alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-----Original Message----- 

From: dtowler@surfglobal.net [mailto:dtowler@surfglobal.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:54 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Daniel Towler 

3 Allerton St 

Provincetown, MA 02657
Page 1 of 1



### New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision Responses to Federal Land Managers’ Comments

On December 20, 2010, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) received written comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) regarding the November 19, 2010, draft final revisi on of New Hampshire’s Regional Haze SIP. These comments were provide in consultation with th e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and were in response to the revised Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for PSNH Merrimack Station Unit MK2. The following is NHDES ’s response to NPS’s comments. Comments are reproduced in italics and the response appears in regular font.

NPS Comments : We disagree with the methods used by NHDES to de monstrate the visibility response to BART controls at PSNH Merrimack Station . In the CALPUFF model, natural background visibility conditions are to be used to evaluate the visibility impacts from the BART source at Class I receptors. Natural background vi sibility conditions are to be used with current emissions from the source and again when co mparing visibility benefits of alternative emissions control options. The Federal Land Manage rs (FLMs) have recommended to the northeastern states that since only one year of met eorological data is being modeled, the 20% best natural background visibility conditions shoul d be used in the analysis. The maximum impact value at the Class I area receptors should b e used to determine the visibility impact of the source before control and assuming control inst allation. If three years of meteorological data are processed with observational data, the FLM s have recommended that the annual average of the natural background visibility condit ions can be used in the comparison with the 8th highest impact value in each year to determine the source's visibility impact. NHDES has incorrectly used the 20% worst days from current vi sibility conditions to evaluate the benefits of controls at Merrimack Station. Instead, the 20% best natural background visibility condition and the maximum visibility impact on any day should be used to evaluate the benefits of controls. NHDES' approach is not appropriate an d does not meet the BART modeling guidance. Since the maximum impact of the source m ay actually be on a good visibility day, and since the objective is to compare the source im pact to clean natural background visibility conditions, the analysis of the visibility impact o f controls at Merrimack Station is not acceptable and needs to be redone.

 NHDES Response : In the current revision of the SIP, NHDES has ad dressed the technical issues raised by NPS, which arose from a misinterpretation of the guidance by NHDES. Please refer to “New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP Revision, Responses to EPA’s Comments.” In particu lar, please see the CALPUFF Modeling Assessment, included as an attachment to t hat response document.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of VICORP Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 14, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned, Debra Koenig, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andAnthony Carroll, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief,that: 

 

1)              the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and

 

2)              the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  August 29, 2005 | /s/  Debra Koenig        |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                        | Debra  Koenig            |
|                        | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                        |                     |

 
| Date:  August 29, 2005 | /s/  Anthony Carroll     |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                        | Anthony  Carroll         |
|                        | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to VICORP Restaurants, Inc.and will be retained by VICORP Restaurants, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION     I, William R. Estill, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (the “Report”) of CollegiatePacific Inc. for the annual period ended June 30, 2006;2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is beingprepared;(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation;and(c) disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by this Report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: October 27, 2006       /s/ William R. Estill     William R. Estill, Chief Financial Officer
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending December 15, 2012

|Filer             | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                                
|----------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|1854 Bancorp      | * 3A1         | 1854 Bancorp, Cambridge, Massachusetts to become a mutual holding company through the acquisition of East Cambridge Savings Bank, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:        | Not available
|Federal Register: | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, June 16, 1995 (81), Para 81.6 Committees and Subcommittees to Sit]
[Page 1010]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.81.6  committees and subcommittees to sit

  On motion of Mr. SOLOMON, by unanimous consent, the following 
committees and their subcommittees were granted permission to sit during 
the 5-minute rule today: the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,781,869
<SECURITIES>                                   000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  45,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   000
<INVENTORY>                                    000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,826,869
<PP&E>                                         26,877,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 18,937,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,766,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,517,772
<BONDS>                                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          000
<PREFERRED>                                    000
<COMMON>                                       000
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,248,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,766,676
<SALES>                                        000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,025,545
<CGS>                                          000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,740,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,285,470
<INCOME-TAX>                                   000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,285,470
<DISCONTINUED>                                 000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                000
<CHANGES>                                      000
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,285,470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .26
        

</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1787

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to repeal the saccharin

notice requirement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1995

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. BURR, and Mr. COX of California) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to

repeal the saccharin notice requirement.

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

3 SECTION 1. NOTICE REQUIREMENT REPEAL.

4 Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

5 Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by striking paragraph

6 (p).

Æ
Conliri^JTravel 

People. Technology. Results. 

February 9, 2012 

•pmumof 

'iANSPORIATION 

•':Ki:T OPERATIONS 

l^ll FEB I 5 P 3: ! 5 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 _ ^ 

Re: Sun Country Slot Exemption - Docket Number FAA-2012-0089 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Sun Country Airlines has requested an exemption from the slot limit for Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport (DCA) set forth in § 93.123(a), to permit the FAA to create air 

carrier slots during certain limited hours for Sun Country's use. The proposed air carrier slots 

would replace two slot exemptions under DOT Order 2010-12-16 awarded to Sun Country. On 

January 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

the DOT Order, and Sun Countr)' will lose its existing service between DCA and Lansing's 

Capital Region International Airport. Specifically, Sun Country desires one daily slot during 

each of the 1000 and 1100 hours. The proposed exemption would permit Sun Country to 

continue operating its existing services and avoid an inequitable result of the Court's order. 

