alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Caniner10@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:19:04 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,

Philip Johnson

Minnetonka, MN 55345
From: steve.hall@hall-widdoss.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:48:00 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,

Steven Hall

Missoula, MT 59803
From: davidlholli@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:24:21 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,

David Hollingsworth

Lexington, KY 40502
No. P66/4.

protests 58/9864, etc. (New York).

#### Levin Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-10031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 1005 and 1007

[Doc. No. AMS-DA-09-0001; AO-388-A17 and AO-366-A46; DA-05-06-A]

Milk in the Appalachian and Southeast Marketing Areas; Order 
Amending the Orders

Correction

    In rule document 2014-10031, appearing on pages 25003 through 25006 
in the issue of Friday, May 2, 2014, make the following correction:
    On page 25003, in the first column, in the DATES section, ``May 5, 
2013'' should read ``May 5, 2014''.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-10031 Filed 5-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
SANI TI ZED

CN PMN Reaction Diagram
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-157-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (1 work hour(s) x $85/hour)

Parts per airplane

Cost per airplane

Number ofU.S.~registered airplanes

Total tleet cost

$ 85

$

+

-.2

$ 85

,

241

$20.485

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory' lion"?

YES () explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES () explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is i appropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1740** 

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
TOWN OF TRENTON, NC, et al. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

**No. 10**  **- 1741** 

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS , Plaintiff

- A ppellant ,

v.
TOWN OF TRENTON, NC, et al. , Defendant

- Appellee.

**No. 10**  **- 1742** 

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.2 TOWN OF TRENTON, NC, et al. , Defendant

- Appellee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 4:10

- mc
- 00001; 4:10

- mc
- 00004; 4:10

- mc
00002 )

Submitted : November 9, 2010 Decided: December 9 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Jud ges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis appeals the district court ’ s
order denying leave to file three new civil actions against the

Town of Trenton . We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Willis v. Town of T renton, NC , Nos.

4:10

- mc
- 00001; 4:10

- mc
- 00004; 4:10

- mc
- 00002 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28,
2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisio nal

process.

AFFIRMED
### RCRA CLUSTERS XVIII, XIX AND XX REVISED AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION (Included in Application LetterCategory) ADDENDUM TO PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (dated October2011) 

### APPE;'<IDICES
I. REVISED ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT (signed 10/14/11) II. RCRA CLUSTERS XVI AND XVII ADDENDUMTO PROGRAM DESCRIPTION III. 2011 IDEQ ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CHART(program description) IV. THE 2011 ANNUAL RCRA GRANT WORKPLAN (programdescription) V. EXISTING RCRAMEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (signed 8/2/01) VI. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT CLARIFICATIONS (8130110, 313/11) VII. RCRA DATA MANAGEMENTLETTER OF AGREEMENT(6/17!03)(program description) VIII. IDAHO HANDLER COUNTACTIVITY REPORT (dated 711111) (programdescription) IX. IDAHO PERMITTING SIX QUARTERPLAN (compiled 5/18/11)(program description) X. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN IDAHO

- 2010 (program description) XI. RCRA CLUSTERS XVIII, XIX AND XX REGULATORY SUMMARIES(regulations) XII. IDAHO RULES AND STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE(417!Il)(regulations) XIII. IDAHO HAZARDOUS WASTEMANAGEMENTACT (2010 CPS) (statute) XIV. IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND HEALTH ACT(2010 CPS)(statute) XV. IDAHO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT(2010) (statute)
H. Res. 473 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 12, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. The first reading 

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the 

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure 

to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition 
2 

•HRES 473 EH 

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 

When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the 

House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2638 in the House 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: mgrothe@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:23:49 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,

Margaret Grothe

, 4563
No. 65995.

