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

HDES r Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner February 25, 2011 H . Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109-3912 Re: Amendments to Asbestos NESHAP Rule Adjustment Dear Administrator Spalding: Effective January 29, 2007, EPAapproved the request of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) to implement the state's asbestos management rules, codified at Env-A 1800, in lieu of 40CFR61, Subpart M, the Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Asbestos NESHAP) . (71 Fed. Reg. 68746 (Nov. 28, 2006)) That approval allows Env-A 1800 to apply to all sources that otherwise would be regulated by the Asbestos NESHAP, with the exception of inactive waste disposal sites that ceased operation on or before July 9, 1981 . These inactive disposal sites are regulated by other DES rules that were approved by EPA on May 23, 2003. On October 21, 2008, DES readopted Env-A 1800 and incorporated the state's asbestos licensing rules, which were previously codified at He-P 5000. This change was prompted by amendments in 2005 to RSA 141-E, Asbestos Management and ControlAct, which authorized DES to adopt and implement asbestos licensing rules. Enclosed are a redlined copy and the final version of Env-A 1800, as amended. DES requests EPA's approval of the amendments to Env-A 1801-1807. The changes to these rules were editorial in nature, intended to clarify rather than substantively amend them . Any new

definitions in Env-A 1802 that came fromHe-P 5000 are not part ofthis request. Please contact Barbara Hoffman at (603)271-7874 or barbara.hoffmanndes .nh.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert R . Scott Director Air Resources Division Enclosures ec : Susan Lancey, EPA Region 1 The State of New

Hampshire DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

DES Web site: www

.des.nh.gov P.O . Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 Telenhone: (603) 271-1370 - Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDDAccess : Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 1.4

                            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 Trinity Biotech plc (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rory Nealon, Chief
Financial 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:

               (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 result of operations of the
Company.


RORY NEALON*
----------------
Rory Nealon
Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2004


*        The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained
         at the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon
         request.
REF ID ~-Jtos-; 14 

Mr. Ar:rMlld Du;iq 

19 lla:rberr,y le.no 

I~ Haight.a, llev York 

n..r At"NJld; 

X • !bclo.eing a eet or ordcra ud. a ~tton 

~at f'or 10fXr T191t to the~ tar the 21 Mq Joint ~=-ting. Aleo iilclosed tr:1r 1w:t: «mV&nience a~ 

t.oatr-..wtion aheet with the required :to.rma ~ tmt JOU*&:¥ 

ieceivo ~tion. tor r:r.xr ·~ u Pl'ODPt.1¥ u · pc'lnible after they are cm:pi.ted. 

It you Y1.U plan to arrive at 3&>1 lebruka A~ 

a't o845 on 2l JrliQ', w Vill >ave ~one at the ,cate~ 

to dU'cct ;you to the' location ct the ~ =eet1Jlga. 

It ,.. JU.c:e to tee 'both Dualtya on the oocr.e ion of 

rour lut vt.1t am. I'• loolrtns ton.'UJ'll to peillg "® 

110Cm. eastis, 

WILLIAM 1 • 11\l.Jil.1AN 

XXecutive Secret.a.r/ 

EA 8cietrt:1t1c Mvho:ry l'k:c:rd 

\ 

\ 

r 

I 

! 

~ 

I 

l I 

' 

\ .\ i,,~ t 

ec: AG 

c/a 

8/ABST (Mr. Friedlmn) 

M/R: Incloail:lg all necessary form.a, orders,\ 

T/R's :ror Mr. ~ya visit to NBA for joint 

Pe..nel m!!eting on 21 1'8y. 

Lt. I. T. McDonald/60493/4 May 54/can 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

,
99-1351.

#### State v. Stoll.

Lucas App. No. L-96-112. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Resnick, J., not participating.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the reference to our firm under the captions "Selected
Financial Data" and "Experts" and to the use of our report dated May 19, 1999,
included in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form S-1) and
related Prospectus of CTC Communications Corp. for the registration of
3,500,000 shares of its Common Stock.

   Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in Part II.
This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion,
the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation
to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

                                          Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

June 18, 1999
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution #2008-09; Amending Regulation II, Rule 2.0- Open Burning 

BACKGROUND 

Air Pollution Control District (District) program reviews are conducted as part of the Air Resources 

Board (ARB) oversight role with respect to Districts in California and in accordance with section 

41500 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC). From May through August 2005, ARB staff conducted 

a review of the Feather River Air Quality Management District's air quality program, including the 

District compliance program's Agricultural Bum Program. 

