alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA FORM 7710-25 (Rev. 5-95) Page 4 

### Part I -- GENERAL INFORMATION -- Continued

Section B -- CHEMICAL IDENTITY INFORMATION: You must provide a currently correct Chemical Abstracts (CA) name of the substance based on the ninth Collective Index (9CI) of CA nomenclature rules and conventions. Mark (X) the “Confidential” box next to any item you claim as confidential Complete either item 1 (Class 1 or 2 substances) or 2 (Polymers) as appropriate. Complete all other items.

If another person will submit chemical identity information for you (for either Item 1 or 2), mark (X) the box at the right. Identify the name, company, and address of that person in a continuation sheet. Confidential 1. Class 1 or 2 chemical substances (for definitions of class 1 and class 2 substances, see the Instructions Manual)
a. Class of substance - Mark (X) 1 Class 1 or 2 Class 2 b. Chemical name (Currently correct Chemical Abstracts (CA) Name that is consistent with TSCA Inventory listings for similar sub stances. For Class 1 substances a CA Index Name must be provided. For Class 2 substances either a CA Index Name or CA Preferred Name must b e provided, which ever is appropriate based on CA 9CI nomenclature rules and conventions).

c. Please identify which method you used to develop or obtain the specified chemical identity information reported in this notic e: (check one). Method 1 (CAS Inventory Expert Service - a copy of the Identification report obtained from the CAS Inventory Expert Services must be submitted as an attachment to this notice) Method 2 (Other Source)

d. Molecular formula CAS Registry Number (if a number already exists for the substance)

e. For a class 1 substance, provide a complete and correct chemical structure diagram. For a class 2 substance, provide a corre ct representative or

p a r t i a l c h e m i ca l s t r u c t u r e d i a g r a m , as c o m p le t e a s c an b e kn o w n , i f o n e c a n be r e a s o n a b ly a s c e r t a i n e d

. P le a s e s e e t h e E-PMN I n s t r u c t i o n M a n u al f o r di s c u s s i o n o f " n a ti v e format" d i a g r a m s o f t w a r e w h ich c a n be h e l p f u l in r e v ie w ing y o ur s ub s t a n c e

.

Mark (X) this box if you attach a continuation sheet.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 16, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00528

- CV

IN RE VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION ; Valero Refining

- New Orleans, LLC; Valero

Refining

- Texas, L.P.; Valero Services, Inc.; Valero Unit Investments, LLC; Valero Retail

Holdings, Inc.; Valero International Holdings, Inc.; and Valero Refining and Marketing Co.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Jason Pulliam , Justice

On September 13, 2016 real part y in interest Gilberto Montoya filed a motion for

extension of time to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. The motion is

GRANTED. A response on behalf of the real part y in interest is due September 23 , 201 6

.

It is so ORDERED on September 16, 2016

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________ __

Keith E. Hottle , C lerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011

- CI

- 04253 , styled Judith Albarran et al v. Koch Specialty Plant

Services, et al , pending in the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Michael E. Mery

presiding.
Page | of 1

food

As of: September 08, 2010
Received: August 14, 2010

PU BLIC Status: Posted

Posted: September 08, 2010

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0835
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Cynthia A. Coates
Address:
244 Redwood Road
Manchester, CT, 06040
Email: rcCoates4¢@aol.com
Phone: 860-649-6023

General Comment

See attached file(s)

Attachments

IRS-2010-0010-0835.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/8/2010


August, 14,2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to
Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on
the interim final rule regarding health plans and “grandfather” status (Document ID IRS-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the new health care law are vitally
important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort
should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would
extend these protections to consumers under currently existing “grandfathered” plans should not
be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments
offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these
regulations.

Cynthia A. Coates
From: Sarah Nowlin [mailto:sarah_nowlin@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 8:26 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: feedback on RIN 1210-AB33

Dear Sir or Madam - 

I must voice the strongest possible opposition to the idea of converting 401(k)s and IRAs 

into annuity-like products backed by Treasury securities, "by regulation or otherwise", as 

the proposal states, and to the proposal to establish "some form of lifetime income 

distribution" as the default distribution option for defined contribution plans (#13 on your 

list of questions). 

Americans can already voluntarily purchase Treasury securities if they so choose. This 

proposal is a thinly veiled attempt to (a) convert private savings to prop up the weakening 

market for US Treasuries, and (b) give the government even more control over 

Americans' finances. 

Whoever drafted this proposal clearly thinks that saving should be penalized. Please 

think about the incentives that builds in for citizen - and taxpayer - behavior. 

Regards, 

Sarah Nowlin 

Los Altos, CA
August10, 2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 

Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 

Protection andAIfordabh~ Care Act (ppACAJ:-' .. . '-. . ­

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1,2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of "benefits." Consumers view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. ~ 

It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 

area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, . 

does that mean a loss of grandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

employee. 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 

remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

-The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether 

a group health plan is "in or out." The decisions the federal government makes today will 

determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation. 

