alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 19, 1995

Mr. Chuck Clarke

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY

Re: Revision Authorization Application for

Land Disposal Restriction Program Changes

Dear Mr. Clarke:

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3OO6(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), Oregon once again submits for final authorization the pertinent parts of an

official application for approval of program revisions in accordance with 40 CFR Part 271

(we are not including changes to the Program Description or Memorandum of Agreement

since this change does not materially change Department procedures).

On October 4, 1994, Oregon was authorized for federal hazardous waste regulations (except

corrective action), including the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) program. This revision

application is for federal amendments to the program at 40 CFR Part 268, 59 Federal

Register (48043-48110), September 19, 1994, effective December 19, 1994. On May 18,

1995, the Environmental Quality Commission permanently adopted all EPA hazardous waste

rules enacted between July I, 1993 and April 1, 1995, including the Phase II, Land Disposal

Restriction rules.

We believe this revision to the LDR program is an important step in simplifying and

clarifying the program. It is our hope that an expedited authorization will eliminate any

possible confusion over the enforcement of the program. We urge you to make use of the

flexibility afforded the regions by Mike Shapiro's memorandum on "Universal Treatment

Standards Authorization Implications" dated December 19, 1994.

We request that EPA publish a final rule in the Federal Register as soon as possible to

authorize us for changes to 40 CFR Part 268. If there are any questions about this

application, please contact Roy Brower, Hazardous Waste Policy and Program Development

Manager, (503) 229-6585.

811 SW Sixth Avenue

Portland. OR 97204-1390

(503) 229-5696

TDD (503) 229-6993 PIDEQ·! ">:f
•

Mr. Chuck Clarke

May 19, 1995

Page 2

Thank you for your assistance and support in this process.

