alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 417.802 Allowable costs. ( a ) *General rule.* The costs that are considered allowable for HCPP reimbursement are the same as those for reasonable cost HMOs and CMPs specified in subpart O of this part, except those in §§ 417.531, 417.532 (a)(3) and (c) through (g), 417.536 (l) and (m), 417.546, 417.548, and 417.550(b)(2).
( b ) *Physicians' services and other Part B supplier services furnished under arrangements* — ( 1 ) *Principle.* The amount paid by an HCPP for physicians' services and other Part B supplier services furnished under arrangements is an allowable cost to the extent it is reasonable.
( 2 ) *Application: Payment on other than a fee-for-service basis.* If the HCPP pays for physicians' services and other Part B supplier services on other than a fee-for-service basis— ( i ) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the costs incurred by the HCPP may be considered reasonable if they— ( A ) Do not exceed those that a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would incur to purchase those services; and
( B ) Are comparable to costs incurred for similar services furnished by similar physicians and other suppliers in the same or a similar locality.
( ii ) ( A ) If a physician group to whom the HCPP makes payment compensates its physicians on a fee-for-service basis, the HCPP's payment to the group may not exceed the reasonable charges for those services, as defined in subpart E of part 405 of this chapter.
( B ) Payment in excess of the limits specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section is allowable if the group has procedures under which members of the group accept effective incentives, such as risk-sharing, designed to avoid unnecessary or unduly costly utilization of health services. In such cases, the amount paid by the HCPP is considered reasonable if it meets the conditions specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
( 3 ) *Application: Payment on a fee-for-service basis.* If the HCPP pays for physicians' services and other Part B supplier services on a fee-for-service basis— ( i ) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, the costs incurred by the HCPP are considered reasonable if they do not exceed— ( A ) The reasonable charges for those services, as defined in subpart E of part 405 of this chapter; and
( B ) The amount that CMS would pay for those services if they were furnished to beneficiaries who are not enrolled in the HCPP and who receive the services from sources other than providers of services or other entities that are reimbursed on a reasonable cost basis.
( ii ) Payment to a physician group organized on an individual-practice basis is not subject to the paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section if the group pays its physicians on a fee-for-service basis and has procedures under which the members of the group accept effective incentives, such as risk-sharing, designed to avoid unnecessary or unduly costly utilization of health services. In these cases, the amount paid by an HCPP is considered reasonable if it meets the conditions specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
[50 FR 1375, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38081, July 15, 1993]
§ 424.522 Additional effective dates. ( a ) *Reassignments.* A reassignment of benefits under § 424.80 is effective beginning 30 days before the Form CMS-855R is submitted if all applicable requirements during that period were otherwise met.
( b ) *Form CMS-855O enrollment.* The effective date of a Form CMS-855O enrollment is the date on which the Medicare contractor received the Form CMS-855O application if all other requirements are met.
[86 FR 62419, Nov. 9, 2021]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 335

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and increase the

deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. NEAL (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. COYNE, and Mr. BACHUS) 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 restore

and increase the deduction for the health insurance costs

of self-employed individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS

4 OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS IN5 CREASED AND MADE PERMANENT.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 162(l)

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

8 rules for health insurance costs of self-employed individ9 uals) is amended by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘the applicable percentage’’.
2

•HR 335 IH

1 (b) DEDUCTION MADE PERMANENT; APPLICABLE

2 PERCENTAGE.—Paragraph (6) of section 162(l) of such

3 Code is amended to read as follows:

4 ‘‘(6) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes

5 of paragraph (1)—

In the case of taxable

years beginning in The applicable

calendar year: percentage is:

1994 or 1995 ............................................. 25 percent

1996 or 1997 ............................................. 50 percent

1998 or thereafter ..................................... 100 percent.’’

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

8 December 31, 1993.

Æ
P.O. Box 700548, Dallas, Texas 75370-0548 

(972) 725-9000  FAX (972) 725-9090 

February 4, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M30 

Docket Number FAA-2003-15806 

West building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 new Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Submitted via FAA Docket 2003-15806 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On behalf of Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (Ameristar), I respectfully request that Exemption No. 

