alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

               <ARTICLE> 5
               <LEGEND>

          THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED  FROM
          FIRECOM, INC.'S  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE  SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME 
          STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW FOR 
          THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
          BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

              </LEGEND>
              <RESTATED>   
              <MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
                     
          <S>         <C>
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  APR-30-1997
          <PERIOD-END>                       APR-30-1997
          <CASH>                             2,465
          <SECURITIES>  	                 0
          <RECEIVABLES>                      4,340
          <ALLOWANCES>                       293
          <INVENTORY>                        1,264
          <CURRENT-ASSETS>                   8,557
          <PP&E>                             1,267
          <DEPRECIATION>                     692
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     9,289
          <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,930
          <BONDS>                            0
          <COMMON>    		             54
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
          <PREFERRED>                        1,437
          <OTHER-SE>                         3,351
          <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       9,289
          <SALES>                            15,336
          <TOTAL-REVENUES>                   15,336
          <CGS>                              8,052
          <TOTAL-COSTS>                      8,052
          <OTHER-EXPENSES>                   4,473
          <LOSS-PROVISION>                   148
          <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 84
          <INCOME-PRETAX>                    2,579
          <INCOME-TAX>                       1,170
          <INCOME-CONTINUING>                1,409
          <DISCONTINUED>                     0
          <EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
          <CHANGES>                          0
          <NET-INCOME>                       1,409
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                      .13
          <EPS-DILUTED>                      .11
                       


</TABLE>
From: Don Pratt

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventive care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:21:02 PM

To all it may concern,

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.

Don Pratt

210 Walton Ave.

Lexington, KY 40502
From: Linda Crouse

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:46:36 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

It has always staggered me that men can get insurance for their sexual issues, but women can't get it

for a central health issue, namely contraception. Thank you for erasing this double standard!

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,

Linda Crouse

323 Tipping Way

Ben Lomond, CA 95005
From: C Landry

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious exemption

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:11:06 PM

The first amendment to the U. S. Constitution says, “CONGRESS SHALL make no

law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of

the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress

of grievances.”

It seems to me that creating a law allowing a religious refusal to deny

contraceptive services to women would be in violation of this amendment.

I urge 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.

“Religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services. A larger problem is that those 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.
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, p rescribed 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 n ot 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 ri se 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 pertine nt
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. DEPARTME NT 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

– Del ivery Support Services

KJB:crb

Enc.
August 9, 2010 

OfficeQ,fConsumer 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 

~ 2.~ _As.a.consumer -I~wi:sh-to take,this'opporturuty-to~formally comment-on 

the interim flnal rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-20l 0­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part ofthe 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 ofindividuals 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 speciflcally support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation ofthese 

regulations. 

Linda S. Stewart 


Graham ,NC 27253 


~­

I 


j 

I 

i 

I
EPA ICR No. 0155.09 OMB Control No. 2070-0029 

ATTACHMENT E 

[Placeholder for Record of Consultations Between the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and Respondents to the Information Collection Request: “Certification of 

Pesticide Applicators”]
From: Beth Brown

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:56:03 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.

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

Sincerely,

Beth Brown

514 W 48th St

New York City, NY 10036
May 11,2010 

Office of Consumer Information and lnsurance Oversight. 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Attention: OC110, 4150-IFC 

PO Box 801 6 

Baltimore, MD 21 244-1 850 

Re: RemarksIComments on: 

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health lnsurance Issuers Relating to 

Dependent Coverage of Children to Age 26 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

II, Overview of Regulations. A. PHs Act Section 2714.. . 

1. An example of the application of transition rules includes: An eligible child with parent not 

currently enrolled. Plan must provide an opportunity to enroll the parent in addition to the 

child. 

PLEASE RECONSIDER. You already make plan providers and employers responsible . for family welfare choices that belongs to the parent for persons dependents who are not legal 

adults. It is already unreasonable that I, as an employer, must know and spend time and other 

company resources (in my case customer utility payments) tracking non-adult dependents of 

employees to be prepared for aging-out coverage issues and COBRA. Now you are adding the 

need to further track, inform, and enroll for several more years.. An employer's first responsibility 

should be to its employees. 

My suspicion for the reason for enrollment under and employee's plan until age 26 is that 

these are the healthiest persons, for which insurers receive considerable $ with very little 

involvement or medical activity. This is no doubt one of the quid pro quo items from the health 

care industry traded for the federal government's requiring other healthcare program changes 

that are more costly to these governments. 

This will add to the cost of doing business for all employers. Plan on prices and costs of 

service going up, and don't you dare complain about it. 

2. An example of the of the application of transition rules includes: A child under age 26 who is 

on COBRA must be given the opportunity enroll as a dependent of an active employee, and 

has another COBRA qualifying event occur at age 26. 

Would not a simpler option be to adjust the cost of the COBRA coverage (which is 

already the same as employee coverage, only including a 2% fee), and require the employer to 

pay this until the child ages out at 26? At age 26 adjust the COBRA date and change the billing 

address. 

I 

3. It should be the choice of the young adult at age 26 to go without, or find opportunities for I 

other coverage at that time. The government plan will ultimately, ensure coverage even with preexisting conditions. When does adulthood arrive? When does a person take on responsibility for 

hislher own care? Why are children at age 21 not all provided the personal opportunity - or 

requirement - to enroll in something on their own rights? Why are employers being placed in the 

position of being Great Mama? 
4. For employers who pay a significant portion of dependent premium coverage products 

and services will be affected, since more of the employers' budget could easily be going to 

dependent premiums. ! 

.4
From: Susan Gros

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious employer definition

Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011 5:43:42 PM

I am extremely opposed to the narrow definition of “religious employer” in the new health

care regulations. It is completely absurd.

Sincerely, Linda S. Gros
From: Mary Jane Ziola

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:29:30 PM

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,

Mary Jane Ziola
La Vista, Nebraska
From: pandg

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: women"s health

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 9:34:31 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.

 Patricia Thompson
# USS Winston S. Churchill Completes International AOMSW Exercise

/ Published Dec. 21, 2020
ARABIAN GULF, 

                201218-A-RX661-1282 ARABIAN GULF (Dec. 18, 2020) – The guided-missile destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81), right, and the Navy patrol coastal ship USS Firebolt (PC 10) transit the Arabian Gulf with Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA fighter jets, U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets, a U.S. Navy MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter and a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft during a joint and combined air operations in support of maritime surface warfare (AOMSW) exercise in the Arabian Gulf, Dec. 18. Combined integration operations between joint U.S. forces are regularly held to maintain interoperability and the capability to counter threats posed in the maritime domain, ensuring freedom of navigation and free flow of commerce throughout the region's heavily trafficked waterways.            

                Saudi, U.S. Forces Conduct Joint Aviation Integration Exercise in Arabian Gulf            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Spc. William Gore

VIRIN: 201217-A-RX269-1282
From: Francine Hileman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s health care

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:19:58 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.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04624**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04624\04624_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04624\04624_PART A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04624\04624_PART B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04624\04624_PART C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04624\04624_PART D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04624\04624_PART H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04624\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\04624_ site plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04624\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\04624_ water balance diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04624\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\04624_ WWT-1 block diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04624\04624_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04624\04624_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04624\04624_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.