alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66466-66467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4702-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-

[[Page 66467]]

4702-DR), dated April 10, 2023, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Brogan, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Myra M. Shird as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-21006 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Before the First Division,

March 7, 1966

No. 69817.

protests 60/10786, 60/2330, and 60/2325 (Nogales).

#### Salim Sarkis Dominguez *v.*United States,

*886Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of finger jointed molding similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Best Moulding Corporation*v. *United States (Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc., Party in Interest)*(51 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 829), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-858V

Filed: October 14, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BRENDA SMITH, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza;

* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 21, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury as a result of the 

administration of her October 9, 2015 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case 

was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 11, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “opines that petitioner’s alleged injury is 

consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) . . . [and] 

further agrees that petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccination 

administered on October 9, 2015. No other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA were 

identified.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that the statutory six month sequela 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

requirement has been satisfied and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
From: fatherphil5@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:14:56 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,

George Walter

Winter Garden, FL 34787
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, Mindy Grossman, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report of HSN, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 of HSN, Inc. (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; and

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



|                    |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 4, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/    MINDY
GROSSMAN  
|                    |  |     |  | Mindy Grossman         
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
No. 69635.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/29578 and 60/7409 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of motors of under %o horsepower similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: stephrcurrie@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:10:44 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,

Stephanie Currie

Saint Louis, MO 63112
From: malotts1@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:36:46 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,

Robert Malott

Tampa, FL 33624
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 26, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.                           ( print page 66067)                        3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 19, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 60 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-275, CP2023-278.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-20916 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: rebecca@scherle.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:23:49 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,

Rebecca Scherle

Solvang, CA 93463
Exhibit 4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
 January 7, 2013 
 Independent Auditor’s Consent 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. of our auditor’s report dated March 8, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Denison Mines Corp. as at December 31,
2011, December 31, 2010 and January 1, 2010 and for each of the two years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Denison Mines Corp., which appears in an Exhibit
incorporated by reference in the registration statement on Form F-80 of Denison Mines Corp. 
  

	
	/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
	Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
#### Henry Hallett, Plaintiff, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Defendant.

Motion for new trial denied and judgment ordered for the plaintiff on the verdict. Opinion by Smith, P. J.; Bradley, J., not sitting.
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**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 on Form 10-K of Oak Valley Bancorp (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
|   | 1) |   | such   Form 10-K 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 such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the   Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
| Dated:   March 25, 2011 | */s/ Ronald C. Martin*    |
|------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                         | Ronald   C. Martin        |
|                         | Chief   Executive Officer |
|                         |                      |
|                         |                      |
| Dated:   March 25, 2011 | */s/ Richard A. McCarty*  |
|                         | Richard   A. McCarty      |
|                         | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

This certification accompanies each report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
**TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY**

**Brick and Structural Clay Products**

FROM: Thomas Holloway RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: July 16, 2013

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. 555 Paper Mill Road Newark , DE 19711 Website: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/industries/envir onment/environment.html

PERSON CONTACTED: Chris Polizzi (410) 506-3529

PURPOSE OF CONTACT: For information on:

• The feasibility of installing just a stand-alone fa bric filter (rather than a fabric filter with dry l ime injection that is more typically employed in the br ick industry) to control particulate emissions from brick kilns that are already expected to meet acid gas (HF, HCl) emission limits.

• The validity of the brick industry’s concerns that: (1) without the dry lime injection that reduces the acid gas, there won’t be enough particulates in the kiln exhaust to coat the bags and get good performance from the fabric filter; (2) the un controlled acid in the exhaust stream could rot the bags; (3) the exhaust gas temperatures from brick kilns are too high (nearly 400°F on average, as high as 668°F); and (4) membrane bags m ay not be appropriate for low inlet loadings.

• Any difference in bag type and bag cost based on wh ether or not dry lime injection is employed.

SUMMARY OF CONTACT: I contacted W. L. Gore & Associates on July 10 thro ugh their website inquiring about the issues cited above and received a response by phone from Mr. Pol izzi of W. L. Gore on July 16. He noted that the company had done business with the brick industry b efore and that they have two kinds of bags that could be used for the industry: (1) high-temperatur e fiberglass bags, and (2) high-temperature PTFE (Teflon) bags. Both are rated to 500°F. He indicate d that a ceramic style bag would be needed for temperatures above 500°F. He couldn’t speak to the concern regarding PM loading, but did say that there would be no problem with PM loadings as low a s 1 to 2 grains per cubic foot. He noted that HF destroys fiberglass, so PTFE bags would be needed i f HF emissions are a concern. He noted that PTFE bags, unlike fiberglass bags, are chemically inert, but are very expensive, about 2 to 5 times more expensive than fiberglass. He also noted that PTFE bags have high chemical and thermal resistance and would control PM but not acid gas.