The District has a comprehensive set of rules for agricultural burning and for other open (nonagricultural) burning. The rules are consistent with the Smoke Management Guidelines in Title 17, 

and with the non-agricultural and agricultural burning rules in the Health & Safety Code (HSC), 

except for a permit exemption that is inconsistent with section 41852 of the California Health and 

Safety Code. Regulation II- Open Burning, section H.2 (a), under Exemptions to Permit 

Requirements, exempts the burner of agricultural pesticide sacks from having a permit to bum. The 

HSC section 41852 states that "no one shall set or permit agricultural burning unless he has a valid 

permit ... " ARB recommended the District amend its rule that no one may bum pesticide sacks 

without obtaining a valid agricultural bum permit. 

PUBLIC PROCESS 

On July 21, 2008, the District mailed a notice which invited the public to participate in the public 

workshop to amend Rule 2.0. The District also published the notice in the local newspaper, the 

Appeal Democrat. The District invited the public to submit written comments on the proposed rule 

by August 21, 2008. On July 7, 2008, copies of the proposed rule were emailed to ARB, the Federal 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Office of the County Counsel for review. The 

District received comments from EPA recommending either a full literature citation for the applicable 

guidelines in a public document be provided or the specific guidelines applicable to agricultural 

burning of pesticide bags be provided within Rule 2.0. The District included the specific guidelines 

in the rule. ARB and County Counsel did not recommend any changes to the proposed amendment 

of Rule 2.0. In addition, no comments were received at the public workshop and no written 

comments were received at the District. 

PROPOSAL 

The District is proposing adopting the amendments to Regulation II, Rule 2.0, Open Burning. 
RECOMMENDATION 

The District recommends the Board approve the attached resolution to adopt the amendment to Rule 

2.0, Open Burning 

ATTACHMENTS 

A. Staff Report- Rule 2.0 

B. Rule 2.0 Proposed Resolution, Resolution No. 2008-09
Jump to main content or area navigation.

    - Languages
    - Español
    - 中文: 繁體版 Information in traditional Chinese
    - 中文:  简体版 Information in simplified Chinese.
    - Tiếng Việt
    - 한국어 Information in Korean.
-  Where should we search?-  								All EPA  
-  								This Area  
- Advanced Search
 
-  What are you looking for? 

    - Learn the Issues
    - Science & Technology
    - Laws & Regulations
    - About EPA

Contact Us

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments 

You are here: WaterPollution Prevention & ControlPolluted Runoff  Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters 

# Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters 

**EPA 840-B-92-002 January 1993**

----

                - Chapter 1: Introduction
                - Chapter 2: Management Measures for Agricultural Sources
                - Agriculture Chapter Factsheet
                - Chapter 3: Management Measures for Forestry
                - Forestry Chapter Factsheet
                - Chapter 4: Management Measures for Urban Areas
                - Urban Chapter Factsheet
                - Chapter 5: Management Measures for Marinas and Recreational Boating
                - Marinas Chapter Factsheet
                - Chapter 6: Management Measures for Hydromodification: Channelization and Channel Modification, Dams, and Steambank and Shoreline Erosion
                - Hydromodification Chapter Factsheet
                - Chapter 7: Management Measures for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems
                - Wetlands Chapter Factsheet
                - Chapter 8: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques to Accompany Management Measures

----

#### Area Navigation

            - About the Office of Water 
            - Drinking Water 
            - Education & Training 
            - Grants & Funding 
            - Laws & Regulations 
            - Our Waters 
            - Pollution Prevention and Control                - Applications & Databases
              - Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development
              - Impaired Waters & TMDLs
              - Permitting (NPDES)
              - Polluted Runoff
              - Sediments
              - Source Water Protection
              - Stormwater
              - Vessel Discharge
              - Wastewater Programs
              - Watershed Management 
            - Science & Technology 
            - Water Infrastructure 
            - What You Can Do 

    - Share       - Del.icio.us
      - Digg
      - Facebook
      - StumbleUpon
      - What is this?

    - News Feeds
    - Podcasts
    - EPA Mobile
    - News by Email
    - Widgets
    - Students

        - EPA Home
        - Privacy and Security Notice
        - Contact Us

Last updated on Monday, November 30, 2009.

Last updated on Tuesday, November 09, 2010

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/czara/MMGI_index.cfm

Jump to main content.
-~mfA275389 ,.,-~··-. 

"Y'~Board meets irregularly to decide higher Y polioy. (London) 

Members: Director (Menzies) D.:J.s. {Trb.vis) 

-1) .. Ji!'.!. 