•

Sincerely,

~~~~,~

Langdon Marsh r

Director

Enclosure: Revision Authorization Application for Land Disposal Restriction Program

Changes

cc: Mary Wahl, Administrator, WMC, DEQ

Lauris Davies, EPA 10

Randy Smith, EPA 10

Larry Edelman, DOJ, Oregon

Hazardous Waste Managers, DEQ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1997 FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000904896 
<NAME> N-VIRO INTERNATIONAL CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          31,677
<SECURITIES>                                     1,401
<RECEIVABLES>                                  821,906
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,013,283
<PP&E>                                         561,229
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,423,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,593,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,558
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,423,369
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,052,648
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,829,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (312,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   534,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4110-000]


The Detroit Edison Company; Notice of Filing

October 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 24, 1997, The Detroit Edison Company 
filed an amendment to its filing in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 22, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Comission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27915 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26914]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-3-008]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation, tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an 
effective date of November 1, 1997:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 434
Second Revised Sheet No. 435
Third Revised Sheet No. 436
Third Revised Sheet No. 487A
Third Revised Sheet No. 488
Third Revised Sheet No. 489
Third Revised Sheet No. 681

    Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to comply 
with the Commission's letter order issued on June 2, 1997, in Docket 
No. RP97-3-006, which approved Texas Eastern's pro forma tariff sheets 
implementing the Order No. 587-C Standards for Business Practices of 
Interstate Natural Gas pipelines issued March 4, 1997 and directed 
Texas Eastern to file actual tariff sheets at least 30 days prior to 
the designated November 1, 1997, effective date.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on firm 
customers of Texas Eastern's and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26914 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3119 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3119

 To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reclassifying 
 broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service and 
    from imposing certain regulations on providers of such service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 24, 2023

 Mr. Lee (for himself, Mr. Budd, Ms. Lummis, and Mr. Rubio) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reclassifying 
 broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service and 
    from imposing certain regulations on providers of such service.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Internet Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF FCC.

    (a) In General.--The notice of proposed rulemaking adopted by the 
Federal Communications Commission in WC Docket No. 23-320 on October 
19, 2023 (relating to broadband internet access service) shall have no 
force or effect, and the Commission may not adopt any rule pursuant to 
that notice or adopt any substantially similar rule unless the rule is 
specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to any rule adopted 
pursuant to the notice described in that subsection, or any 
substantially similar rule, that is adopted before, on, or after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    (c) Rule Defined.--In this section, the term ``rule'' has the 
meaning given the term in section 804 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gerald J. MAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 20, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1970.

Gerald J. May, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Ward v. State, 236 So.2d 187 (Fla.App.1970).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
May 7, 2020 

Subject: Dismissal of Complaint DOT# 2020-0018 

Dear

1200 NewJerse·v .A.venue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

In Reply Refer to: HCR-20 

DOT# 2020-0018 

This letter is to info1m you that the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) Office of Civil 

Rights has dete1mined that it will disrniss the above complaint, which alleges violations that may 

be related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) Title VI implementation regulations at 49 C.F.R. Paii 21 and/or FHWA's Title VI 

regulations at 23 C.F.R. Pait 200 (hereinafter Title VI). Title VI prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance. 

To be accepted for investigation, a complaint must meet the jurisdictional requirements provided 

by 49 C.F.R. § 21.11. First, complaints must be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged 

discriminato1y act, unless the time for filing is extended by FHW A. Second, the matters must 

concern recipients of federal financial assistance for a program or programs authorized under a 

law administered by FHW A. Finally, the complaint must describe an alleged discriminato1y act 

or acts that, if trne, would fall under FHWA's jurisdiction and potentially violate FHWA's Title 

VI regulations. 

You allege that Arizona Depa1iment of Transpo1iation (ADOT) inspectors discriminated against 

you by finding that your company's concrete work did not meet ADOT specifications. You 

fmiher allege that ADOT inspectors let two Caucasian-owned fitIDS "slide" on similar work 

within the area of Globe, Arizona. 

After cai·eful consideration, FHW A has determined the allegations and facts in your complaint 

do not meet the minimum criteria under which FHW A could establish a case of disparate 

treatment or disparate impact under Title VI. The available information is insufficient to show 

contemporaneous statements from decision makers that express discriminatory intent based on 

race, color, or national origin. The available inf01mation is also insufficient to show how 

ADOT's enforcement of its specifications constitute a disparate impact based on race, color, 

national origin. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed by FHW A and closed with no 

fmiher action. 

If you have any questions, please contact Nichole McWhorter at (202) 366-1396. 
Sincerely, 

Nichole McWhorter 

Title VI Team Leader 

Office of Civil Rights 

cc: Karla Petty, Division Administrator, FHWA Arizona Division Office

 Anthony Sarhan, Assistant Division Administrator, FHWA Arizona Division Office 

Tremaine Wilson, Civil Rights Specialist, FHWA Arizona Division Office 

Jim Esselman, Senior Attorney-Advisor, FHWA Office of Chief Counsel 

Yvette Rivera, Associate Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Division, 

Departmental Office of Civil Rights 

Kevin Resler, National Title VI Program Coordinator, FHWA Office of Civil Rights 

Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23.01

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Industrial Scientific Corporation on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-65532) of our
report dated March 13, 1998 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Industrial Scientific Corporation and Subsidiaries as of January
31, 1998, and January 25, 1997, and for each of the three years in the period
ended January 31, 1998, which reports are incorporated by reference.



 
                                         Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.



600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
April 28, 1998
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Subject: INFORMATION: Guidelines for the Selection of W-Beam Barrier 

