will follow up with a phone call to you. 
2

Thanks, 

Lisa Beckham 

Environmental Engineer 

Air Permits Office 

EPA Region 9 

(415) 972-3811
Exhibit 32.1

   Certification of CEO and CFO Furnished 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 Samaritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dr. Janet Greeson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my
knowledge,

          (i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
          December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements
          of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



                                           Date:         November 2, 2006

                                             By:     /s/ Dr. Janet Greeson
                                                         -----------------
                                          Title:         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         and President



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.
Section
      906 Certification





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutra Pharma Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rik J. Deitsch,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:
                May 21, 2007/s/
                Rik J. DeitschRik
                J. DeitschChief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012355EN.01003502.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/35

---

Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Kappa Filter Systems v OHIM (THE FUTURE HAS ZERO EMISSIONS)

(Case T-422/12)

2012/C 355/74

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kappa Filter Systems GmbH (Steyr-Gleink, Austria) (represented by C. Hadeyer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2012 in Case R 817/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2012 in Case R 817/2012-4;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘THE FUTURE HAS ZERO EMISSIONS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 010139749

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
### SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
P.O. BOX 82776, SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-2776 619.400.2400 WWW.SAN.ORG July 10,2012 r IZ 

### JUL l 

### q P 

## 3: 2'1 Mr. Dennis DeVany Head of EAS Division US Department of Transportation 1200 New JerseyAve, SE Washington, DC 20590 Docket: DOT-OST-1998-3521 DOT-OST-2004-19916 Dear Mr. De\/any: We are encouraged to see the proposal of SeaPortAirlines, Inc. to operate air service between San Diego and Burbank with continuing service to Visalia and Merced, California. One ofthe goals of San Diego International Airport is to increase direct air links between San Diego and othercommunities within the state and beyond. 

### Wt? believe SeaPort service would represent astep towards helping bind the state with effective airtrahSportation options. San Diego, with an extensive domestic and now international route network, can also provide an efficientconnective link between the EAS communities and the rest ofthe national airtransport system. Air service is importantfor San Diego andwe have acompetitive incentive program in place to attract air service to

### n~w**de~tinatlons.** The details of this incentive policy can be found on ourwebsite www.san.org/sdcraa/business/air_service.aspx. This incentive policy is available to SeaPort Airlines should they be successful intheirbid to add service from San Diego to Burbank -Visalia
- Merced. We lookforward to hearing the results ofthe DOT's review of SeaPort's proposal and hope that it proves the right solution for all stakeholders, the federal government, the cities of Visalia ahd Merced, and the counties ofTulare and Merced. Ne.w air**linksbetw~eQ** SanDiego**lnternation~l** Airport and the San Joaquin Valley via Burbank would prove avery impqrtant additl0nto 'san,OiegQ'sro!Jte network.

Ham.pton Brown

• - • '**~** ••• ' • <· San Diego InternationalAirport



### SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: steam_record <steam_record@erg.com>, <Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov> Date: 9/16/2010 10:28 AM Subject: Fw: Extension Request - Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire

----- Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/ DC/USEPA/US on 09/16/2010 10:27 AM

-----
From: "Wagner, Julie" <wagnerj@ci.hamilton.oh.us>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Scobee, Albert" <scobeea@ci.hamilton.oh.us>

Date: 09/16/2010 09:59 AM

Subject: Extension Request - Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire

Extension Request - Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire Plant ID: 01258 City of Hamilton Municipal Power Plant

Dear Ms. Alicea:

Per my voicemail message yesterday (09/15/10) and our discussion this morning, the City of Hamilton Muni cipal Power Plant (Plant ID 01258) respectfully submits this extension request for submittal of the “U.S. EPA Questionnaire for the Steam Elec tric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines”.

We are making this request based on the unanticipated system failure of the City’s Internal Database Management System (City of Hamilton Intranet) which contains much of the City’s and Power Plant’s historical operational and financial information required in multiple parts of the Questionnaire. The system went down on September 2, 2010 and was unable to be brought back online until yesterday, September 15, 2010 due to technical/IT difficulties. During this period, we did not have access to the information needed to complete a number of questions.

We received the Questionnaire package on June 21, 2010. Therefore, our original due date is September 19, 2010 (90 days after receipt of the letter). With U.S. EPA’s approval, we would like to request a one week extension to submit the Questionnaire, with a submittal date of Friday, September 24, 2010.Thank you for your consideration in this matter and please feel free to contact me via email or by phone (513-509-3272) or Al Scobee, the Power Plant Superintendent, at 513-785-7461 if you have any further questions or require additional information.

Regards, Julie Wagner
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



I, David J. Vander Zanden, President and Chief Executive Officer of School Specialty, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the knowledge of the undersigned:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2004 (the Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of School Specialty, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 8, 2004



/s/ David J. Vander ZandenDavid J. Vander ZandenPresident and Chief Executive Officer




This certification accompanies
this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed as filed by School Specialty, Inc. for purposes of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
No. 42092.