D.N.I. 

D. of I. (R.,,..,.F.) 

''Y" Commiatee meets fortnightly .. decides genertil interception and ~echnicW. policy. (London) 

Ch&irman High rankin~ officer (Gen. Officer) Col. Y.I. S (Col. Nichols} 

N.I.D. (C(pt. 3andwith) 

A.I. (Gp. Cupt. C~dell} 

2 Permc.llent Jecretaries 

"' • * 

Co~e Compilcttion is ~ireoted from ministries. Printinb ~na composition ' section ~t Oxford oomma~ded by Comdr. Hok under general direction of Comdr. Truvis. 

• • • 

I.&.c.s.c. (Inter-0erv1ce Cypher 3eourity Connnittee) meets fortnightly 

at Admirul. ty. 

Chtiirman Travis 

Cryptanalytic ~dviser --Col. Tiltmt.Jl 

W. 0, -Mt-. Williams 

Admiralty - Cdr. Wilson 

\ R.~.F. - Ning Cdr. Johnston I 

War Office Code ComRildtion under .ta-._ 1'/illiums (ooraes under S1£netls, 'N.O.) 

Cipher Jeourity Officer - Major Vernham 

About 6 otber officers 

responsible for selection &nd trtiininG (No. III I.o.) of 

Cypherine 3tLff, distribution of cyphers through Empire, 

and. acl o ibun t 1ng. 

Cryptographic work done only by commissioned officers, 

warrant officers and serget..nts. In air !~inistry oy 'l'.AA.F 

officers. 

SECRET 

eclassifi ed and a roved or release b NS on 07-15-2014 ursuantt E .0. 1352 

........ llllliil
#### Pound and others vs. Roan and another.

New TsiaIj. *When costs to be paid by moving party.*

A verdict should be set aside as against the evidence, and a new trial granted, only upon terms that the moving party pay the costs of the former trial, unless the verdict is a *perverse*one; and an honest verdict, one not apparently influenced by prejudice or passion, though unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence, is not “perverse” within the rule.

*130APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Chippewa*County.

Replevin, for a span of horses. Plaintiffs purchased the horses of one E. Allen, who purchased them of one Mahoney. Defendants' took them from plaintiffs by virtue of a chattel mortgage on them, executed by Saul & Daily to the defendant *Martin.*When the mortgage was executed, Saul *&*Dally owned the team; and they had made default in the payment of the debt secured by the mortgage when the defendants took possession thereof. The principal question of fact litigated on the trial was, Had *Martin*authorized Mahoney to sell the team to Allen? The jury found for the defendants. At the same term, on plaintiffs’ motion, the court made the following order: “ Ordered that a new trial be and the same is hereby granted without costs, on the ground that the verdict is rendered against the weight and preponderance of evidence, and against the instructions of the court.”

Defendants appealed from the order.

*Arthur G-o%iqh,*for the appellants.

For the respondents, there was a brief by *Bingham dk Pierce,*and oral argument by *Mr. Pieroe.*

LyoN, J.

On the vital question in the case, whether Ma-honey was authorized by the defendant *Martin to sell the*team to Allen, the testimony is conflicting. It is .quite unnecessary to set out the testimony, or even to express an opinion as to its relative weight. It is sufficient to say that, after a careful examination thereof, we find ourselves unable to hold that the learned circuit judge abused the discretion which the law confers up„on him in such cases, when he granted a new trial of the action.

But we think the new trial should only have been granted on the terms that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the former trial. Such seems to be the rule where the verdict is set aside because it is against the evidence, unless the verdict is *a perverse*one. *Emmons v. Sheldon,*26 Wis., 648; 1 G. & W. on New Trials, 601, and cases cited; *Baxter v. Payne, 1*Pin. 501; *Carroll v. More,*30 Wis., 574. An honest verdict, *131although unsupported by a preponderance of evidence, is not a *jperverse*verdict within the rule. There is nothing in the record before us to justify us in holding that this verdict does not express the honest opinions of the jury, or that it was influenced by prejudice or passion.

*By the Court.*— The order is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to the circuit court to order a new trial on the terms that the plaintiffs pay the taxable costs of the former trial.

