alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Empire Comfort Systems Inc.  918 Freeburg Avenue  Belleville, Illinois 62220-2623

618 233-7420  800 851-3153  Fax: 618 233-7097  800 443-8648

July 21, 2011

(revised August 25, 2011)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Building Technologies Program

Test Procedure Waiver

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Mail Stop EE-2J

Washington, DC 20585-0121

Gentlemen:

This is a request for a waiver to the current, prescribed method of testing efficiency for 

the models listed on Certificate of Compliance 1764957 (111946) from CSA 

International (enclosed). 

The current D.O.E. test procedures, found in the Federal Register Part IV10 CFR430, 

notice dated May 1997, do not address condensing type heating equipment. Mantis is a 

condensing type direct heater, vented with PVC.

The Mantis was tested for efficiency using portions of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-

1993, Method of Testing for AFUE of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers. This 

standard was used as a guideline for test procedures and calculations through steady state, 

including condensate collection, cool-down, heat-up and cyclic tests. Sections of the 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-1993 covering air temperature rise and static pressure 

cannot be applied to this type of equipment and were omitted.

Enclosed you will find an e-mail correspondence from Phil Gauthier of the AHRI Direct 

Heating Certification Program suggesting we request a waiver with associated pertinent 

information. 

Also enclosed, for your review, is our request for test with Intertek and subsequent test 

results. I have also included our correspondence with Phil Gauthier of AHRI 

recommending we request this waiver.

continued...
Empire Comfort Systems Inc.  918 Freeburg Avenue  Belleville, Illinois 62220-2623

618 233-7420  800 851-3153  Fax: 618 233-7097  800 443-8648

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Building Technologies Program

Test Procedure Waiver

August 25, 2011

Page 2

As requested, in Word format, please see below those sections of ASHRAE 103-1993 

that do no apply to Mantis testing.

4. 4.1.2, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.4.3, 4.5.1, 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.2, 4.5.2.4, 4.6.1, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 

4.7.3, 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.9.1, 4.9.2, 4.9.3, 4.10.2, 4.11.2, 4.11.3

5. All

6. 6.1, 6.10.1, 6.10.3, 6.11.2

7. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7

8. 8.1, 8.2.1, 8.2.1.2, 8.2.14, 8.2.1.5.1, 8.2.1.5.2, 8.2.1.5.3, 8.2.2.1, 8.2.2.3, 8.2.2.4, 

8.2.3, 8.3, 8.4.1.2, 8.4.2, 8.6, 8.8

9. 9.1.1.2, 9.1.1.3, 9.1.2.2.2, 9.1.2.3.2, 9.1.2.3.3, 931.3, 9.1.4, 9.3, 9.4

We appreciate your consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

EMPIRE COMFORT SYSTEMS, INC.

Kenneth J. Belding

Vice President – Delivery Support Services

KJB:crb

Enc.
EXHIBIT 32

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>




EXHIBIT 32

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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  Quarterly  Report of  Industrial  Minerals,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report") I, Larry
Van Tol,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
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.

Dated: August 14, 2006


/s/Larry Van Tol
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Van Tol, Chief Executive Officer, President
and Acting Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
REGC-/98CFl - 04 Page 1 of |

FEE 5 omn
LEGAL PROCESSING DY
ING DIVISI
PUB) ‘ON
HICATION & REGULATIONS As of: February 05, 2010
Received: February 03, 2010
Status: Posted
PU B LIC SU B M ISSIO N Posted: February 05, 2010
Tracking No. 80a8bc72
Comments Due: May 03, 2010)
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0006
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants & Beneficiaries in
Retirement Plans

Comment On: IRS-2010-0006-0001
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in
Retirement Plans

Document: IRS-2010-0006-0015
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-02028

Submitter Information

Name: James Carmichael Hardy
Address:
3048 Madeline Street
Oakland, CA, 94602
Organization: Tacit Knowledge

General Comment

As the plan sponsor/trustee for a 401k plan, I think having some form of annuitization available
to plan participants would be nice and would make sense for some, some of the time (as with any
investment choice)

However, and I want to make this very clear - any annuitization option should not be mandatory,
and it must not be conflated with safe harbor rules on default enrollment such that people are
unknowingly forced into irreversible investment options when they are potentially not paying
attention.

