alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOxide-dispersion-strengthened turbine blades, volume 1The objective of Project 4 was to develop a high-temperature, uncooled gas turbine blade using MA6000 alloy. The program objectives were achieved. Production scale up of the MA6000 alloy was achieved with a fair degree of tolerance to nonoptimum processing. The blade manufacturing process was also optimized. The mechanical, environmental, and physical property evaluations of MA6000 were conducted. The ultimate tensile strength, to about 704 C (130 F), is higher than DS MAR-M 247 but with a corresponding lower tensile elongation. Also, above 982 C (180 F) MA6000 tensile strength does not decrease as rapidly as MAR-M 247 because the ODS mechanism still remains active. Based on oxidation resistance and diffusional stability considerations, NiCrAlY coatings are recommended. CoCrAly coating should be applied on top of a thin NiCrAlY coating. Vibration tests, whirlpit tests, and a high-rotor-rig test were conducted to ensure successful completion of the engine test of the MA6000 TFE731 high pressure turbine blades. The results of these tests were acceptable. In production quantities, the cost of the Project 4 MA6000 blade is estimated to be about twice that of a cast DS MAR-M 247 blade.Document ID19870008450Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMillan, P. P., Jr.*(Garrett Turbine Engine Co. Phoenix, AZ, United States)*Mays, J. C.*(Garrett Turbine Engine Co. Phoenix, AZ, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1986Subject CategoryMetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:179537-VOL-1GARRETT-21-5278-1NASA-CR-179537-VOL-1Accession Number87N17883Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-20073PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870008450.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
[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:****Avian flu fact sheet[electronic resource].**
 
2005 | 2009
 
SuDoc Number:S 23.2:AV 5
Item Number:0900-J (online)
CGP systemNumber:000581558
 
April 11, 2018
DLD - 2 34 - E NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 2854

___________ IN RE: AYODELE OKE , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to D.C. Criminal No. 2

- 11

- cr - 00321

- 001 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

July 11 , 2011 Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
.

( Filed: July 14, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM On July 11, we denied Oke‟s mandamus petition and motion to stay state

- court proceedings. See C.A. No. 11

- 2822. This current “emergency petition” is, in essence, more of the same. Oke argues that the Co urt of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction over him, and that it is “unlawfully”

– in violation of the Eleventh Amendment

– attempting to compel his appearance in relation to pending state criminal charges. 1 He asks us to

1 See generally CP

- 46

- CR

- 0003220

- 2011
.2

1) prohibit Judge William R. Carpent er from presiding over the criminal case, 2) restrain Judge Joseph A. Smyth from “proceeding in the pre

- trial conference,” and 3) enjoin court administrators Michael Kehs and Denis Doe from “scheduling anymore [ sic ] appearances for the relator.” Oke does not ask that we compel the District Court to grant this relief, but rather requests it directly from this Court. He asserts that we have authority to undertake these actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (the Anti

- Injunction Act) and 5 U.S.C. § 705 (relating to judicial review of agency decisions). Again, Oke incorrectly assumes that his attempt to remove the criminal case to federal court rendered further proceedings of the state court invalid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(3) . Regardless, to the extent that Oke‟s filing is cognizable in mandamus or prohibition, 2 we will dismiss the petition. Under the All Writs Act, we may issue extraordinary writs only “in aid of” our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

“ Traditionally, federal appellate courts have issued the wri t of mandamus where a lower court has made an error of „ jurisdictional ‟ dimension
. . . . In a variety of contexts, appellate courts have resorted to mandamus where the district court, in a case properly before it, took some action it was not empowered to take or declined to take some action required of it .” United States v. Christian , 660 F.2d 892, 893

– 94 (3d Cir. 1981) (emphasis added). State courts are not “lower courts” from the perspective of a federal Court of Appeals, and principles of comity and f ederalism ensure that a federal court “ ordinarily may not issue a

2 “[M]odern courts have shown little concern for the technical and historic differences between” writs of mandamus and writs of prohibition. In re Sch
. Asbestos Litig
. , 921 F .2d 1310, 1313 (3d Cir. 1990)
.3

writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to it .” In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981) . We therefore lack the authority and ju risdiction to grant the requested relief.
-----Original Message-----

From: Ian Taylor [mailto:Rlmman@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 1:26 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: 

Dear Sir, Madame,

I understand the insurance industry, Wall Street and large financial services companies have vigorously 

opposed the Labor Department’s proposed fiduciary rule that is up for consideration and public 

comment. 

As a private person who has worked hard at planning my financial and retirement future I want to 

register my complete support for the proposed rules. 

In fact I believe the rules should go even farther in ensuring these companies and brokers who represent 

them have complete transparency in where their fees and commissions are derived from. They should 

be 100% required to represent investors who are paying for their services. 

The rules must protect individuals like me who are doing all possible to prepare for our retirement 

future.

Thank you.

RT
#### § 230.35 Pressure testing.