#### Protest 943003-G of B. D. Kaplan & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From the evidence it was found that the importer used a more accurate method of obtaining the total weight of the shipment than was used by the Government and that the possibility of error was less likely. The protest was therefore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 29029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9924]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5811]


Notice of Public Meeting on FY 2008 Refugee Admissions Program

    There will be a meeting on the President's FY 2008 Refugee 
Admissions Program on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at the Refugee Processing Center, 1401 Wilson 
Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, Virginia. The meeting's purpose is to 
hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 
2008 Refugee Admissions Program.
    Seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must 
notify the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone 
(202) 663-1006 by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2007, to arrange for 
admission. Persons wishing to present oral comments, or to submit 
written comments for consideration, must provide them in writing by 5 
p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2007. All comments should either be e-mailed 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88fbf8fafdede4e4ece9c8fbfce9fceda6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="443734363121282820250437302530216a232b32">[email protected]</span></a> or faxed to (202) 663-1364.
    Any questions about the public meeting should be directed to 
Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at (202) 663-1006. 
Information about the Refugee Admissions Program may be found at http://www.state.gov/g/prm/

    Dated: May 17, 2007.
Richard L. Greene,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-9924 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1


                    Bingham Canyon Corporation

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Bingham Canyon Corporation (the
"Company") certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that:

a.     the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
       ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.     the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.

Date:   August 5, 2005




                              /s/ Brett D. Mayer
                              ____________________________________
                              Brett D. Mayer
                              Principal Executive Officer
                              Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Brett D. Mayer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bingham Canyon Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: November 8, 2006 /s/ Brett D. Mayer Brett D. Mayer, Principal Executive Officer
No. 46475.

#### Protest 52865-K of Jones Brokerage Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walkee, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
| 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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      May 21, 2010                                      |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                          |   |
| /s/ Rik J. Deitsch                                            |   |
| Rik      J. Deitsch                                           |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
Advance
      Agreement

    


    Party
      A :
Wei
      Li

     

    Party
      B :
Kiwa
      Bio-Tech Products Group Corporation

     

    The
      Advance Agreement is signed on January 10, 2008 by both parties, to clarify
      the
      following advance transactions:

     

    
      	
            	1.	
              During
                the fourth quarter of 2007, Party A advanced an aggregate sum of
                RMB
                885,890.31 (i.e. US$121,278.41, based on the exchange rate 7.3046:1
                on
                December 28, 2007) to Party B’s Beijing Representative Office in
                China.

            


    

     

    
      	
            	2.	
              During
                October 2007, Party A advanced US$54,019.50 to Party
                B.

            


    

     

    
      	
            	3.	
              Both
                parties agreed the abovementioned advances bear interest at 6% per
                annum
                starting from the drawing date. Party A agreed that Party B could
                repay
                the advances aperiodically when the Company’s cash flow circumstances
                permit. At the same time Party B agreed to settle the advances within
                180
                days since December 31, 2007. 

            


    

     

    
      	
            	4.	
              Both
                parties agreed that Party B will issue to Party A warrants that entitle
                Party A to purchase up to 876,490 shares of common stock based on
                the
                exercise price specified in Clause 5. Party A shall have the right
                to
                exercise the warrants within next 24 months beginning from December
                31,
                2007.

            


    

     

    
      	
            	5.	
              Exercise:
                At the option and instruction of Party A, Party A shall at any time
                make
                an application to exercise any warrants for the issuance of shares
                of
                Party B. Party A shall have the right to exercise the warrants based
                on a
                exercise price equal to the closing quote (US$0.12) of the shares
                of Party
                B on December 31, 2007. Party A shall have unlimited piggyback
                registration right. 

            


    

     

    Party
      A:
      /s/: Wei Li

     

    Name:
      Wei
      Li

     

    Party
      B:
 Kiwa
      Bio-Tech Products Group Corporation

     

    /s/:
      Lianjun Luo

     

    Name:
      Lianjun Luo

     

    Title:
      Director and CFO

     

    Date:
       January
      10, 2007
Case No. 5,552.

#### GOODWIN et al. v. The *C.*DURANT.

[43 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 70.]

District Court S. D. New York.

July, 1860.

Towage — Liability for Negligence.

[1. An action to recover damages arising out of the negligent performance of a towing contract rests in contract and not in tort.]

[2. Where the tug acts pursuant to the direction of the owners of the tow and a pilot employed by them it is not liable for resulting damages.]

[This was a libel in rem by Ebenezer Goodwin and others against the tug C. Durant for damages for negligence.]

Before BETTS, District Judge.

The libelants, owners of the bark Elizabeth, sue to recover $212.50 damages, alleging that in October, 1856, they employed the tug to tow the bark to sea, and that in doing so she carelessly towed the bark against a schooner, injuring the bark to the amount of $100, and the schooner to the amount of $112.50, which the libelants had to pay. The evidence showed that the libelants first employed the tug to tow the bark from a dock in Brooklyn to anchorage ground in the North river, on which voyage the injury spoken of took place, and then made a subsequent agreement that the tug should tow the bark to sea for $30. One of the libelants brought with him a pilot to superintend the removal of the bark to the North river, and the manner of hauling her from the dock and conducting the voyage was conducted by them, and the pilot in charge of the tug followed their orders.

HELD BY

THE COURT:

That the gist of the action rests in contract and not in tort. That if the bark received injuries by negligence in the management of the tug, that fault was attributable to the libelants and their agent, the pilot, and not to the owners of the. tug, who acted pursuant to the directions of the libelant and the pilot. Libel dismissed, with costs.