alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 9, 2023

Dear Tribal Leader:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR), and federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) tribes share the

goal of establishing clear policies to further the government-to-government relationship between the 

United States government and federally recognized AI/AN tribes. Effective consultation results in 

information exchange, mutual understanding, and informed decision-making.

CDC/ATSDR would like to thank all the tribal leaders and tribal partners who provided recommendations 

to improve the CDC/ATSDR Tribal Consultation Policy to better engage with AI/AN Federally Recognized 

Tribes. CDC/ATSDR recognizes our unique relationship with AI/AN federally recognized tribes and are 

committed to fulfilling our critical role in promoting the health and safety of AI/AN people.

CDC/ATSDR hosted an in-person and virtual government-to-government consultation with tribal leaders 

to receive input and guidance on how to strengthen relationships during the implementation of the CDC 

Moving Forward initiative, how the agency could better engage with Indian Country through meaningful 

consultation, tribes' priorities as we transitioned out of the federal COVID-19 public health emergency 

declaration, and how CDC/ATSDR could better support tribes and tribal communities in the future.

CDC/ATSDR has reviewed all testimonies received during the consultation period, December 13, 2022, 

to February 24, 2023, 5:00 pm (EDT). CDC/ATSDR received input from seven tribal nations and one tribal 

partner. The agency summarized tribal leaders’ responses to the consultation’s guiding questions and 

provided initial responses to the most frequent recommendations in a summary report titled, “Tribal 

Consultation on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease 

Registry’s (CDC/ATSDR) CDC Moving Forward Initiative.” In this report, CDC/ATSDR categorized 

recommendations into recurring themes: 1) CDC Moving Forward; 2) Accountability; 3) Health Equity; 4) 

Data; and 5) Funding.

As CDC Moving Forward continues, CDC/ASTDR will use these recommendations as a resource to ensure

that tribal nations are part of the effort. CDC/ATSDR will provide updates on the initiative to the 

CDC/ATSDR Tribal Advisory Committee at future TAC engagements. 

If you have questions about the “Tribal Consultation on CDC/ATSDR’s Tribal Consultation Policy Report”, 

please email us at tribalsupport@cdc.gov.

Sincerely,

Leslie Ann Dauphin, PhD

Director 

National Center for STLT Public Health Infrastructure and Workforce 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1

From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:28 PM

To: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com

Cc: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov; Bahner, Mark A.; Green, David A.

Subject: Surrogate justifications/arguments; COS reductions

Mike, 

During the EPA/PAL RTR conference call last month (on 03/22/11 I believe) we discussed the possibility of using PM as a 

surrogate for not only HAP metals but also for other HAP (POM and TF as I recall). Have you made any progress on a 

document presenting your justifications and supporting arguments for this approach? Do you have a time frame for when I 

could expect that document? 

Also, as a not-so-subtle reminder, please be thinking about approaches (e.g. work practice standards, raw material 

specifications, controls, etc.) that could be used to reduce the COS emissions from the potlines at PAL facilities. Also, any

rationale from the industry perspective for why potlines should or should not be sub-categorized for purposes of COS (i.e. 

as they are for POM and TF) would be helpful. That is, are you aware of any reasons why COS emissions would vary 

between the various prebake and Soderberg potline types. Rochelle and I are attempting to spread the word about the 

COS issue to the PAL facilities (we discussed this with the folks at Century Aluminum in KY, Rio-Tinto Alcan in KY, and 

Noranda Aluminum in MO during our recent plant tours) and would appreciate any help/information we can get that would 

assist in addressing COS emissions. 

Thanks so much, 

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 23

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants
               ---------------------------------------------------


         We have issued our report dated April 24, 2002 (except for notes 1 and
3, as to which the date is May 9, 2002 and note 7, as to which the date is June
5, 2002), accompanying the consolidated financial statements incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report of Environmental Tectonics Corporation and
Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended February 22, 2002 and Part II of
this form. We have also audited Schedule II for each of the three years in the
period ended February 22, 2002. In our opinion, this schedule represents fairly,
in all material respects, the information required to be set forth therein. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the
Registration Statement of Environmental Tectonics Corporation and Subsidiaries
of Form S-8 (File No. 333-65469, effective October 8, 1998), Form S-8 (File No
2-92407, effective August 14, 1984) and on Form S-3 (File No. 33-42219,
effective September 4, 1991).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
----------------------

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 7, 2002
No. 10-136.

#### Robert Horel, Warden, Petitioner v. Felix Solorio Valdovinos.

562 U.S. 1196, 131 S. Ct. 1042,

178 L. Ed. 2d 860,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1035,

January 24, 2011.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S. Ct. 770, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011).

Same case below, 598 F.3d 568.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          71,358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                       395
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,285
<PP&E>                                           3,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,790
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,510
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,196
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,303
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   322
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,369)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,369)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,369)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)


</TABLE>
No. 10-8070.

