alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA - 2015 - 2568 Directorate ID : 2014 - SW - 026 - AD Helicopter Model: Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 822 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in the reinforcement angle, which if not corrected, could result in loss of the tailboom and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $300 for the repair Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour X $85 for insp ection ) (2 work- hours X $85 for more detailed inspection ) (10 work - hours X $85 for repair) $ 85 per inspection cycle $170 per inspection cycle $850 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $85 per inspection cycle $170 (more detailed inspection) per inspection cycle Total U . S . Fleet Cost $69,870 per inspection cycle $139,740 (more detailed inspection) per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Po licies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19219]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4334-017]

EONY Generation Limited; Notice of Denial of Water Quality 
Certification

    On January 28, 2021, EONY Generation Limited (EONY) filed an 
application for a new license for the Philadelphia Hydroelectric 
Project (project) in the above captioned docket. EONY filed with the 
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC) 
a request for water quality certification for the project under section 
401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act on August 26, 2022. On August 22, 
2023, the New York DEC denied certification for the project. Pursuant 
to 40 CFR 121.8, we are providing notice that New York DEC's denial 
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 121.7(e).

    Dated: August 30, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19219 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
From: mark takeuchi

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:07:34 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

In a time where government seems like it's losing any sense of humanity, this legislation restores some

sense of sanity.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

mark takeuchi

408 E. Arrow Highway

Claremont, CA 91711
Page 1 of 2

SEP 8 ute REC ae412-/0

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
BRANCH IAs of: September 08, 2010
Received: August 14, 2010
P U B L I C Status: Posted
Posted: September 08, 2010
SU BM ISSIO N Tracking No. 80b30d9e
Comments Due: 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-2010-0010-0831
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Callie Amberly Mann
Address:

5312 38th Street SW

Lanett, AL, 36863
Email: calambe@charter.net
Submitter's Representative: ACA
Organization: Self
Government Agency Type: State
Government Agency: N/A

General Comment

8/13/2010

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

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

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


Page 2 of 2

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.

Callie A, Mann

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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reject any exemptions for religious employers

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:28:03 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government

to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage

requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption

would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s recommendations

and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

Wendy S. McGowan

3189 Admiral St.

Eugene, Or 97404
#### Sarah A. Mason, Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. Adelaide E. Mason and others, Respondents.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
From: Colin Allen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 5:54:51 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Colin Allen

6 Chiltern Close

Kirkby

Liverpool, UK 24682
From: Blenda Mariani

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:02:15 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
From: Eric M

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: IOM Recommendations

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:40:01 PM

HHS Representative,

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Eric Morris
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-105650) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-108974, 333-987773, 333-83298, 333-121175, 333-43316, 333-127041, and 333-127042) of McDATA Corporation of our report dated April 14, 2004, except for Notes 16 and 19 whichare as of April 24, 2006, relating to the consolidated statements of operations, of changes in stockholders’ equity and of cash flows and financial statement schedule for the year ended January 31, 2004 which appear in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

April 24, 2006
From: Suri Smith

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women!

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:22:28 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies. As a young college student in a work-study

program, this decision is one that directly affects me and I can't begin to express how appreciative I am

that this policy is going into place.

Thank you for supporting and prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Suri Smith

47 Churchill Cir

Columbia, SC 29206
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FIRECOM,
INC.'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOW FOR THE YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,378
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400
<INVENTORY>                                      2,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,333
<PP&E>                                           1,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,757
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,288
<SALES>                                         19,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,308
<CGS>                                           11,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   278
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,939
<INCOME-TAX>                                       750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,189
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,189
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10



</TABLE>
From: Peter Martin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Freedom

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 4:49:12 PM

Secretary Sebelius,

I cannot help but think of all those men and women who died so that we

might live in freedom from governments who would rule in tyranny.

Lately, with mandates that require that all healthcare plans provide

contraceptive methods, as “preventive health services” for women", I'm

starting to wonder if we're not ruled by such a tyrannical government.

How can you claim to be doing the will of the people while at the

same time going against the will of so many of us? By mandating

coverage of contraception, you go against everything I believe and you

crush my spirit. I cannot believe that my country is heading down the

path of other totalitarian regimes of the past. Have we lost all

respect for freedom?

I beg you to reconsider by allowing more of a conscience protection.

Ideally, of course, I would rather no coverage at all be allowed for

contraception (considering the fact that pregnancy is a gift, not a

disease).

Please consider the freedom of America before you go through with such mandates!

Sincerely,

Peter G. Martin

Winona, MN
UNIT ONE

OPACITY VALUES DURING MERCURY SYSTEM TEST DATEHOUR0 6 12182430 11/3/2009 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/3/2009 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/3/200910 2 2 2 2 2 1 11/3/200911 2 1 2 1 1 1 11/3/200912 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/3/200913 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/3/200914 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/3/200915 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/3/200916 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/4/2009 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/4/2009 9 2 2 2 2 2 1 11/4/200910 1 1 2 1 1 1 11/4/200911 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/4/200912 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/4/200913 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/4/200914 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/4/200915 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/4/200916 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/4/200917 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/5/2009 8 2 1 1 1 2 1 11/5/2009 9 2 2 235 1 1 11/5/200910 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/5/200911 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/5/200912 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/5/200913 1 1 1 1 1 136424854

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1UNIT TWO

OPACITY VALUES DURING MERCURY SYSTEM TEST DATEHOUR0 6 12182430 11/10/2009 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/2009 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/2009 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200910 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200911 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200912 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200913 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200914 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200915 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200916 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200917 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/10/200918 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/11/2009 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/11/2009 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/11/2009 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/11/200910 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/11/200911 2 2 2 2 2 2 11/11/200912 2 2 2 2 2 236424854

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

# TIME AND DATE: 

12:02 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2023.

# PLACE: 

The meeting was held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities. In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Travis J. Hill, seconded by Director Jonathan P. McKernan, and concurred in by Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

Dated this the 29th day of August, 2023.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

James P. Sheesley,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-18988 Filed 8-29-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
---

Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Edward J. Graham


Name:  Edward J. Graham


Title:  Chief Executive Officer


August 6, 2010
Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain 

for either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements 

for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES NO 

Explanation:
From: Cathy Cirocco

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Refusal exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:33:33 PM

 I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as

pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to

reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services

are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological

distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make

exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption

to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though

they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where

they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.
From: Charles Falkenroth

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: CONTRACEPTIVE HEALH CARE

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:00:07 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.