Terminals

/Original Signed by/

From: John R. Baxter, P.E.

Director, Office of Safety Design

To: Resource Center Directors

Division Administrators

Federal Land Highway Division Engineers

Since late 1998, W-beam terminals installed on the NHS have been required to be 

crashworthy. The NCHRP Report 350 was adopted in 1993 as the standard by which the 

“crashworthiness” of roadside hardware is judged and its adoption has resulted in many 

new or re-designed terminals for W-Beam guardrail. However, all crashworthy terminals 

do not have the same performance characteristics and thus should not be used 

interchangeably without regard to site-specific conditions. The purpose of this 

memorandum is to provide specific information on the characteristics of most W-beam 

guardrail terminals that have been accepted for use on the NHS under the test evaluation 

criteria contained in NCHRP Report 350, and to provide guidelines for their selection. In 

addition, it provides specific information on the proper design and use of the generic 

buried-in-backslope design, an issue that was raised by the NTSB in conjunction with its 

recent report on a multiple fatality crash.

Designers must assure that all W-beam terminals, especially those that do not dissipate 

significant impact energy in end-on hits, are situated to provide an adequate recovery area 

behind the terminal. Adequate advance grading, adjacent grading and runout distance 

grading are critical for achieving optimal crash performance for all W-beam terminal 

designs. For a buried-in-backslope terminal, care should be given to assuring a proper

length of need is established and that an appropriate recovery area is provided beyond 

and behind the rail if the backslope is flatter than approximately 1:1. In addition, the 

guardrail height for a buried-in-backslope terminal design should be measured from the 

roadway grade and not from the ground directly below the rail on high-speed NHS 

routes. 

Memorandum

Date: October 26, 2004

In Reply Refer To: HSA-10
2

The attached guidelines provide general information on a number of W-beam barrier end 

treatments as well as an expanded discussion of the design criteria noted above. Detailed 

information on specific terminals is at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/report350hardware 

under Terminals and Crash Cushions, using the keyword “W-beam Terminals” from the 

dropdown list. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Richard Powers at (202) 

366-1320 or at richard.powers@fhwa.dot.gov.

Attachment
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3053 

To prohibit the importation of crude oil, petroleum, petroleum products, 

and liquefied natural gas from Venezuela and Iran. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2023 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. DAINES, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. 

TILLIS, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the importation of crude oil, petroleum, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas from Venezuela 

and Iran. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preempting Misguided 

5 Appeasement and Financing of Destabilizing Regimes Act 

6 of 2023’’. 

2 

•S 3053 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL, PE2 TROLEUM, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND LIQ3 UEFIED NATURAL GAS FROM VENEZUELA 

4 AND IRAN. 

5 (a) FINDING.—Congress makes the following find6 ings: 

7 (1) Article XXI of the General Agreement on 

8 Tariffs and Trade provides for security exceptions to 

9 the rules of the World Trade Organization to allow 

10 a member of the World Trade Organization to take 

11 actions ‘‘necessary for the protection of its essential 

12 security interests’’ during ‘‘time of war or other 

13 emergency in international relations’’ or ‘‘to prevent 

14 any contracting party from taking any action in pur15 suance of its obligations under the United Nations 

16 Charter for the maintenance of international peace 

17 and security’’. 

18 (2) The actions of the Bolivarian Republic of 

19 Venezuela and the Islamic Republic of Iran to fi20 nance and facilitate the participation of foreign ter21 rorist organizations in ongoing conflicts and illicit 

22 activities, in a manner that is detrimental to the se23 curity interests of the United States, warrants tak24 ing action under that Article. 

3 

•S 3053 IS

1 (b) PROHIBITION.—The importation of crude oil, pe2 troleum, petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas 

3 from Venezuela and Iran is prohibited. 

4 (c) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition under subsection 

5 (b) does not apply with respect to crude oil, petroleum, 

6 petroleum products, or liquefied natural gas seized by the 

7 United States Government for violations of sanctions im8 posed by the United States. 

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The prohibition under sub10 section (b) applies with respect to articles entered, or with11 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

12 date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of 

13 this Act. 

Æ
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Motorvehicle use map ... Tombigbee National Forest, Mississippi [electronicresource].**
 
2013| 2016| 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:T 59/3/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000912180
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Seyed D. Tahaei (a.k.a., David Tahaei), Petitioner,

v.

Sherri L. Tahaei (f.k.a., Sherri L. Smith), Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213623 Lower Court Case No. 2005-DR-15-0316

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Colleton County The Honorable Frances P. Segars-Andrews, Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-021 Submitted June 24, 2014 – Filed July 2, 2014

REVERSED

Thomas James Rode, of T hurmond Kirchner Timbes & Yelverton, PA, of Charleston, for Petitioner.

Sherri L. Tahaei, Pro Se Respondent, of Summerville.PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certio rari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Tahaei v. Tahaei , 2012-UP-078 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Aug. 1, 2012). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and reverse the Court of Appeals' decision.

The Court of Appeals erred in reviewing the trial court's decision de novo. An action to determine the existence of a co mmon law marriage is an action at law, but the question of whether a common la w marriage exists is one of fact. Campbell v. Christian , 235 S.C. 102, 104, 110 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1959). In an action at law, on appeal from a case tried without a ju ry, the findings of fact of the trial court will not be disturbed on a ppeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the trial court's findings. Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville , 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976). Under the proper "any evidence" standard of review, we find the record contains sufficient evidence to uphold the trial court's findings of fact, including the existe nce of a common-law marriage. The Court of Appeals erred by s upporting its finding of the existence of a common law marriage with its own fi ndings of fact from the record.

Accordingly, the decision of th e Court of Appeals is hereby

REVERSED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.
1

# image5.tiff

# image6.tiff

# image7.tiff

# image8.tiff

# image9.tiff

# image10.tiff

# image11.tiff

# image12.tiff

# image13.tiff

# image14.tiff

# image15.tiff

# image16.tiff

# image17.tiff

# image18.tiff

# image19.tiff

# image20.tiff

# image21.tiff

# image22.tiff

# image23.tiff

# image24.tiff

# image25.tiff

# image26.tiff

# image27.tiff

# image28.tiff

# image29.tiff

# image30.tiff

# image31.tiff

# image32.tiff

# image33.tiff

# image34.tiff

# image35.tiff

# image36.tiff

# image37.tiff

# image38.tiff

# image39.tiff

# image40.tiff

# image41.tiff

# image42.tiff

# image43.tiff

# image44.tiff

# image45.tiff

# image46.tiff

# image47.tiff

# image48.tiff

# image1.tiff

# image2.tiff

# image3.tiff

# image4.tiff