alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22304]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-089]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed September 25, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through October 2, 2023 10 a.m. 
EST Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230131, Draft, USAF, MS, T-7A Recapitalization at Columbus 
Air Force Base, Mississippi, Comment Period Ends: 11/20/2023, Contact: 
Chinling Chen 210-395-0979.
EIS No. 20230132, Draft, BOEM, MD, Maryland Offshore Wind, Comment 
Period Ends: 11/20/2023, Contact: Lorena Edenfield 907-231-7679.
EIS No. 20230133, Final, BOEM, PRO, 2024-2029 National Outer 
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Review Period Ends: 11/
06/2023, Contact: Dr. Jill Lewandowski 703-787-1703.

    Dated: October 2, 2023.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-22304 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
5200

5400

5200

4700

5100

4800

5200

4500

5200

5100

5300

5200

5200

5000

4900

5200

5400

5200

5100

4900

5200

5100

5200

5500

5300

5200

5200

4600

5300

5100

5000

S TA T E A N D C O U N T Y L IN E R D

T E N T C R E E K R D

Little

O

wyhee River

Little

O

w

yh

e

e

River

Tent Creek

Little

Owyhee River

Tent Creek

Little Owyhee River

Little Owyhee

River

Tent Creek

Tent Creek

Tent Creek

Walcot Basin

Reservoir

Sorrel

Reservoir

Sundown

Reservoir

Tent Creek

Reservoir

Star

Valley

Star

Valley

Ranch

Nougue

Dam

Tent

Creek

Point

55'

00'

30"

117° 57'30" 116°

30"

30"

30"

57'

55'

07'

00'

00'

42°

52'

42°

116°52'

00'

42° 30"

117°

42°07'

2'

5' 5'

2'30" 30"

FEET

160

000

130

310

000

000

FEET E

46

5

46

5 FEET

46

46

46

5

FEET

5

5 2

46

5

5

46 000m

46

46

46

5 5

5

5

46

5

46

46

5

46

5

5

46

46

46

000m

5

000m

46

46

46

46

46

5

46

5

46

5

46

000m

58

53

51

61

56

55

56

50

52

54

52

58

62

51

63

55

54

57

53

60

N

57

06

N

07

03

02

01 10

50

06 07 08

60

04

04 09

01 E 08 10

63

03 05 09

62

05 2 290 000

Star

Valley

Grassy

Ridge

Star

Valley

Knoll

Spring

Creek

Basin

Star Valley

Ridge West

Coyote

Hole

Star Valley

Ridge East

Defeat

Butte

Nadine

Butte

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

IDAHO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

STAR VALLEY, ID

2011

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

STAR VALLEY QUADRANGLE

IDAHO

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 11T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Idaho Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery.................................NAIP, July 2009 - August 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2009

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

M

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 N

GN

UTM GRID AND 2011 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 3 ́

1 MILS

14° 6 ́

251 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

11T

NG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bruce DOUGLAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6371.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Bruce Douglas, Appellant pro se. Leesa Washington, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Douglas appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Douglas,*No. CR-93-92 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 29, 2004 & entered Nov. 1, 2004). 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 decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000875296
<NAME> WINNERS ALL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          870,078
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     55,035
<COMMON>                                       144,717
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,069,830)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: madge9712@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:09:41 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,

Madeline Zart

Highland, IN 46322
(Reap. Dec. 11066)

#### Panation Trade Co. *v.*Untied States

Entry No. 66899, etc.

(Decided September 27, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Judge:

The following appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court as follows:

> 1. That the involved merchandise consists of cigarette lighters exported from Japan after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165) ; that the involved merchandise is not identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521) and that appraisement was accordingly made under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act.

> 2. That the merchandise, the facts and the issues herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Panation Trade Co.*v. *United States,*A.R.D. 181, and that the record in the said cited case may be incorporated herein.

> *6013. That on or about the date of exportation of the involved merchandise, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets in the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses, incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States were the total appraised values, less the item of inspection fee as invoiced.

> 4. That the appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation and upon the incorporated record, the same Being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and hold that such statutory values for the involved merchandise are the total appraised values, less the item of inspection fee, as invoiced.

As to all other merchandise included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
From: Imjharper@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:09:33 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,

Jeff Harper

Fowlerville, MI 48836
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Dated this 27th day of June , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) CR06-5086 JPD

ROMAN J. ELIZARDE,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The defendant has requested additional time in which to pay the monetary fines

imposed at the time of sentencing, March 27, 2006. The request is GRANTED. The defendant

shall have until Tuesday, January 2, 2007, in which to complete payment of the fines imposed. 

Case 3:06-cr-05086-JPD Document 12 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 61594.

#### Austin Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 276532-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vinters Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the First Division,

November 8, 1962

No. 67174.

protests 58/25824, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Rex Sales Co. and H. B. Thomas & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: mc3804@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:17:36 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,

Margaret Coles

Mobile, AL 36695
From: Mark.A-CTR.Jordan@faa.gov [mailto:Mark.A-CTR.Jordan@faa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 7:28 AM

To: Smet, Robert

Subject: FW: Information concerning the use of a drone at a community college_Wenatchee Valley Community College_Smet

My name is Mark Jordan and I am the point of contact for Universities and Colleges nationwide regarding COA application for 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) integration into the National Airspace System (NAS). The following information is provided to 

assist you in obtaining information on Certificate of Waiver/Authorization (COA) for the University/College for which you are 

affiliated. 

A public operation is one that is intrinsically governmental in nature (i.e., Federal, State, and local agencies). Proponents 

requesting approval of public aircraft operations by UAS will use the COA application process. The operating authority for a

UAS that supports type of operations you have described and is not a government function under Title 49 United States Code 

(49 USC) section 40125(a)(2), therefore the proposed operation would not be a public aircraft operation for which the 

Certificate of Authorization (COA) authorization is intended. You will however, need some authority to operate under the 

conditions you describe. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has released an interpretation which I have attached that goes into some detail 

regarding this. 

The FAA has implemented the provisions of Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, “Special Rules for 

Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” which will allow for commercial operations in low-risk, controlled environments. Based 

on the information you have provided, this may be an option for you. I cannot at this time give you a timeline for how long this 

process will take, however Section 333 exemptions are being granted, as of the end of 2014. Proponents requesting approval 

for private and civil operation will use the Section 333 exemptions. If you have any additional questions about the Section 333 

of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 petition process, please contact Shanora Davis at (202) 267-7540 or email 

Shanora.Davis@faa.gov .

Please visit our website for additional details. Check the “news” links for recent “News and Updates Stories.”

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

For Petition:

http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/

Mark Jordan

Airspace Analyst

JMA Solutions, supporting

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, Emerging Technologies Team AJV-115

University/College Liaison

470 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Suite 7105

Washington, DC 20024 

(202) 267-8174

Mark.A-CTR.Jordan@faa.gov
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________
N O

. 0 9

- 21

- 00088

- CV

__________________
MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM OF EAST TEXAS D/B/A CHI ST. LUKE’S HEALTH MEMORIAL , Appellant

V.

EDWARD SIMON , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CIV30598

__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorial Health System of East Texas d/b/a CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial

(Memorial) moved to dismiss its appeal

, asserting t he trial court granted the

plaintiff’s ( Edw ard Simon’s ) agreed motion for nonsuit and disposed of all the

claims that are relevant to the appeal. Memorial made its motion voluntarily and

filed it before we decided the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party2 appealed. We conclude t he motion should be granted, so we grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

S ubmitted on June 9, 2021 Opinion Delivered June 10, 2021

Before Golemon , C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.