Byan, G. J., took no part.
Exhibit 31.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
             Rules 13a - 14(a) and 15d - 14(a) under the Securities
                        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

I, Asher E. Fogel, the Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of U.S. Energy Systems
Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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; and

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing equivalent functions):

      (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


Dated: August 22, 2005


/s/ Asher E. Fogel
------------------
Asher E. Fogel
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
... . ... -- REF ID:A44096 

e . SE~~~ e 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

FORT GlORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 

Serial: N 0998 

., ., .. ·\R u1."' li. r.--. 1.i1 HID 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ~ECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

ATTN: Mr. Roswell L. Gilpatric 

SUBJECT: -Sensor F4c111ties Survey-feT 

l. Reference your memorandum, subject as above, dated 

3 March 1961, 

2. In response to the request contained in the above reference, 

action bas been initiated to_ obtain completed questionnaires tram tJ:ie 

.. Arrq Security Agency 1 the .Naval Se.curi,ty Group and the Air~· Force . . 

Security Serv~ce. Th~ resultant data 1 :representing capabilities of. 

:tiie cryptologic comunit:y in. the areas of concern, will be 

. \ . 

'consolidated and forwarded upon receipt. 

p r- ~ ff,,w,, Hi~ I~ 

f L. H. FROST, . , Du._ _L_ : 

Vice Adm1r&1; usm . .... ~~d'" Director ·. 

Copy Furnished: 

The Director 1 Central Intelligence · . 'l'he Secretary of.the Arw ... 

l 

., . .. 

. /~ . 

.... 

,·.: .. 

" 

The Secretary of the }Javy . 

The Secretaey of the Air Force 

General G. B. Erskine, UaMC-Ret, 

Asst to SecDef', Sp Opns ,I. \._, .,., .. - ~.: 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 10-11-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352a 

SECRET 

'::' { . ~· "' ·, 

.· 
cc: D~······--C 

AG 

Reading File 

Dm PROD 

-PROD-fJ3 (2) 

COSA 

COSA-fJlt. 

REF ID:A44096 

SE€RE'f • 

Serial: N 0996 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

M/R: This is an interim reply to Memorandum f'rom Deputy Secretaey 

of' Defense, subject: Sensor Facilities Survey, dated 3 March 1961. 

(AG Routing Slip 1584). Above memorandum requested NBA participation 

in a detailed analysis of non-c011DDunications electronic emissions, 

radar returns and tical data from world-wide sensors in order to 

assess 

NSA's contri- -r-bu~:t:-:ir-o-n-to~-:'th~e-e-:f:-::f:-o-rtr--w..,.i.,...l=-1..,.b-e---=fo--rwa="'""r..,..e--..-.....,....,.0 ........... .-e--,.....c-re---r-'taey of Defense 

pending receipt of completed questionnaires from the three Service 

Cryptologic Agencies. 

During a recent meeting of' the Space Surveillance Intelligence 

Sub-committee (SSISC)-the NBA representative participated in the 

formulation of the questionnaires and it was further agreed with the 

Service representatives at that time that NSA woμld be responsible 

for obtaining the required inf'ol"Jll&tion from the three Cl')'Ptologic · Services. · · Coordinated with COSA-8lt., Mr. Black, .and the Chief of COSA, 

Mr. Coiil.ey. 

/:!,tr;~-i~··L 'C; C. CORR~r~OD-83, 484la, 28 Mar 61, sdg 

ADm:o M/R: Final reply will be made by 15 June 61. This inf'ormat~on 

was obtained from Mrs. Alexander 1 PRC>D-03 • 

.). LG ,J crv--c~; T. DESOUCEY,AGl103,3624,2lMAR61,dbt 

SE€RE'f
* The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Cour t Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0262n.06 Filed: April 6, 2005 No. 04-5319 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

F. CHRIS CAWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LINDA BOOTH; JON FRENCH; RANDY SCARBROUGH; and DENNIS WORLEY, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEFORE: NORRIS and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and Mills, District Judge. *
PER CURIAM. F. Chris Cawood appeals the districtcourt’s decision to grant summary judgment to defendants, in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district cour t erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. Because the reasoning which suppor ts judgment for defendants has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its opinion, Cawood v. Haggard , 327 F. Supp.2d 863 (E.D. Tenn, 2004).No. 04-5319 Caewood v. Haggard

- 2 -
*Tuesday, July 6, 1999*

MOTION DOCKET

97-98.

#### State v. Madrigal.

Lucas C.P. No. CR965761. Upon consideration of appellee’s motion to continue oral argument scheduled for July 28,1999,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to continue oral argument be, and hereby is, denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32 Certification under Section 906
Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies
that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Online Resources Corporation. Date:  March 15, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Matthew P. LawlorMatthew P. LawlorChairman and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date:  March 15, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Catherine A. GrahamCatherine A. GrahamExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)