10313 be extended beyond its current expiration date of July 31, ,2013. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted exemption No. 10313 to Ameristar on July 

15, 2011. This exemption is from 14 CFR §§ 91.203(a) and (b) and 121.153(a)(1) and allows 

Ameristar to operate its U.S.-registered aircraft in domestic operations temporarily following the 

incidental loss or mutilation of that aircraft’s airworthiness certificate or registration certificate, or 

both. 

Granting an extension of Exemption No. 10313 would be in the public interest by continuing to 

provide an uninterrupted and immediate service to the public in the event that an aircraft 

registration or airworthiness certificate was lost or mutilated. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Pat Hulsey 

Director of Operations
§ 478.24 Opportunity for a party to obtain and submit information. ( a ) Subject to the rules concerning disclosure of QIO information in section 1160 of the Act, at the request of a provider, practitioner or beneficiary, the QIO must provide an opportunity for examination of the material upon which the initial denial determination was based. The QIO may not furnish a provider, practitioner or beneficiary with— ( 1 ) A record of the QIO deliberation; or
( 2 ) The identity of the QIO review coordinators, physician advisors, or consultants who assisted in the initial denial determination without their consent.
( b ) The QIO may require the requester to pay a reasonable fee for the reproduction of the material requested.
( c ) The QIO must provide a party with an opportunity to submit new evidence before the reconsidered determination is made.
- DipNote Home
- About
- All Posts
- Browse by Topic

HomeDipNote...DipNote: Outreach

# 						DipNote: Outreach					

		Subscribe		

0 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Back to Top
# C_2006086EN.01002102.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/21

---

Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-105/06)

(2006/C 86/41)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing Directive 2003/30/EC ended on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42.

1

---
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Programs
- Regional Offices
- Notes and Notices
- Contact Us
- OFM COVID-19 Resources

HomeOffice of Foreign Missions...Leadership – Office of Foreign Missions

# 						Leadership – Office of Foreign Missions					

2											Items									

          -  							Gonzales, Ambassador Rebecca E.						DirectorOffice of Foreign Missions 
          -  							Seagroves, Cliff						Principal Deputy DirectorOffice of Foreign Missions 

Back to Top
#### Joy Hurt PETERS v. John Robert PETERS.

No. 51699.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 13, 1980.

Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, Stephen C. Edds, Columbus, for appellant.

Appeal from .Chancery Court, Noxubee County; W. W. Brand, Jr., Chancellor.

*937Brown & Perkins, Ernest L. Brown, Macon, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and WALKER and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 455.500 Purpose.

This subpart implements section 1902(a)(42)(B) of the Act that establishes the Medicaid Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.
§ 456.401 State plan UR requirements and options; UR plan required for intermediate care facility services. ( a ) The State plan must provide that— ( 1 ) UR is performed for each ICF that furnishes inpatient services under the plan;
( 2 ) Each ICF has on file a written UR plan that provides for review of each beneficiary's need for the services that the ICF furnishes him; and
( 3 ) Each written ICF UR plan meets requirements under §§ 456.401 through 456.438.
( b ) The State plan must specify the method used to perform UR, which may be— ( 1 ) Review conducted by the facility;
( 2 ) Direct review in the facility by individuals— ( i ) Employed by the medical assistance unit of the Medicaid agency; or
( ii ) Under contract to the Medicaid agency; or
( 3 ) Any other method.
§ 455.16 Resolution of full investigation. A full investigation must continue until— ( a ) Appropriate legal action is initiated;
( b ) The case is closed or dropped because of insufficient evidence to support the allegations of fraud or abuse; or
( c ) The matter is resolved between the agency and the provider or beneficiary. This resolution may include but is not limited to— ( 1 ) Sending a warning letter to the provider or beneficiary, giving notice that continuation of the activity in question will result in further action;
( 2 ) Suspending or terminating the provider from participation in the Medicaid program;
( 3 ) Seeking recovery of payments made to the provider; or
( 4 ) Imposing other sanctions provided under the State plan.
[43 FR 45262, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 48 FR 3756, Jan. 27, 1983]
HomeKey Topics – Bureau of Energy Resources...CAATSA/CRIEEA Section 232 Public Guidance

# 									CAATSA/CRIEEA Section 232 Public Guidance							

Bureau of Energy Resources

October 31, 2017

The Department of State is committed to fully implementing sanctions authorities in the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA or the Act). We continue to call on Russia to honor its commitments to the Minsk agreement and to cease its malicious cyber intrusions.