The Sun Country DCA service is essential to the economic growth of the Greater Lansing 

Region. The daily service is the only large aircraft (737-800) service to Washington Reagan 

Airport, in the state of Michigan outside of Detroit. Prior to Sun Country, the regional 

community had requested the introduction of this service from numerous other airline operators 

without success. Accordingly, it is critical that the FAA take the necessary steps to ensure the 

continuation of the Sun Country slots at the established flight times in support of Greater 

Lansing's biisiness and economic growth^ " ' " ' " ~ --- - -

Your immediate approval of this exemption, so that Sun Country can begin to enter flight 

schedules for sale for the balance of 2012, will be greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher U. Conlin 

President 

Conlin Travel, Inc. 

Ann Arbor 3270 Washtenaw Avenue | Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 | Phone 734.677.0900 | Fax 734.677.0901 

East Lansing 1504 E. Grand River Avenue. Suite 200 | East Lansing, Michigan 4S823 | Phone 517.492.1402 | Fax 517.333.2025 

San Francisco 350 Sansome, Suite 750 | San Francisco, California 94104 | Phone 415.788.4051 | Fax 415.296.9226 

'AMERKANi 

JBIgRESS 

CST #1012274-10 www.conlintravel.com 

Travel 

Services 

Represcnlaih-c
**EXHIBIT      31.2**

| 1.   | I                have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of PICO Holdings,                Inc.                (the “Registrant”); |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based                on my knowledge, this annual 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                annual report; |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Intentionally                omitted. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------|

| 4.   | Intentionally                omitted. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------|

| 5.   | Intentionally                  omitted. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------|

----
#### Murphy *v.*Crain.

A defect in a bastardy "warrant will be waived, if the respondent, with full knowledge of the defect and opportunity to avail himself of the. objection, pleads the general issue.

Complaint eor Bastardy. The complaint was made before one W., a justice, who inadvertently omitted to sign the warrant. The officer arrested the respondent, and carried him before one G., a justice, who discharged him because the warrrant was not signed. The- warrant was then signed by W., and the return being torn off was delivered to the same officer, who in less than an hour after the respondent’s discharge again arrested him, carried him before G., and made another return like the first. The respondent was arraigned upon the complaint, pleaded not guilty, waived an examination, and recognized, as ordered, to appear at the next term of the supreme court. The respondent appeared as ordered, and pleaded these facts, and moved to be discharged. The complainant demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and denied the respondent’s motion, and he excepted.

After the close of the term, and before the reserved case was drawn, the respondent’s counsel, by letter, claimed that they had just learned, and offered to prove, that W. was not a justice, his commission having expired four days before the complaint was made. The presiding justice declined to open the case in vacation for proof of further facts without the consent of the complainant.

*Twitchell 8f*Evans, for the respondent.

Chaffin, for the complainant.

Smith, J.

Whether the warrant could be used again after the respondent had once been discharged without a trial, it is unnec*245essa,ry to consider. If the objection could be interposed, it should have been made when the respondent was brought before the magistrate. Any objection to the exercise of jurisdiction intended for the benefit of a party must be taken by him at the earliest practicable opportunity after he has become aware of it, or he will be deemed by his delay to have waived it. *Warren*v. Glynn, 37 N. H. 340. The plea of the general issue alone is a waiver of such defence. *Hanson*v. Hoitt, 14 N. H. 56. Appearance by the respondent before the magistrate and pleading to the merits, with full knowledge of the alleged defect and with full opportunity to avail himself of the objection, cured the defect in these proceedings, and the objection now comes too late. *Collins*v. Conners, 15 Gray 49. See, also, *Hanson*v. Hoitt, 14 N. H. 56; *Rogers*v. Odell, 39 N. H. 417; *Corey*v. Sumner, 52 N. H. 479; *Murphy*v. *Spence,*9 Gray 399; *Hawes*v. *Gustin,*2 Allen 402.

The objection that W.’s commission as justice of the peace had expired cannot be considered, unless the case is amended to show the fact.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Dob, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, June 28, 1995 (88), Para 88.58 Deletions of Sponsors from Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 1066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.88.58  deletions of sponsors from public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 896: Mr. Yates.
       H.R. 1289: Mr. Clay.
```
114 STAT. 2186 PUBLIC LAW 106–480—NOV. 9, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5388:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 24, considered and passed House.

Nov. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–480

106th Congress

An Act

To designate a building proposed to be located within the boundaries of the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, as the ‘‘Herbert H. Bateman Education and

Administrative Center’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

A building proposed to be located within the boundaries of

the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, on Assateague Island,

Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Herbert H.

Bateman Education and Administrative Center’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Herbert

H. Bateman Education and Administrative Center’’.

Approved November 9, 2000.

16 USC 459f–5

note.

16 USC 459f–5

note.

Nov. 9, 2000

[H.R. 5388]
§ 11.123 Early termination of research support: Evaluation of applications and proposals. ( a ) The department or agency head may require that Federal department or agency support for any project be terminated or suspended in the manner prescribed in applicable program requirements, when the department or agency head finds an institution has materially failed to comply with the terms of this policy.
( b ) In making decisions about supporting or approving applications or proposals covered by this policy the department or agency head may take into account, in addition to all other eligibility requirements and program criteria, factors such as whether the applicant has been subject to a termination or suspension under paragraph (a) of this section and whether the applicant or the person or persons who would direct or has/have directed the scientific and technical aspects of an activity has/have, in the judgment of the department or agency head, materially failed to discharge responsibility for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects (whether or not the research was subject to federal regulation).