#### Dedrick Germond Smith, aka Derrick Smith, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1206, 131 S. Ct. 1058,

178 L. Ed. 2d 875,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1025.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-7285.

#### Thomas Earl Evans, Petitioner v. Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

562 U.S. 1150, 131 S. Ct. 931,

178 L. Ed. 2d 775,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 336.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6057.

#### Charles Lamont Miller, Petitioner v. William B. Kolender, former Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, et al.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 987,

178 L. Ed. 2d 816,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 194.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 513, 178 L. Ed. 2d 379, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8546.
Sanitized Explanation of Calculation of Impurities
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1230 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-141-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
SERVED JANUARY 11,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09NM0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0979 

PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before March 1, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely 

manner... 

'Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09NM0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000* 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2774 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2774

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require coverage without 
a deductible of certain primary care services by high deductible health 
                                 plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2019

 Mr. Schneider (for himself and Ms. Stefanik) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require coverage without 
a deductible of certain primary care services by high deductible health 
                                 plans.

    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 ``Primary Care Patient Protection Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF COVERAGE WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLE OF CERTAIN PRIMARY 
              CARE SERVICES BY HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 223(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``if substantially all of its coverage 
is coverage described in paragraph (1)(B).'' and inserting the 
following: ``if--
                            ``(i) substantially all of its coverage is 
                        coverage described in paragraph (1)(B), or
                            ``(ii) such plan has a deductible for 
                        primary care services provided by a qualified 
                        provider as part of a qualified visit.''.
    (b) Qualified Primary Care Services Defined.--Section 223(c) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraph:
            ``(6) Primary care services.--The term `primary care 
        services' has the meaning given such term by section 
        1833(x)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act, without regard to 
        clauses (ii) and (iii) of such section.
            ``(7) Qualified provider.--The term `qualified provider' 
        means a general practitioner, family physician, general 
        internist, obstetrician, gynecologist, pediatrician, geriatric 
        physician, or advanced practice registered nurse acting in 
        accordance with State laws.
            ``(8) Qualified visit.--The term `qualified visit' means, 
        with respect to an individual for a plan year, either of the 
        first 2 visits by the individual during the year with a 
        qualified provider who is designated by such individual as the 
        primary care provider for such individual.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to plan years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-6541.

#### Bruce John Kenneway, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

562 U.S. 1049, 131 S. Ct. 609,

178 L. Ed. 2d 444,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8959.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
# HflDOn Roofing C



### 0

## m pan y A Name You Can Trust 5039 West Avenue • P. 0. Box 13380 • Son Antonio, Texas 78213 (210) 341-3100 ·(BOO) 688-7663 ·Fox (210) 341-2959 www.beldon.com
via CMRRR #91 7108 2133 3939 7759 0111 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20950 RE: ExemptionNo. 13469 March 9, 2016

Regulatory DocketNo. FAA-2015-3250 Dear Madam or Sir, .._.·; 

### ...

Please be advised that we are no longer in possession of the drone model Phantom 3 Advance (manufacturer, DJI). This drone is in the possession ofits owner Duane Charping, a former employee ofBeldon Roofing Company who resigned February 29, 2016.

· We are still:in possession ofthe Phantom 3 Standard. ··Should you require any additional information, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, BELDON ROOFING COMPANY

# cl~! l!wrp- Sr. Paralegal to Curtis P. Cote, General Counsel
copy: via regular mailandemailtransmission to: 333exemjJtions@faa.gov Ms. Brenda Robeson, Program Analyst U.S. Dept. ofTransportation- FAA 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Mr. Duane Charping 5646 Southern Oaks San Antonio, Texas 78261

Licensed in the states afFlorida ((.[057757, Nevada #68211, andotherstates. Please see www.beldon.com/states for acomplete list oflicenses.
No. 10-603.

#### Super Duper, Incorporated, dba Super Duper Publications, Petitioner v. Mattel, Incorporated.

562 U.S. 1179, 131 S. Ct. 1003,

178 L. Ed. 2d 827,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 720.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 308.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, Michael Feinsod, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ameritrans Capital Corporation;2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 15, 2012By: /s/Michael R. Feinsod
Michael R. Feinsod
Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-6815.

#### Will Moss, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1021, 131 S. Ct. 550,

178 L. Ed. 2d 403,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8441.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 651.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36879-36880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18110]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of Michigan, Notice of Decision on Application for 
Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 98-024. Applicant: University of Michigan, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48109-2150. Instrument: (3) Sensor Sets, Model ODIN 4. 
Manufacturer: A.D.C. GmbH, Germany. Intended Use:

[[Page 36880]]

See notice at 63 FR 27562, May 19, 1998.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides long and short 
range infrared sensors, a control algorithm and a driver interface for 
an ``intelligent'' cruise control system for automobiles. A private 
highway safety research organization advised August 1, 1996 that (1) 
these capabilities are pertinent to the applicant's intended purpose 
and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument for the applicant's intended 
use (comparable case).
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 98-18110 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P