Section 232 sanctions are discretionary. In accordance with Sections 212 and 232 of the Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, will coordinate with allies of the United States in imposing these sanctions. The intent of such sanctions would be to impose costs on Russia for its malign behavior, such as in response to aggressive actions against the United States and our allies and partners.

Any implementation of Section 232 sanctions would seek to avoid harming the energy security of our partners or endangering public health and safety. Consistent with the Act (Section 257), it remains the policy of the United States to “work with European Union Member States and European institutions to promote energy security through developing diversified and liberalized energy markets that provide diversified sources, suppliers, and routes.”

For the purposes of Section 232, the focus of implementation would be on energy export pipelines that (1) originate in the Russian Federation, and (2) transport hydrocarbons across an international land or maritime border for delivery to another country. Pipelines that originate outside the Russian Federation and transit through the territory of the Russian Federation would not be the focus of implementation.

The focus of implementation of Section 232 sanctions would be on persons that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines knowingly, on or after ‎August 2, 2017 (1) made an investment that meets the fair market value thresholds in Section 232(a) and directly and significantly enhances the ability of the Russian Federation to construct energy export pipeline projects initiated on or after August 2, 2017, or (2) sells, leases, or provides to the Russian Federation goods or services that meet the fair market value thresholds in Section 232(a) and that directly and significantly facilitate the expansion, construction, or modernization of such energy export pipelines by the Russian Federation.

For the purposes of Section 232, a project is considered to have been initiated when a contract for the project is signed.

Investments and loan agreements made prior to August 2, 2017 would not be subject to Section 232 sanctions. ‎

Implementation of Section 232 sanctions would not target investments or other activities related to the standard repair and maintenance of pipelines in existence on, and capable of transporting commercial quantities of hydrocarbons,‎ as of August 2, 2017.

Tags

EnergyRussiaSanctions

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1220 Enrollee rights.

The State must ensure, through its contracts, that each MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM, and PCCM entity follow the enrollee rights requirements in accordance with the terms of § 438.100 of this chapter.
#### § 433.34 Cost allocation.

A State plan under Title XIX of the Social Security Act must provide that the single or appropriate Agency will have an approved cost allocation plan on file with the Department in accordance with the requirements contained in subpart E of 45 CFR part 95. Subpart E also sets forth the effect on FFP if the requirements contained in that subpart are not met.

[47 FR 17490, Apr. 23, 1982]
Mar 13 14 03:55p Aviation Multinational 786-2332561 p.1 

March 13, 2014 

REFERENCE NO. FAA~2012-1058 

Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT}, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Room W12-140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001 

~··-· 

.... ~. 

This letter is in support of the FAA requirements of drug testing for foreign personnel. There 

should be no difference requirements for foreign personnel than for US residents. 

. I: 

The likelihood of the use of drugs in foreign countries is much higher than in the US. We should 

~require dr.tiOesting outside the US . ... r· f .~:..1' ..... 

i / ~__,..·# . t iFba~Gu~1 '~--,~~-./~IY/l?.......-~1: ~r<J/ .... <i.J-' t~..,...-~V 

//'. Javier Rodrigue.v;~· I ~. .... :.:- ld: .... '~· 

J ~ .~ . ..--· 

Tel: 954.382.3405 • Cell: 954.290.5616 • Fax: 954.382.3405 

E-Mail: aviationm\lltinational@gmail.com • www.aviationmultinational.org 

1086 N.W. 96th Avenue • Plantation, Floric:fa 33322 USA
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Malta National Day

# 									Malta National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 21, 2021

On behalf of the United States of America, it is my pleasure to congratulate the people of Malta as you celebrate your 57th Independence Day.  The United States is proud of our longstanding partnership and cooperation with Malta, which is based upon our shared democratic values.