The temperature of the steam locomotive boiler shall be raised to at least 70 deg. F any time hydrostatic pressure is applied to the boiler.
From: Deborah Stokes [mailto:brainew@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:05 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Parity Statute- neurofeedback

Please see my attached comments concerning USCG-2007-27022, page 19157, IIB areas 

1 & 4. Thank you 

-- 

Deborah Stokes, PhD, BCIA-EEG 

The Better Brain Center 

2121 Eisenhower Ave. Suite 604 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

703-684-0334 

www.TheBetterBrainCenter.com
Comments regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4

I am a psychologist licensed in Washington, DC and a psychotherapist licensed in 

Virginia who provides EEG biofeedback treatment to individuals with Attention Deficit 

Hyperactivity Disorder, Mood and Pain Disorders. EEG biofeedback is an empirically 

validated and widely recognized effective non medication treatment for ADHD, as well 

as other conditions. There are over 50 studies evaluating the effectiveness of EEG 

biofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, Substance Use disorders and Autism. . A recent 

review of this literature concluded “EEG biofeedback meets the American Academy of 

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for” Clinical Guidelines “for treatment of 

ADHD.” This means that EEG biofeedback meets the same criteria as to medication for 

treating ADHD, and that EEG biofeedback “should always be considered as an 

intervention for this disorder by the clinician”.

This service has been denied by most insurance companies including Medicare, 

Medicaid, Aetna, United Behavioral Health, Care First Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Federal 

Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Amerigroup and others.

This is limitation of an effective and validated treatment for mental health problems. The 

reasons given by the insurance companies for this denial fell into two categories: 1) our 

company does not cover biofeedback for Mental Health problems or 2) there is not yet 

sufficient evidence for the efficacy of EEG biofeedback. As such, they are using 

evidence-based criteria that are far more restrictive for mental health services than the 

criteria which are used for medical/surgical services. There are many routine medical 

and surgical procedures which have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than 

does EEG biofeedback. These medical and surgical procedures are generally not 

limited because of concerns about how many controlled studies have been performed 

about them. 

 I believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity statute 

should require that employers and plans pay for the same range and scope of services for 

Behavioral Treatments as they do for Med Surg benefits and that a plan cannot be more 

restrictive in their managed care criteria and reviews for MH and SA disorders when 

compared to Med Surg. Today plans are being more restrictive in how they review 

evidenced-based Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatments than when compared to 

Med Surg treatments. This violates both the intent and letter of the parity statute and it is 

my hope that the new regulations will put an end to this discrimination. 

Sincerely, 

Deborah Stokes, PhD, LPC, BCIA-EEG
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2404

To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994

until November 1, 1995, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1995

Mr. GILMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 until November 1, 1995, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 583(a) of the Foreign Re5 lations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995

6 (Public Law 103–236), as amended by Public Law 104–

7 22, is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 1995,’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘November 1, 1995,’’.

9 (b) CONSULTATION.—For purposes of any exercise of

10 the authority provided in section 583(a) of the Foreign
2

•HR 2404 IH

1 Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995

2 (Public Law 103–236) prior to October 5, 1995, the writ3 ten policy justification dated June 1, 1995, and submitted

4 to the Congress in accordance with section 583(b)(1) of

5 such Act, and the consultations associated with such policy

6 justification, shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements

7 of section 583(b)(1) of such Act.

®
-----Original Message----- 

From: frankie4260@hotmail.com [mailto:frankie4260@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:28 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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, 

Francisco Gadea 

2373 NW 185th #223 

Hillsboro, OR 97124
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, July 31, 1995 (105), Para 105.26 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.105.26  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. ENSIGN:

       Page 87, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 519. The amount otherwise provided in title I of this 
     Act for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Veterans Health 
     Administration--medical care'', the amount otherwise provided 
     in title III of this Act for ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration--human space flight'', and the amount 
     otherwise provided in title III of this Act for ``National 
     Science Foundation--research and related activities'' are, 
     respectively, increased to a total of $16,961,000,000, 
     reduced by $89,500,000, and reduced by $235,000,000.

It was decided in the

Yeas

121

negative

Nays

296
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 168 (Thursday, August 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 50104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4296]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing (Amended Agenda).

DATE and TIME: Thursday, September 6, 2007, 10 a.m.-5 p.m.

PLACE: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave, NW., 
Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005. (Metro Stop: Metro Center).

AGENDA: The Commission will consider the following topics: 
Commissioners will discuss EAC's regulatory authority under the 
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and consider approving a process 
for adopting NVRA regulations; The Commission will consider adopting a 
revised advisory on Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements regarding 
HAVA compliance; Commissioners will discuss EAC's regulatory and 
administrative responsibilities and discuss other administrative 
matters.
    EAC will provide a public comment period to receive comments 
regarding the commission's regulatory authority under the NVRA. Members 
of the public who wish to speak must contact and register with EAC by 5 
p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007. Speakers may contact EAC via e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6d2c3d5d2cfcbc9c8dfe6c3c7c588c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="67130214130e0a08091e2702060449000811">[email protected]</span></a>, or via mail addressed to the U.S. Election 
Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave, NW., Suite 1100, Washington, 
DC 2005, or by fax at 202/566-3127. Comments will be strictly limited 
to 4 minute per person or organization to ensure the fullest 
participation possible. All speakers will be contacted prior to the 
hearing. EAC also encourages members of the public to submit written 
testimony via e-mail, mail or fax. All public comments will be taken in 
writing via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67130214130e0a08091e2702060449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a4e5f494e53575554437a5f5b59145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>, or via mail addressed to the 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission 1225 New York Ave, NW., Suite 1100, 
Washington, DC 2005, or by fax at 202/566-3127.
    This Meeting and Hearing Will Be Open to the Public.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: 
(202) 566-3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-4296 Filed 8-28-07; 3:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
72