Making any annuitization option mandatory or making it the only safe harbor choice for default
enrollment of new hires would remove choice, possibly cause loss/hardship if the funds were
needed and thus potentially violate the "first, do no harm" ethos a plan sponsor choosing default
options should have.

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 2/5/2010
From: Rhonda Vergauwen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:25:57 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Rhonda Vergauwen
Wichita Falls, Texas
From: cyndi@jytmed.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:18:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cyndi Powell

Rockport, TX 78382
From: Steven Kostis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:13:24 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,

Steven Kostis

7 Fox Hill Drive West

Warren, NJ 07059
From: constance dougherty

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to contraception for all women

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:36:43 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 Catholic hospitals 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,

Constance Dougherty, MD
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 13, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00473-CR

JAVIER ALEJANDRO LOSOYA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1155961

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a plea of guilty, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and 

assessed five years’ deferred adjudication probation on May 1, 2008. Appellant’s 

notice of appeal was not filed until May 13, 2013.

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence 

is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not 
2

obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 

208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Under those circumstances it can take no action 

other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

p0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

143753

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143753 COA: 295199 Muskegon CC: 08-057074-FH JOEL GLENN PETZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 285, Misc.

#### Dehler *v.*Minnesota.

*T. Eugene Thompson*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Minnesota. Certiorari denied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 1 of2 

!LBOALPROCESSTNO DMSION 

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS 

BRANCH As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2c6ac SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, ~;01O 

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-2010-0010-0237 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: MAGGIE Pezeshkian-McHaney 

Address: 

924 bUENA VISTA ST 


DUARTE, CA, 91010 


--------------------------------------------------------------------.... 


General Comment 

8/9/2010 

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 011 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document 10 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 comment!; 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation of these 

https:/ Ifdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency IcomponentlsubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/20/2010 
Page 2 of2 

regulations. 

Maggie Pezeshkian 

https:/ Ifdms,erulemaking.netffdms-web-agency IcomponentfsubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call= '" 8/20/2010
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group, Developmental Biology Study 
Section.
    Date: October 20, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2131B, Bethesda, 
MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jolanta Maria Topczewska, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2131B, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-0000, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd5d0d3ded1cbde91cbd0cfdcc5dac8ccd4deffd1d6d791d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0dadfdcd1dec4d19ec4dfc0d3cad5c7c3dbd1f0ded9d89ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 30, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19153 Filed 9-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SERVED MARC H 18,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^^^' ^'}]'y0'^ ^ ' 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. i > -

IN THE MATTER OF 

NUTRAMEDIX, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP08SO0029 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2008-1306 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S ORDER DISMISSING 

PROCEEDING AND CLOSING DOCKET 

In response to my order of March 11, 2010, setting procedural dates, 

the Managing Attorney of the Complainant's Southern Region has informed 

me that the parties settled this case in June 2009. Apparently, neither party 

remembered to inform the Office of Hearings of the settlement. 

Nevertheless, the settlement of the parties' dispute moots the case 

before me and makes a hearing unnecessary. Accordingly, my March 11, 

2010 order is withdrawn and cancelled, and this proceeding is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice. This Docket is closed, and the hearing scheduled 

for June 17, 2010 is also cancelled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Isaac D. Benkin 

Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP08SO0029 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-^30 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Kathleen A. Yodice, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Offices of Yodice Associates 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 875 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

TEL: 202-737-3030 

FAX: 202-737-7450 

Raymond Veatch, Complainant Counsel 

Regional Counsels Office, Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration, ASO 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5231 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30.