We also cherish our friendship with Malta, which has lasted for more than two centuries.  The United States looks forward to continuing the meaningful cooperation that exists between our two nations, as well as the expansion of our economic, cultural, and people-to-people ties.

Best wishes to all Maltese on this special day.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsMaltaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3546

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1996

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Walhalla

National Fish Hatchery to the State of South Carolina.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3546 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Walhalla National Fish

3 Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF WALHALLA NATIONAL FISH

5 HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CARO6 LINA.

7 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

9 of the Interior shall convey to the State of South Carolina

10 without reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the

11 United States in and to the property described in sub12 section (b), for use by the South Carolina Department of

13 Natural Resources as part of the State of South Carolina

14 fish culture program.

15 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

16 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Walhalla

17 National Fish Hatchery, located on Indian Camp Creek

18 and the East Fork of Chattooga River off of State Second19 ary Highway 325 in northern Oconee County, South Caro20 lina, consisting of 76.2 acres (more or less), all improve21 ments and related personal property under the control of

22 the Secretary that is located on that property, including

23 buildings, structures, and equipment, and all easements,

24 leases, and water rights relating to that property.

25 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If any of the prop26 erty conveyed to the State of South Carolina under this
3

HR 3546 RFS

1 section is used for any purpose other than the use author2 ized under subsection (a), all right, title, and interest in

3 and to all property conveyed under this section shall revert

4 to the United States. The State of South Carolina shall

5 ensure that all property reverting to the United States

6 under this subsection is in substantially the same or better

7 condition as at the time of transfer to the State.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
§ 447.400 Primary care services furnished by physicians with a specified specialty or subspecialty. ( a ) States pay for services furnished by a physician as defined in § 440.50 of this chapter, or under the personal supervision of a physician who self-attests to a specialty designation of family medicine, general internal medicine or pediatric medicine or a subspecialty recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), the American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS) or the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). Such physician then attests that he/she: ( 1 ) Is Board certified with such a specialty or subspecialty and/or
( 2 ) Has furnished evaluation and management services and vaccine administration services under codes described in paragraph (b) of this section that equal at least 60 percent of the Medicaid codes he or she has billed during the most recently completed CY or, for newly eligible physicians, the prior month.
( b ) At the end of CY 2013 and 2014 the Medicaid agency must review a statistically valid sample of physicians who received higher payments to verify that they meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
( c ) Primary care services designated in the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) are as follows: ( 1 ) Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes 99201 through 99499.
( 2 ) Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) vaccine administration codes 90460, 90461, 90471, 90472, 90473 and 90474, or their successor codes.
( d ) ( 1 ) The state must submit to CMS, in such form and at such time as CMS specifies, information relating to participation by physicians described in paragraph (a) of this section and the utilization of E&M codes described in paragraph (c) of this section (whether furnished by or under the supervision of a physician described in paragraph (a)) of this section for the following peri—s— ( i ) As of July 1, 2009, and
( ii ) CY 2013
( 2 ) As soon as practicable after receipt, CMS will post this information on *www.Medicaid.gov .*
[77 FR 66700, Nov. 6, 2012, as amended at 77 FR 74382, Dec. 14, 2012]
§ 488.1040 Onsite observations of home infusion therapy accrediting organization operations. ( a ) As part of the application review process, the ongoing review process, or the continuing oversight of a home infusion therapy accrediting organization's performance, CMS may conduct onsite inspections of the home infusion therapy accrediting organization's operations and offices at any time to verify the home infusion therapy accrediting organization's representations and to assess the home infusion therapy accrediting organization's compliance with its own policies and procedures.
( b ) Activities to be performed by CMS staff during the onsite inspections may include, but are not limited to the following: ( 1 ) Interviews with various accrediting organization staff.
( 2 ) Review of documents, survey files, audit tools, and related records.
( 3 ) Observation of meetings concerning the home infusion therapy accreditation process.
( 4 ) Auditing meetings concerning the accreditation process.
( 5 ) Observation of in-progress surveys and audits.
( 6 ) Evaluation of the accrediting organization's survey results and accreditation decision-making process.