Rule Certification Letter (1/11/07)
73

Rule Certification Statement (1/11/07)
74
75

Summary of Rule (1/11/07)
76

Detailed Statement of Facts Circumstances 

(1/11/07)
77

–
78

Summary of Hearing (1/11/07) 
79

Rule 62-296.341- Regional Haze – Reasonable Progress Control Technology, 

Effective 2/7/08

RULE 62-296.341- REGIONAL HAZE – REASONABLE PROGRESS CONTROL 

TECHNOLOGY, EFFECTIVE 2/7/08
80
81

Notice of Rule Development (5/25/07)
82

Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) Letter (11/2/07)
83

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (12/4/07)
84
85
86
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, November 6, 1995 (140), Para 140.7 Adjournment]
[Page 1873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.140.7  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. SCARBOROUGH, pursuant to the special order agreed to 
on Thursday, November 2, 1995, at 1 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m., the 
House adjourned until 12:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 7, 1995.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: pathwayspa@att.net [mailto:pathwayspa@att.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:06 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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, 

Marcia McCoy 

1110 N Taylor St 

El Dorado, KS 67042
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–866

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3986, TO PROVIDE FOR A

STUDY OF THE ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY OF A WATER EXCHANGE IN

LIEU OF ELECTRIFICATION OF THE CHANDLER PUMPING PLANT AT

PROSSER DIVERSION DAM, WASHINGTON

SEPTEMBER 19, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 581]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 581, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3986, a bill

to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at

Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington, under a closed rule. The rule

provides one hour of debate in the House divided equally between

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Resources.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the

bill. The rule provides that the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute, now printed in the bill, shall

be considered as adopted. The rule also waives all points of order

against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without

instructions.

Æ
-----Original Message----- 

From: Carolynn Cobb [mailto:cc2000@flash.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:43 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Wellstone Domenici Mental Health Parity and Additcion Equity act of 

2008 

I am a PhD candidate in Neuropsychology writing in support of equality in 

mental health parity and addiction equity act of 2008. Specifically, 

neurofeedback therapy has been utilized with alcohol and drug addictions 

with significant success. Peniston & Kulkosky (1989) achieved 80% sobriety 

in alcoholic patients after 2 years following treatment. 

Neurofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized effective 

non-medication treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are 

over 50 studies evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the 

treatment of ADHD, substance use disorders and Autism. A recent review of 

this literature concluded "Neurofeedback meets the American Academy of Child 

and Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for Clinical Guidelines for treatment of 

ADHD." This means that neurofeedback meets the same criteria as medication 

for treating ADHD, of which 60% of prescriptions are in fact prescribed "off 

label," and that neurofeedback "should always be considered as an 

intervention for this disorder by the clinician." 

 

This service has been denied by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, United Behavioral 

Health, Blue Cross, Cigna, and Amerigroup. 

 

This is limitation of an effective and validated treatment for a mental 

health problem. The reasons given by the insurance companies for this denial 

fell into two categories: 1) our company does not cover biofeedback for 

mental health problems or 2) there is not yet sufficient evidence for the 

efficacy of neurofeedback. As such, they are using evidence-based criteria 

that are far more restrictive for mental health services than the criteria 

which are used for medical/surgical services. There are many routine medical 

and surgical procedures which have far fewer controlled studies about their 

efficacy than does neurofeedback. These medical and surgical procedures are 

generally not limited because of concerns about how many controlled studies 

have been performed about them. 

 I believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity 

statute should require that employers and plans pay for the same range and 

scope of services for behavioral treatments as they do for medical surgical 

benefits and that a plan cannot be more restrictive in their managed care 

criteria and reviews for mental health and substance abuse disorders when 

compared to medical surgery. Today plans are being more restrictive in how 

they review evidenced-based mental health and Substance Abuse Treatments 

when compared to medical surgical treatments. This violates both the intent 

and letter of the parity statute and we hope that the regulations will 

clarify that this can't continue. 

Sincerely, 

Carolynn Cobb
|   | **Exhibit 23** |
|--------|----------------|

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-22553, 33-27417, 33-32224 and 33-17829) of AmBase Corporation, of our reports dated March 29, 2010 and March 27, 2009 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of AmBase Corporation, which appear in this Form 10-K.

 

/s/ UHY LLP

New Haven, Connecticut

March 29, 2010