#### Gill & Duffus, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 265984-K (Laredo).

*291Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
History: Good morning

### Meeting with Ferroalloys Industry on 5/1/2012 --follow up Conrad Chin to: John Rego, Jeff.McKinney, Amy M. Lincoln, RLunn, JKonrady C . Chuck French, Jonathan Averback, Beth Friedman, Carlton Nash ,

c. William Macdowell, Margaret Sieffert Bee: Conrad Chin This message has been forwarded . 05/10/2012 09:13AM

During our recent meeting, I informed you that there are minimills which have installed building ventilation under negative pressure to capture process fugitive emissions. Our regional office provided more examples. Please let me know ifyou have any questions. Thanks. Conrad K. Chin Mail Code 0243-02 Metals and Minerals Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 919-541-1512 (voice) 919-541 -3207 (fax)

----- Forwarded by Conrad Chin/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/1 0/2012 09:08 AM ----- -----Forwarded by Margaret Sieffert/R5/USEPA/US on 04/17/2012 01 :34PM----- From: To: Date: Subject: R5-R1802@epa.gov Margaret Sieffert/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 04/17/2012 01 :32PM Message from "R5-R1802" 

### This E-mail was sent from "R5-R1802" (Aficio MP C7501). Scan Date: 04.17.2012 13:31:02 (-0500)



# ~ Queries to : R5 -R1802®epa.gov 20120417133102121.pdf

----- Forwarded by Margaret Sieffert/R5/USEPA/US on 04/17/2012 01 :34PM ----- From: To: Date: Subject: R5-R1802@epa.gov Margaret Sieffert/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 04/17/2012 01:32PM Message from "R5-R1802" 

### This E- mail was sent from "R5-R1802" (Aficio MP C7501) . Scan Date: 04.17.2012 13:31:49 (
- 0500) 

# -m Queries to: R5 -R1802®epa.gov 20120417133149897.pdf-----Forwarded by Margaret Sieffert/RS/USEPA/US on 04/17/2012 01:34 PM----- From: To: Date: Subject: R5-R1802@epa.gov Margaret Sieffert/RS/USEPA/US@EPA 04/17/2012 01:33PM Message from "R5-R1802" This E-mail was sent from "R5-R1802" (Aficio MP C7501) . Scan Date: 04.17.2012 13:32:17 (-0500)


# - Queries to: R5-R1802® epa. gov 20120417133217493.pdf

----- Forwarded by Margaret Sieffert/RS/USEPA/US on 04/17/2012 01:34 PM----- From: To: Date: Subject: R5-R1802@epa.gov Margaret Sieffert/RS/USEPA/US@EPA 04/17/2012 01 :33PM Message from "R5-R1802" This E-mail was sent from "R5-R1802" (Aficio MP C7501). Scan Date: 04.17.2012 13:32:05 (-0500)



# ~ Queries to: R5 -R1802®epa. gov 20120417133205525.pdf
Before the Third Division,

January 31, 1958

No. 61518.

#### Fred H. Meyer *v.*United States

protest 302808-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: hec ybanez <hybanez@gmail.com>

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/05/2010 11:58 PM

Subject: Re: PCA THC Variability Analysis

I think that correct 

Section 3 is the THC 

for THC when you look at the 99th percentile of long term data none of the sources could meet 

the standard

Rankin

g

RndmKilnCo Name DataField Count

1 1520 Lehigh Union Bridge E02-001 30-Day Rolling Average 668

2 THC-1 Suwannee Bradford, FL 1 30-Day Rolling Average 274

3 1226 Holcim Trident 30-Day Rolling Average 762

4 1239 TXI Midlothian Kiln 5 30-Day Rolling Average 444

5 1316 Holcim Mason City Kiln 2 30-Day Rolling Average 701

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM, <Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov> wrote:

I think you are talking about Appendix 1 section 3.

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov
August 8, 2016

Ms. Kelly Neubecker UASolutions Group, Inc. Representative for Homeland Surveillance and Electronics, LLC
2518 Auburn Drive
Cocoa

, FL 32926

Re: FAA

– 2015

– 1533

Dear Ms. Neubecker :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst
From: millionaireintraining77@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:36 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,

Roger Cook

Olympia, WA 98513