Dr. Darryl P. Cera, D.C 

309 W. 99th St. lA 

New York, NY 10025 

917-536-1099
CRKEC- NP yla-/e

Page 1 of 2

LEGAL pr,
PUBLICAR CS ROCESsI ING DIVISION
ANG

REGULA
H TIONS

IAs of: September 03, 2010

PUBLIC Stowe: Posted

Posted: September 03, 2010
SUBMISSION Create Bae august 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0724
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: John Charles Pammer
Address:
510 Arch St.
Catasauqua, penna., United States Minor Outlying Islands, 18032
Email: drphoton@rcn.com
Phone: 610-264-9545
Fax: 610-264-2081
Submitter's Representative: Dent
Organization: AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOC
Government Agency Type: Federal

General Comment

Aug. 13,2010

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status
as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health
Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by

https://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/3/2010


Page 2 of 2

PPACA, especially as of January 1, 2014 when most of the reform components (Insurance
Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play.

The average consumer has a broad definition of “benefits.” Consumers view their health plan
beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the pla.
It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its
application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one
area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits,
does that mean a loss of grandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the
employee.

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion of the employee population will
remain outside the PPACA as of January 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the
difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded
individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact of the
legislation.

The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether
a group health plan is “in or out.

https://fdms.erulemaking net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P..._ 9/3/2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           9,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                       840
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,758
<PP&E>                                           7,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,864
<BONDS>                                          3,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,741
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,037
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,050
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,571
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,664
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
        

</TABLE>
# USCENTCOM Hosts Security Cooperation Round Table

/ Published March 24, 2017
TAMPA, Fla , 
USCENTCOM held a Security Cooperation Round Table (CSCRT) 22-24 March 2017.                Mr. Phil Maxwell, USCENTCOM Chief Plans, Policy and Programs discusses security cooperation planning guidance during the 2017 USCENTCOM Security Cooperation Round Table (CSCRT). The 3 day event consisted of presentations, planning sessions and Near East and South Asia (NESA) Center-facilitated panel discussions. (Photo by Tom Gagnier)                            USCENTCOM Security Cooperation Round Table                            Mr. Phil Maxwell, USCENTCOM Chief Plans, Policy and Programs discusses security cooperation planning guidance during the 2017 USCENTCOM Security Cooperation Round Table (CSCRT). The 3 day event consisted of presentations, planning sessions and Near East and South Asia (NESA) Center-facilitated panel discussions. (Photo by Tom Gagnier)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Tom GagnierVIRIN: 170323-F-VG904-001

The command hosted approximately 100 distinguished visitors from the USCENTCOM security cooperation community to:
      -  - Explore the implications of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. 
      -  - Discuss the draft USCENTCOM 2017 Theater Campaign Plan. 
      -  - Prepare the frameworks for country-specific security cooperation plans. 

The event was also a chance for participants to pursue strategic and operational level opportunities to create decision space for senior leaders in their respective agencies as well as the new administration.

“Properly coordinating and planning security cooperation is essential to succeed in this strategically important region filled with both complex issues and potentially significant opportunities,” said U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. George Smith Jr., USCENTCOM Director, Strategy, Plans and Policy.
§ 25.200 Requirements for notice of funding opportunities, regulations, and application instructions. ( a ) A Federal agency that issues Federal financial assistance (see § 25.400) must include the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section in each notice of funding opportunity, regulation, or other issuance containing instructions for applicants that is issued on or after the effective date of this guidance. A notice of funding opportunity is any paper or electronic issuance that a Federal agency uses to announce a funding opportunity, whether it is called a “program announcement,” “notice of funding availability,” “broad agency announcement,” “research announcement,” “solicitation,” or any other term.
( b ) The notice of funding opportunity, regulation, or other issuance must require each applicant that does not have an exemption under § 25.110 to: ( 1 ) Be registered in *SAM.gov* before submitting an application;
( 2 ) Maintain a current and active registration in *SAM.gov* at all times during which it has an active Federal award as a recipient or an application under consideration by a Federal agency. The applicant or recipient must review and update its information in *SAM.gov* annually from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates to ensure it is current, accurate, and complete. If applicable, this includes identifying the applicant's or recipient's immediate and highest-level owner and subsidiaries, as well as providing information on all predecessors that have received a Federal award or contract within the last three years; and
( 3 ) Include its UEI in each application it submits to the Federal agency.
( c ) For the purposes of this policy, the applicant must meet the Federal agency's eligibility criteria and have the legal authority to apply for and receive the Federal award. For example, if a consortium applies for a Federal award to be made to the consortium as the recipient, the consortium must have a UEI. If a consortium is eligible to receive funding under a Federal agency program, but the agency's policy is to make the Federal award to a lead entity for the consortium, the UEI of the lead applicant must be used.
MES AAI R GROU P 410 Nort h 44' " Stree t Suit e 70 0 Phoenix , A Z 8500 8 Offic e (602 ) 685-400 0 Fa x(602 ) 685-435 0 January15 , 201 0 

# <ZOD ^ - 0'], x t

M . ClayMortiz , Jr . Unite d State s Departmen t ofTransportatio n Researc h an d Technolog yAdministratio n Burea u o fTransportatio n Statistics , OAI , RTS-4 2 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve , SE , Eas tBuilding , E3 4 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Re. ; Confidentia l Treatmen tReques t fo rBT S For m 4 1 fo rMes a Airlines , Inc. ; BT S For m 298-C , Schedul e F- 1 fo rAi rMidwest , Inc . an d Freedo m Airlines , Inc . (th e "Forms" ) Dea rMr . M . ClayMortiz , Jr. , Pleas e accep t th e followin g reques t i n referenc e t o th e abov e liste d Forms . As previousl ycommunicate d t o th e Departmen to fTransportatio n (th e "Department") , Mes a Ai rGroup , Inc' s ("Mesa" ) fisca l yea rend s o n Septembe r30"^. A s yo u l<now. Mes a alon g wit h it s subsidiarie s includin g th e thre e airline s liste d above fil e consolidate d financia l statements . Al l thre e o fth e airline s liste d abov e have fisca l year s endin g o n Septembe r30* . Mes a i s currentl ypreparin g it s fourt h quarte ran d yea ren d financia l statement s an d expect s t o fil e wit h th e SE C n o late rtha n Februar y1 , 2010 . Th e infonnatio n containe d I n th e Form s contain s non-publi cInformatio n tha twil l b e include d i n Mesa' s SE C filings . Mes a I s providin g t o th e Departmen tunaudite d financia l informatio n i n th e attache d Form s and , i fther e ar e an ychanges , wil l resubmi tupdate d financia l informatio n consisten twit h th e fina l audite d financials . Accordingly , Mes a require s tha tth e Departmen tkee p th e informatio n provide d i n th e Form s confidentia l an d exclud e I t fro m an ydisclosure s mad e pursuan t t o a Freedo m o fInformatio n Ac treques to rothe rreques tfo rinformatio n fro m an ynon governmenta l entit yunti l afte rMes a ha s file d it s financia l statement s wit h th e SE C that i t expect s t o fil e a s indicate d above . I fyo u nee d an yadditiona l informatio n regardin g thi s request , pleas e d o not hesitat e t o contactm e a t (602 ) 685-4052 .

M i Presiden t
**Exhibit 24-14**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS** that I, **James W. Compton**do hereby appoint Frank M. Clark and Darryl M. Bradford, oreither of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2007 of Commonwealth Edison Company, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present. 

**James W. Compton**

**DATE: February 5, 2008**
Belknap, )

April 4,1911.

#### Thyng *v.*Hussey. Hussey *v.*Thyng.

Assumpsit. The two actions were tried together by *Stóne,*J., who found a verdict for Thyng in his suit for $615.34 and for Hussey in his suit for $410.13, and ordered execution to issue for $205.21, the balance due Thyng. In the first suit there was a plea of the statute of limitations as to items amounting to $269.20 not accruing within six years of the date of the writ. The only evidence of a new promise was that Hussey said he thought the balance was in his favor, but he would look it up in his books, and if he found it otherwise he would pay. None of the disputed items appeared on his books. Subject to exception, the court ruled that these words constituted a new promise and included the items in the verdict. Transferred from the November term, 1909, of the superior court by *Pike,*J.

*Stephen S. Jewett*(by brief and orally), for Thyng.

*Napoleon J. Dyer*and *Charles B. Hibbard,*for Hussey.

Peaslee, J.

The case is not distinguishable from *Bossiter*v. *Colby,*71 N. H. 386. The promise was a conditional one, and Thyng does not bring himself within its terms. His claim that the question has not been properly raised because there was no motion to set the verdict aside as against the evidence cannot be sustained. The presiding justice had ruled, subject to exception, that the evidence showed a new promise. That ruling was the law of the trial, and if it was correct the verdict was properly found. The question of the soundness of the ruling was properly saved (P. S., c. 204, ss. 11, 12), and this was all that was necessary to preserve the rights of the parties. *Batchelder*v. *Railway,*72 N. H. 329.

The judgment for Thyng should be reduced to $346.14, and execution awarded to Hussey for the balance due him of $63.99, with interest from the date of the writ.

*Exception sustained.*

All concurred.